Day Thirty-Four - Thinking Like a Servant
Mr. Warren continues his discussion of the “real servant,” and his notion of the “real servant” continues its conflict with his former idea of “SHAPE.” In his prior discussion, Mr. Warren discounted the mind. He told us on page 251, “Don’t try to figure out your gifts before volunteering to serve somewhere. Just start serving.” Now, his message is, “Service starts in the mind.” (p. 265) Along the lines of this new emphasis, Mr. Warren proceeds to expound upon five attitudes that he says characterize the mind of the “real servant.” In these discussions we note several points of consistency - indeed, even reiteration - of points that he made earlier. Consistency is a positive trend in a book that is filled with inner conflicts. However, it is regrettable that examples of consistency in Mr. Warren’s writing are on points that misunderstand or misconstrue the teaching of Scripture.
First, he says, “Servants think more about others than about themselves.” (p. 265) It certainly is a fine quality to think of others. However, self-less altruism is not the fundamental Christian ideal. It would seem to be a basic truth that the bedrock of Christianity is not to be found in self-less altruism, but it is necessary to make a point of it here because previously Mr. Warren stated that “thinking of others” is the “core” of Christianity. (p. 183) In the current chapter he states, “This is what it means to ‘lose your life’ - forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) He has enclosed the phrase “lose your life” in quotation marks, indicating that it is a familiar phrase. But, he includes no references indicating the source of the phrase. The phrase is familiar because it comes from a saying of Jesus that occurs often in the Gospels (Mat. 10:39; 16:25, Mk. 8:35, Lk. 9:24; 17:33, Jn. 12:25) Luke 9:24 is a good example of this teaching: “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.” Mr. Warren teaches that the phrase “lose your life” means “forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) It does not require great insight to understand that Mr. Warren’s teaching is contrary to Scripture. He would have Jesus to say, “Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever forgets himself in service to others, he is the one who will save it.” However, the meaning of Jesus’ saying is evident in His qualification, “for My sake,” and also in the parallel construction: whoever seeks his life will lose; and whoever loses his life will save. Clearly, to lose your life in the first clause cannot mean “forgetting yourself in service to others.” Jesus appeals to everyone’s innate desire to “save his life,” i.e., to preserve life rather than to perish, and states that the only means of doing this is to “lose your life” for His sake - i.e., in self-conscious sacrifice of life for the honor, glory, and praise of Christ, in dedication to His law, will, and providence. Mr. Warren cheapens the truly biblical idea of “lose your life” in the current chapter, even as previously he cheapened the Gospel by declaring its “core” to be merely “thinking of others.”
Next, Mr. Warren declares that, “servants think like stewards, not owners.” (p. 266) This also is a theme previously discussed. (p. 44f) Again, his current discussion proceeds in consistency with his prior discussion. Here he reiterates the idea that “God owns it all,” (p. 266) and that we hold this world’s goods in “stewardship” under God’s “ownership.” Commentary of Mr. Warren’s prior discussion pointed out that this outlook fails to provide for any kind of economic reasoning. One must admit the reality of human ownership of property in order to think and to act economically. But, the simple-minded platitude of Mr. Warren does not provide for the reality of human ownership. The reader may consult commentary of chapter 5 for a fuller discussion of this matter. Here it is important to note that in both his prior discussion and the current chapter, the major issue is the same. On page 46 he challenged, “Is the way you manage your money preventing God from doing more in your life?” Now, on page 267, he declares, “How you manage your money affects how much God can bless your life.” The ownership / stewardship scheme involves the unbiblical notion of the correlativity of God and Man. This correlativity in turn involves the tension of God on the one hand having the power to bless Man, and Man on the other hand having the power to “prevent” or “allow” God to bless. The biblical truth is that God is owner in the sense of Creator, and that analogous to this Man is owner in the sense of producer. The biblical ideal is for Man to own God’s property after Him. In terms of this ideal, the main concern is not whether human dealings with property prevent or oblige God’s blessing, but whether human dealings with property fulfill or violate God’s Law.
