Day Thirty-Three - How Real Servants Act
In commentary of the prior four chapters it was noted that Mr. Warren’s current “purpose” of “service” presents a conflict with his previously elaborated “purpose” of “character development.” In his prior discussion he declared that God is “never in a hurry” (p. 218), and that “God gives us our time on earth to build and strengthen our character for heaven.” (p. 173) In his current discussion of “service” he now tells us, in conflict with his prior emphasis, that our time on earth is meant for making a unique contribution. (p. 227) The conflict of purposes arises from the failure to present the purposes in their truly biblical, integral unity. This failure also means that none of the purposes, as presented, can have any internal consistency. Such internal inconsistency already has been observed. For example, in his discussion of worship he told us on the one hand that “you are as close to God as you choose to be” (p. 99), and on the other hand that feeling distant from God is “absolutely vital” for our faith. (p. 109) In his discussion of the church he told us on the one hand that “the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual” (p. 150), and on the other hand that, “Restoring broken fellowship is so important, Jesus commanded that it even takes priority over group worship.” (p. 154) And in his discussion of sanctification he told us on the one hand that “temptations become a stepping-stone rather than a stumbling block,” (p. 201), and on the other hand, “Don’t carelessly place yourself in tempting situations. Avoid them.” (p. 215) Similarly, Mr. Warren’ s current discussion of service is internally conflicted.
Through the first four chapters of his fourth “purpose,” Mr. Warren has concentrated upon the notion of the unique contribution of the individual. “You were put on earth to make a contribution,” he began. (p. 227) “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives,” he assured us. (p. 232) “God wants to use you to make a difference in his world,” he declared (p. 233), and later emphasized, “If you don’t make your unique contribution to the Body of Christ, it won’t be made.” (p. 241) Toward such a noble end, he asserted with the greatest confidence, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for … God doesn’t waste abilities; he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244). “God deserves your best,” he exhorted, “…he wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use.” (p. 249) He encourages us to avoid comparisons with others while we pursue these ideals, and instructs us simply to ignore critics. (p. 254) However, since such a notion is not rigorously biblical, it quickly results in conflicting notions, which the current chapter clearly exhibits. If everyone ardently is engaged in quest of his utterly unique ministry, then who is going to collect the trash and stack the chairs after a meeting? Mr. Warren acknowledges that such service is needed. (p. 258) But, who will perform it? It is absurd to suggest that stacking chairs after a meeting is an utterly unique contribution of an utterly unique individual, and that if such an individual fails to perform this service, then it will not be done. Such an absurdity would suggest that Mr. Warren’s notion of the utterly unique contribution must undergo correction. However, instead of correction, we find that the error merely is compensated with what turns out to be a conflicting error. Over-against the “shape” of the utterly unique individual, he speaks now of the “servant’s heart.”
Mr. Warren says, “While knowing your shape is important for serving God, having the heart of a servant is even more important.” (p. 258) On page 249 he told us that, “When you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It’s frustrating and produces limited results. It also wastes your time, your talent, and your energy. The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape.” Now, on page 258 he tells us, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” After stressing for four chapters the importance of “shape” as that which points the way to the ministry that will make us “fully alive” and through which we will “discover the meaning of our lives” (p. 232), he now tells us that having a “servant’s heart” is even more important and means that “often” we will be called upon to serve in ways that are contrary to our “shape”! Mr. Warren seems to acknowledge the tension of these opposing ideas. After declaring the superior importance of the “servant’s heart” over “shape,” he then almost immediately waffles with: “Your primary ministry should be in the area of your shape, but your secondary service is wherever you’re needed at the moment.” (p. 258) The “servant’s heart” is declared to be “more important” than “shape,” and in the immediately following paragraph “shape” is said to be “primary” and the “servant’s heart” is said to be “secondary.” Only in the flux of ideas that are in perpetual tension can the “more important” thing be labeled “secondary.”