Third, Mr. Warren asserts that servants, “…don’t compare, criticize, or compete with other servants or ministries.” (p. 268) This as well is a reiteration of themes previously expounded on pages 253f and 163f. The reader is referred to commentary of chapters 21 and 32 for fuller discussion of this theme. What is important to repeat here is that Mr. Warren himself acknowledges not only the inevitability but also the duty of criticism. He declares on page 150 that, “God is very clear that we are to confront those who cause division among Christians.” This is very true. However, the important point left out of his discussion is, “By what standard?” Who is to say who is the one causing division? When Elijah met Ahab (I Ki 18:17-18) Ahab accused him of being the “troubler of Israel.” Elijah protested that, indeed, it was Ahab who was the troubler of Israel. Who was the troubler of Israel? Ahab pretended to be a standard unto himself. Elijah was a prophet declaring the standard in the Word of the Lord. The reader is left with no doubt at all concerning the identity of he who troubles Israel. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Suzanne Sataline that discusses splits and declining attendance in churches that have adopted the “Purpose-Driven®” model. The text of this article is available here. Who are the ones causing division in these churches: the ones who pushed for the “Purpose-Driven®” model, or the ones who opposed it? Mr. Warren declares that criticism is “the Devil’s job” (p. 164) But, he also declares that it is our duty to confront “divisive” people, even if it means they leave the church, because “the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual.” (p. 150) Again, the all-important question must be posed: By what standard? This is a question that Mr. Warren evidently did not see fit to address, but it is a question that any serious reader must not fail to address.
Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Servants base their identity in Christ.” (p. 269) There is a very rich Bible study that may be undertaken on the theme of our identity in Christ. However, instead Mr. Warren couches the idea of “identity” in “self-image” and “security.” Biblically, identity in Christ means that God identifies us with the righteousness of Christ instead of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, I Cor. 15:21-22, II Cor. 5:21, etc.) Contrary to this, Mr. Warren summarizes the matter as follows: “If you’re going to be a servant, you must settle your identity in Christ. Only secure people can serve.” (p. 269) His point is that a servant must derive his security from his status in Christ rather than from the service itself. There is a formal sense in which this is true. However, the content that Mr. Warren develops does not fulfill the formal potential. His idea of our identity in Christ has nothing to do with sin and redemption. His whole concept is that Jesus had a good self-image and so we also may have a good self-image. Consistent with his notion of the prior chapter that, “Jesus specialized in menial tasks,” (p. 260), he returns to the episode of Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. Says he, “Jesus knew who he was, so the task didn’t threaten his self-image.” (p. 269) Mr. Warren seriously seems to understand this text as concerning only that the disciples had dirty feet and needed them to be washed. In his view, the only lesson we derive from the text is that Jesus had a good self-image and therefore was not “threatened” by the prospect of doing some foot-washing. In truth this text has nothing at all to do with feeling “threatened” or “secure” or having a good “self-image.” Clearly, Jesus’ foot-washing was an object lesson for the disciples. If there was nothing in view except the practical necessity of cleaning some feet, the washing would have been done before dinner, as the disciples arrived, rather than after dinner. Instead, Jesus specifically stated that His point in washing the disciples’ feet was to demonstrate to them the humility and attitude of service they ought to cultivate. This is yet another example of how Mr. Warren uses pop-psychology to interpret Scripture rather than using Scripture to interpret psychology.
Finally, Mr. Warren asserts that, “Servants think of ministry as an opportunity, not an obligation.” (p. 270) A number of times before he declared that our service ought not to be motivated by duty (p. 95, 228) Since Mr. Warren couched the lesson of Jesus’ foot-washing wholly in terms of psychology, he missed Jesus’ own clearly stated point, “If I then, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (Jn. 13:14) Jesus plainly states that we “ought” to serve, that is, that we have a duty and an obligation to serve. Mr. Warren attempts to romanticize service by supposing to remove all sense of obligation. His view poses a contrast between joy and obedience. Such a contrast is inevitable in a conflicted world in which the elements of life cannot be integrated. In such a world it is necessary that a mythical pendulum must sway to and fro between opposites that must co-exist but cannot be brought together. In such a world obedience destroys joy. In such a world joy precludes duty. In the present chapter duty is held at bay so that there might be joy. But, in chapter 9, back on page 72, joy was made subservient to obedience. The emphasis then was upon “instant obedience.” In true Christian orthodoxy, joy and duty are integrally united in the system of God, the Creator, Man, the creature who has fallen into sin and who has been redeemed in Christ. Lacking a clear and biblical idea of sin, Mr. Warren cannot frame a truly biblical idea of joy or of duty.