Of course, “Heart” is one of the five major factors of the “SHAPE” acronym. What is the difference between the “heart” that is involved in the “shape” scheme and the “servant’s heart” that currently is under discussion? As was brought out in commentary of chapter 30, the biblical concept of “heart” is very general. The very most that can be said about “heart” is that it is the religious seat of the inner man. Consequently, there is no biblical basis for making fine distinctions such as “heart” in the “shape” scheme vs. “heart” in the sense of “servant’s heart.” Such a distinction is entirely arbitrary. It is incumbent upon Mr. Warren to elaborate his meaning, and this he sets forth to do. He discusses six characteristics that he says will animate what he calls the “real servant.”
The first of these characteristics is availability. Says he, “Servants don’t fill up their time with other pursuits that could limit their availability.” (p. 258) In the following paragraph he adds, “As a servant, you don’t get to pick and choose when and where you will serve.” (p. 259) The image we get is of someone who stands by ready to go anywhere at any time to do anything that is asked of him. Thus, Mr. Warren’s idea of the “real servant” enlarges to supplant his prior ideal of “SHAPE.” In the prior ideal, everyone must strive to discover his “SHAPE” so he can “dedicate his life” to making a “unique contribution” by “focusing on talents.” This was shown to be inadequate because it left no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. But, Mr. Warren cannot frame a solution to this inadequacy without the solution enlarging to become the total picture of servanthood to the exclusion of his prior ideal. Now he posits a concept of service in which everyone must avoid filling up his time so he will be available whenever menial tasks need to be done.
We see the further enlargement of the “real servant” concept in Mr. Warren’s discussion of his second characteristic. “Servants are always on the lookout for ways to help others,” he says. (p. 259) What the “real servant” does, he tells us, is to utilize his availability by constantly being on the lookout for little things to do for others. “You can begin by looking for small tasks that no one else wants to do. Do these little things as if they were great things, because God is watching.” (p. 259-260) Next, Mr. Warren tells us that, “Real servants do their best with what they have.” (p. 260) In his prior discussion Mr. Warren exhorted that, “God deserves your best.” (p. 249) Now, this high ideal is qualified. Now, excellence is labeled an “idol” (p. 260), and we are exhorted to follow the “good enough” principle, that, “It doesn’t have to be perfect for God to use and bless it.” (p. 260) The “real servant” idea further crowds out the “SHAPE” idea.
Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Real servants do every task with equal dedication.” (p. 260) In pursuit of the “SHAPE” ideal, Mr. Warren declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for.” (p. 243-244) This, of course, precludes stacking chairs. Acknowledging that a lot of tasks require no talent, Mr. Warren now cautions that, “God will never exempt you from the mundane.” (p. 260) However, since the “SHAPE” ideal was over-stated, that which now is brought in to compensate it likewise is overstated. So much was made of “SHAPE” in the prior four chapters that to compensate it to any extent serves to degrade it completely and to install in its place a competing ideal. It is not enough for Mr. Warren simply to remind us that having a “unique contribution” that “focuses on our talents” does not exempt us from the mundane. Now that the “real servant” ideal has supplanted the “SHAPE” ideal, the mundane becomes everything. “It’s a vital part of your character curriculum,” he tells us. (p. 260) In further support of the supremacy of the mundane, he goes on to tell us that, “Jesus specialized in the menial tasks that everyone else tried to avoid.” (p. 260) Thus, Mr. Warren has so enlarged his idea of the “real servant” that it has become for him the specialization of Jesus. It is true enough that Jesus came to serve, and that we ought to follow His example. But it completely misses the point of Jesus’ service to limit it to “menial tasks.” The menial or mundane, such as foot washing, was done as a type or an illustration of the great service Jesus rendered in taking our sins upon Himself on the cross. Apart from a truly biblical doctrine of sin, there can be no truly biblical doctrine of redemption. In this case, Jesus can be thought of as nothing greater than a role model who specialized in menial tasks and calls us to do likewise.
Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of the characteristics of the “real servant” with faithfulness and humility. There certainly is no quarrelling with such characteristics. However, Mr. Warren paints a picture of the available, dedicated, faithful and humble servant that leaves a lot of practical and logistical questions unasked and unaddressed. If everyone ardently is engaged in pursuing the ideal of the “real servant,” then who is in charge? In defense of his idea that excellence is an “idol,” Mr. Warren argues, “We would rather involve thousands of regular folks in ministry than have a perfect church run by a few elites.” (p. 260) Who directs the activities of the thousands of regular folks? According to Mr. Warren’s ideal God Himself is the director. “Your agenda will be whatever God wants to bring into your life,” he says. (p. 259) “When God puts someone in need right in front of you, he is giving you the opportunity to grow in servanthood.” (p. 259) “God will assign you whatever he wants you to do.” (p. 261) In this ideal, thousands of regular folks forgo filling their lives with activities so to remain available for service, and constantly are looking for opportunities to perform menial tasks, which they perform with complete faithfulness, as though they were great works, and God Himself supernaturally directs all of this activity without any human agency. This is a totally unrealistic vision with no biblical support.
In truth, God has instituted authorities in human society. Principally, God has instituted the authority of the parents in the family (Eph 5:22-6:4, Col. 3:18-25), the authority of the presbyters and deacons in the church (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), and the authority of the magistrate in the state (Rom. 13:1-7). In ultimate reality, God directs all things (Ps. 33:10-11, Pr. 16:4, 9; 19:21; 21:1, Is. 14:27; 45:7, Rom 8:28) ; in proximate reality, everything is to be done in decency and in order (I Cor. 14:40), according to the direction of the authority of human agency that is instituted by God. The idea of everyone doing just what he feels God has directed him to do is a sure prescription for chaos. If the masses are encouraged not to make any plans, but to be available on a moment’s notice to perform menial tasks, like Jesus, because a “real servant” does not get to pick and choose when and where he will serve, and are told that mundaneness is “vital” for their character development, and that they must not expect any recognition, but in fact must shun it - this is the surest prescription for the emergence of the elite that Mr. Warren claims to disdain,
Great pressure is exerted upon Mr. Warren’s untenable notion of the utterly unique contribution of the utterly unique individual. Compensating for the errors of this ideal, he ends up totally supplanting it with an equally untenable notion of the “real servant,” who has no plan and who, supposedly like Jesus, is totally dedicated to God “interrupting” his life with menial tasks. While service, i.e. ministry, rightly understood, is a legitimate and necessary pursuit of every Christian, Mr. Warren’s expose of service is not helpful. His discussion is so lacking biblical rigor and systematic consistency that it is no more than a trumpet producing an indistinct sound (I. Cor. 14:8)
Through the first four chapters of his fourth “purpose,” Mr. Warren has concentrated upon the notion of the unique contribution of the individual. “You were put on earth to make a contribution,” he began. (p. 227) “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives,” he assured us. (p. 232) “God wants to use you to make a difference in his world,” he declared (p. 233), and later emphasized, “If you don’t make your unique contribution to the Body of Christ, it won’t be made.” (p. 241) Toward such a noble end, he asserted with the greatest confidence, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for … God doesn’t waste abilities; he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244). “God deserves your best,” he exhorted, “…he wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use.” (p. 249) He encourages us to avoid comparisons with others while we pursue these ideals, and instructs us simply to ignore critics. (p. 254) However, since such a notion is not rigorously biblical, it quickly results in conflicting notions, which the current chapter clearly exhibits. If everyone ardently is engaged in quest of his utterly unique ministry, then who is going to collect the trash and stack the chairs after a meeting? Mr. Warren acknowledges that such service is needed. (p. 258) But, who will perform it? It is absurd to suggest that stacking chairs after a meeting is an utterly unique contribution of an utterly unique individual, and that if such an individual fails to perform this service, then it will not be done. Such an absurdity would suggest that Mr. Warren’s notion of the utterly unique contribution must undergo correction. However, instead of correction, we find that the error merely is compensated with what turns out to be a conflicting error. Over-against the “shape” of the utterly unique individual, he speaks now of the “servant’s heart.”
Mr. Warren says, “While knowing your shape is important for serving God, having the heart of a servant is even more important.” (p. 258) On page 249 he told us that, “When you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It’s frustrating and produces limited results. It also wastes your time, your talent, and your energy. The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape.” Now, on page 258 he tells us, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” After stressing for four chapters the importance of “shape” as that which points the way to the ministry that will make us “fully alive” and through which we will “discover the meaning of our lives” (p. 232), he now tells us that having a “servant’s heart” is even more important and means that “often” we will be called upon to serve in ways that are contrary to our “shape”! Mr. Warren seems to acknowledge the tension of these opposing ideas. After declaring the superior importance of the “servant’s heart” over “shape,” he then almost immediately waffles with: “Your primary ministry should be in the area of your shape, but your secondary service is wherever you’re needed at the moment.” (p. 258) The “servant’s heart” is declared to be “more important” than “shape,” and in the immediately following paragraph “shape” is said to be “primary” and the “servant’s heart” is said to be “secondary.” Only in the flux of ideas that are in perpetual tension can the “more important” thing be labeled “secondary.”
Of course, “Heart” is one of the five major factors of the “SHAPE” acronym. What is the difference between the “heart” that is involved in the “shape” scheme and the “servant’s heart” that currently is under discussion? As was brought out in commentary of chapter 30, the biblical concept of “heart” is very general. The very most that can be said about “heart” is that it is the religious seat of the inner man. Consequently, there is no biblical basis for making fine distinctions such as “heart” in the “shape” scheme vs. “heart” in the sense of “servant’s heart.” Such a distinction is entirely arbitrary. It is incumbent upon Mr. Warren to elaborate his meaning, and this he sets forth to do. He discusses six characteristics that he says will animate what he calls the “real servant.”
The first of these characteristics is availability. Says he, “Servants don’t fill up their time with other pursuits that could limit their availability.” (p. 258) In the following paragraph he adds, “As a servant, you don’t get to pick and choose when and where you will serve.” (p. 259) The image we get is of someone who stands by ready to go anywhere at any time to do anything that is asked of him. Thus, Mr. Warren’s idea of the “real servant” enlarges to supplant his prior ideal of “SHAPE.” In the prior ideal, everyone must strive to discover his “SHAPE” so he can “dedicate his life” to making a “unique contribution” by “focusing on talents.” This was shown to be inadequate because it left no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. But, Mr. Warren cannot frame a solution to this inadequacy without the solution enlarging to become the total picture of servanthood to the exclusion of his prior ideal. Now he posits a concept of service in which everyone must avoid filling up his time so he will be available whenever menial tasks need to be done.
We see the further enlargement of the “real servant” concept in Mr. Warren’s discussion of his second characteristic. “Servants are always on the lookout for ways to help others,” he says. (p. 259) What the “real servant” does, he tells us, is to utilize his availability by constantly being on the lookout for little things to do for others. “You can begin by looking for small tasks that no one else wants to do. Do these little things as if they were great things, because God is watching.” (p. 259-260) Next, Mr. Warren tells us that, “Real servants do their best with what they have.” (p. 260) In his prior discussion Mr. Warren exhorted that, “God deserves your best.” (p. 249) Now, this high ideal is qualified. Now, excellence is labeled an “idol” (p. 260), and we are exhorted to follow the “good enough” principle, that, “It doesn’t have to be perfect for God to use and bless it.” (p. 260) The “real servant” idea further crowds out the “SHAPE” idea.
Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Real servants do every task with equal dedication.” (p. 260) In pursuit of the “SHAPE” ideal, Mr. Warren declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for.” (p. 243-244) This, of course, precludes stacking chairs. Acknowledging that a lot of tasks require no talent, Mr. Warren now cautions that, “God will never exempt you from the mundane.” (p. 260) However, since the “SHAPE” ideal was over-stated, that which now is brought in to compensate it likewise is overstated. So much was made of “SHAPE” in the prior four chapters that to compensate it to any extent serves to degrade it completely and to install in its place a competing ideal. It is not enough for Mr. Warren simply to remind us that having a “unique contribution” that “focuses on our talents” does not exempt us from the mundane. Now that the “real servant” ideal has supplanted the “SHAPE” ideal, the mundane becomes everything. “It’s a vital part of your character curriculum,” he tells us. (p. 260) In further support of the supremacy of the mundane, he goes on to tell us that, “Jesus specialized in the menial tasks that everyone else tried to avoid.” (p. 260) Thus, Mr. Warren has so enlarged his idea of the “real servant” that it has become for him the specialization of Jesus. It is true enough that Jesus came to serve, and that we ought to follow His example. But it completely misses the point of Jesus’ service to limit it to “menial tasks.” The menial or mundane, such as foot washing, was done as a type or an illustration of the great service Jesus rendered in taking our sins upon Himself on the cross. Apart from a truly biblical doctrine of sin, there can be no truly biblical doctrine of redemption. In this case, Jesus can be thought of as nothing greater than a role model who specialized in menial tasks and calls us to do likewise.
Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of the characteristics of the “real servant” with faithfulness and humility. There certainly is no quarrelling with such characteristics. However, Mr. Warren paints a picture of the available, dedicated, faithful and humble servant that leaves a lot of practical and logistical questions unasked and unaddressed. If everyone ardently is engaged in pursuing the ideal of the “real servant,” then who is in charge? In defense of his idea that excellence is an “idol,” Mr. Warren argues, “We would rather involve thousands of regular folks in ministry than have a perfect church run by a few elites.” (p. 260) Who directs the activities of the thousands of regular folks? According to Mr. Warren’s ideal God Himself is the director. “Your agenda will be whatever God wants to bring into your life,” he says. (p. 259) “When God puts someone in need right in front of you, he is giving you the opportunity to grow in servanthood.” (p. 259) “God will assign you whatever he wants you to do.” (p. 261) In this ideal, thousands of regular folks forgo filling their lives with activities so to remain available for service, and constantly are looking for opportunities to perform menial tasks, which they perform with complete faithfulness, as though they were great works, and God Himself supernaturally directs all of this activity without any human agency. This is a totally unrealistic vision with no biblical support.
In truth, God has instituted authorities in human society. Principally, God has instituted the authority of the parents in the family (Eph 5:22-6:4, Col. 3:18-25), the authority of the presbyters and deacons in the church (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), and the authority of the magistrate in the state (Rom. 13:1-7). In ultimate reality, God directs all things (Ps. 33:10-11, Pr. 16:4, 9; 19:21; 21:1, Is. 14:27; 45:7, Rom 8:28) ; in proximate reality, everything is to be done in decency and in order (I Cor. 14:40), according to the direction of the authority of human agency that is instituted by God. The idea of everyone doing just what he feels God has directed him to do is a sure prescription for chaos. If the masses are encouraged not to make any plans, but to be available on a moment’s notice to perform menial tasks, like Jesus, because a “real servant” does not get to pick and choose when and where he will serve, and are told that mundaneness is “vital” for their character development, and that they must not expect any recognition, but in fact must shun it - this is the surest prescription for the emergence of the elite that Mr. Warren claims to disdain,
Great pressure is exerted upon Mr. Warren’s untenable notion of the utterly unique contribution of the utterly unique individual. Compensating for the errors of this ideal, he ends up totally supplanting it with an equally untenable notion of the “real servant,” who has no plan and who, supposedly like Jesus, is totally dedicated to God “interrupting” his life with menial tasks. While service, i.e. ministry, rightly understood, is a legitimate and necessary pursuit of every Christian, Mr. Warren’s expose of service is not helpful. His discussion is so lacking biblical rigor and systematic consistency that it is no more than a trumpet producing an indistinct sound (I. Cor. 14:8)
posted by S. C. Mooney at 10:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home