First, he says, “Servants think more about others than about themselves.” (p. 265) It certainly is a fine quality to think of others. However, self-less altruism is not the fundamental Christian ideal. It would seem to be a basic truth that the bedrock of Christianity is not to be found in self-less altruism, but it is necessary to make a point of it here because previously Mr. Warren stated that “thinking of others” is the “core” of Christianity. (p. 183) In the current chapter he states, “This is what it means to ‘lose your life’ - forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) He has enclosed the phrase “lose your life” in quotation marks, indicating that it is a familiar phrase. But, he includes no references indicating the source of the phrase. The phrase is familiar because it comes from a saying of Jesus that occurs often in the Gospels (Mat. 10:39; 16:25, Mk. 8:35, Lk. 9:24; 17:33, Jn. 12:25) Luke 9:24 is a good example of this teaching: “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.” Mr. Warren teaches that the phrase “lose your life” means “forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) It does not require great insight to understand that Mr. Warren’s teaching is contrary to Scripture. He would have Jesus to say, “Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever forgets himself in service to others, he is the one who will save it.” However, the meaning of Jesus’ saying is evident in His qualification, “for My sake,” and also in the parallel construction: whoever seeks his life will lose; and whoever loses his life will save. Clearly, to lose your life in the first clause cannot mean “forgetting yourself in service to others.” Jesus appeals to everyone’s innate desire to “save his life,” i.e., to preserve life rather than to perish, and states that the only means of doing this is to “lose your life” for His sake - i.e., in self-conscious sacrifice of life for the honor, glory, and praise of Christ, in dedication to His law, will, and providence. Mr. Warren cheapens the truly biblical idea of “lose your life” in the current chapter, even as previously he cheapened the Gospel by declaring its “core” to be merely “thinking of others.”
Next, Mr. Warren declares that, “servants think like stewards, not owners.” (p. 266) This also is a theme previously discussed. (p. 44f) Again, his current discussion proceeds in consistency with his prior discussion. Here he reiterates the idea that “God owns it all,” (p. 266) and that we hold this world’s goods in “stewardship” under God’s “ownership.” Commentary of Mr. Warren’s prior discussion pointed out that this outlook fails to provide for any kind of economic reasoning. One must admit the reality of human ownership of property in order to think and to act economically. But, the simple-minded platitude of Mr. Warren does not provide for the reality of human ownership. The reader may consult commentary of chapter 5 for a fuller discussion of this matter. Here it is important to note that in both his prior discussion and the current chapter, the major issue is the same. On page 46 he challenged, “Is the way you manage your money preventing God from doing more in your life?” Now, on page 267, he declares, “How you manage your money affects how much God can bless your life.” The ownership / stewardship scheme involves the unbiblical notion of the correlativity of God and Man. This correlativity in turn involves the tension of God on the one hand having the power to bless Man, and Man on the other hand having the power to “prevent” or “allow” God to bless. The biblical truth is that God is owner in the sense of Creator, and that analogous to this Man is owner in the sense of producer. The biblical ideal is for Man to own God’s property after Him. In terms of this ideal, the main concern is not whether human dealings with property prevent or oblige God’s blessing, but whether human dealings with property fulfill or violate God’s Law.
Third, Mr. Warren asserts that servants, “…don’t compare, criticize, or compete with other servants or ministries.” (p. 268) This as well is a reiteration of themes previously expounded on pages 253f and 163f. The reader is referred to commentary of chapters 21 and 32 for fuller discussion of this theme. What is important to repeat here is that Mr. Warren himself acknowledges not only the inevitability but also the duty of criticism. He declares on page 150 that, “God is very clear that we are to confront those who cause division among Christians.” This is very true. However, the important point left out of his discussion is, “By what standard?” Who is to say who is the one causing division? When Elijah met Ahab (I Ki 18:17-18) Ahab accused him of being the “troubler of Israel.” Elijah protested that, indeed, it was Ahab who was the troubler of Israel. Who was the troubler of Israel? Ahab pretended to be a standard unto himself. Elijah was a prophet declaring the standard in the Word of the Lord. The reader is left with no doubt at all concerning the identity of he who troubles Israel. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Suzanne Sataline that discusses splits and declining attendance in churches that have adopted the “Purpose-Driven®” model. The text of this article is available here. Who are the ones causing division in these churches: the ones who pushed for the “Purpose-Driven®” model, or the ones who opposed it? Mr. Warren declares that criticism is “the Devil’s job” (p. 164) But, he also declares that it is our duty to confront “divisive” people, even if it means they leave the church, because “the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual.” (p. 150) Again, the all-important question must be posed: By what standard? This is a question that Mr. Warren evidently did not see fit to address, but it is a question that any serious reader must not fail to address.
Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Servants base their identity in Christ.” (p. 269) There is a very rich Bible study that may be undertaken on the theme of our identity in Christ. However, instead Mr. Warren couches the idea of “identity” in “self-image” and “security.” Biblically, identity in Christ means that God identifies us with the righteousness of Christ instead of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, I Cor. 15:21-22, II Cor. 5:21, etc.) Contrary to this, Mr. Warren summarizes the matter as follows: “If you’re going to be a servant, you must settle your identity in Christ. Only secure people can serve.” (p. 269) His point is that a servant must derive his security from his status in Christ rather than from the service itself. There is a formal sense in which this is true. However, the content that Mr. Warren develops does not fulfill the formal potential. His idea of our identity in Christ has nothing to do with sin and redemption. His whole concept is that Jesus had a good self-image and so we also may have a good self-image. Consistent with his notion of the prior chapter that, “Jesus specialized in menial tasks,” (p. 260), he returns to the episode of Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. Says he, “Jesus knew who he was, so the task didn’t threaten his self-image.” (p. 269) Mr. Warren seriously seems to understand this text as concerning only that the disciples had dirty feet and needed them to be washed. In his view, the only lesson we derive from the text is that Jesus had a good self-image and therefore was not “threatened” by the prospect of doing some foot-washing. In truth this text has nothing at all to do with feeling “threatened” or “secure” or having a good “self-image.” Clearly, Jesus’ foot-washing was an object lesson for the disciples. If there was nothing in view except the practical necessity of cleaning some feet, the washing would have been done before dinner, as the disciples arrived, rather than after dinner. Instead, Jesus specifically stated that His point in washing the disciples’ feet was to demonstrate to them the humility and attitude of service they ought to cultivate. This is yet another example of how Mr. Warren uses pop-psychology to interpret Scripture rather than using Scripture to interpret psychology.
Finally, Mr. Warren asserts that, “Servants think of ministry as an opportunity, not an obligation.” (p. 270) A number of times before he declared that our service ought not to be motivated by duty (p. 95, 228) Since Mr. Warren couched the lesson of Jesus’ foot-washing wholly in terms of psychology, he missed Jesus’ own clearly stated point, “If I then, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (Jn. 13:14) Jesus plainly states that we “ought” to serve, that is, that we have a duty and an obligation to serve. Mr. Warren attempts to romanticize service by supposing to remove all sense of obligation. His view poses a contrast between joy and obedience. Such a contrast is inevitable in a conflicted world in which the elements of life cannot be integrated. In such a world it is necessary that a mythical pendulum must sway to and fro between opposites that must co-exist but cannot be brought together. In such a world obedience destroys joy. In such a world joy precludes duty. In the present chapter duty is held at bay so that there might be joy. But, in chapter 9, back on page 72, joy was made subservient to obedience. The emphasis then was upon “instant obedience.” In true Christian orthodoxy, joy and duty are integrally united in the system of God, the Creator, Man, the creature who has fallen into sin and who has been redeemed in Christ. Lacking a clear and biblical idea of sin, Mr. Warren cannot frame a truly biblical idea of joy or of duty.
posted by S. C. Mooney at 2:48 PM
1 comments
