Monthly Archives: June 2008

Sales writing means no tricks

If you read the literature in books or on the net, you know that people claim there are all sorts of tricks to sales writing.

But a recent visit to Branson, MO on the part of some friends of mine reminded me that it depends on how you define “trick.”

When you are a writer, you have great limitations. You can’t keep people in your presence for three hours, when you promised they would only have to listen to a two-hour presentation. You can’t watch a couple and find the weaker “link” in the chain of resistance and work on that person. You can’t develop strategies of deception so that, when a couple seems resistant to your initial offers, your partner suddenly comes into the room claiming that some new properties have unexpectedly opened up and, even though it is their normal practice to only offer these to members, they’ve decided to give the prospects an opportunity to buy in.

Writers don’t have tricks–not like those possessed by salesmen with a captive audience in a resort sales presentation. They share techniques in order to be as persuasive as possible. But they have nothing compared to salesmen with real tricks.

Writers never have a captive audience. Even the guy writing copy for the placard over the urinal knows that anyone using it can simply space out and not read the words in front of him. He can’t force the urinating man to stand there until he reads it. There is no way to obstruct his exit from the restroom in order to make a second offer “that just became available.”

Writers don’t have tricks. They either persuade you first to read and then to make a decision, or else they don’t do one or the other.

Writers leave their prospect free to choose. No tricks. Just persuasion.

Also posted at my business blog.

www.markhorne.com
www.scrollquill.com

J. I. Packer pro active faith against antinomianism

Evangelical Affirmations:

There is an evident confusion here between faith as a psychological act, that is, something that you do (in this case, “closing with Christ” as the Puritans used to put it), and faith as a meritorious work, that is, a means of earning God’s favor and inducing his acceptance. When it is argued that to call for active commitment to discipleship as a response to the gospel is to teach works-righteousness, the confusion is clear. The truth is that every act of faith, psychologically regarded, is a matter of doing something (knowing, receiving, and trusting are as much acts in the psychological sense as is resolving to obey); yet no act of faith ever presents itself to its doer as other than a means of receiving undeserved mercy in some shape or form. This is as true of a trustful commitment to follow Christ as it is of a trustful resting on the Saviour’s promise of pardon. There is no need to restrict faith to passive reliance without active devotion in order to keep works-righteousness and legalism out of the picture.

Hat tip: Andrew Sandlin

Do this and you will live reprise

No time to deal with it (Is there any way to deal with the rising tide of darkness? The Reformed ghetto has apparently simply been Pompeii, living on the side of Mt. Vesuvius all along.), but I am linking this post from September 2006 because my sophistry detection meter is spiking into the red zone.

I realize this will seem to the average Evangelical Christian like announcement that triangles have three sides. Just be thankful you see.

On the freedom to read the Bible and come to unconventional conclusions

I suppose I should explain why I posted this in an attempt to head off speculation or even assertion on that issue.

I’m worried that some might get the impression that the PCA’s Book of Church Order is supposed to function as an authoritative interpretation of the Scripture. Or that the Presbyterian understanding of Pastors, Elders (or Elder-Pastors) and Deacons is obvious from Scripture and anyone who resists its claims (or the diverse [!] opinions of those claiming to portray Presbyterian government out of the Bible) are perverse or stupid.

Perhaps the latitude that allowed Dr. Wilson to pastor in the Presbyterian Church was too much. Perhaps his attitude was too strong to possibly count as regarding Presbyterian government as “agreeable to the Scriptures.” That may be so. I don’t agree with his position (though I do agree that the term “Presbyter” in the NT refers to clergy, not to lay rulers of the church). But I think is possible that the pendulum has swung too much the other way in our circles.

And really, what was the alternative to tolerating Dr. Wilson’s weird ways? Are we really going to say that anyone who has any difference of opinion about church office is not called to the ministry or is duty-bound to find some other denomination? We have many denominations in North America, but we the number doesn’t remotely begin to amount to the number of different possible constructions on the Biblical data. Do we want a new denomination for every divergance from what is popularly perceived as the Presbyterian mainstream?

My question is: Do we want to be pastored by conscientious Bible readers? Or do we want people who will simply give the “company line.” Yes, someone can be convinced that Acts 6 is about our deacons (even though the word is never used) and that Paul really never meant for Phoebe to be considered one, and that there are two different Church offices laid out in First Timothy 3 and only one of them happens to need to be tested before being given office. But is it reasonable to expect every Presbyterian pastor to come to these conclusions apart from a desire to please the denomination that he is already loyal to on other worthy grounds? How do we know that Stephen’s powerful preaching and Philip’s evangelizing and miracle dispensing were not of their office? Well, because we already know what the office is and so these other things must be superfluous. Someone must have later ordained Philip as an Evangelist and you can prove otherwise so we’re right.

(Ask an Eastern Orthodox believer about chrismation and you will be led through more prooftexts for an “anointing” in the NT than we have for officers. See? It all comes from the Bible, he will say. Our practices are always finding texts to root in almost before we open up the pages.)

I realize there is a culture in Presbyterian circles that claims that the ratonale for Presbyterian view of offices is easily evident. But the fact is that the rationale has changed quite radically over time. Calvin’s argument for Ruling Elders is nothing like Thornwell’s. Charles Hodge had his own argument.

And if Calvin and Gaffin can find ruling elders in the gift of administrations or governments in Romans 12 and First Corinthians 12, then the gift of helps or generosity should be all we need for a diaconate. It isn’t as if all the different paths through the Scripture always lead to entirely different destinations.

In the PCA there are presently a number of churches that have deaconesses. This has been done for years. I’ve been amazed to read people act like these churches now have some reason for feeling obligated to change their practice. This just seems ridiculous–like claiming that any congregation with an office of church historian must immediately repent because there is no such office in the BCO which is now an exhaustive list of any office a congregation may have.

Also, some churches are criticized for not having deacons at all.

For the record, if any of these groups believe that deaconesses are simply female deacons, I think they are wrong. I like the BCO the way it is so that these are kept as two different offices by definition. And I would like presbyteries to discourage congregations from anything that might look like training people to accept what is an ordination service in all but name.

But at the same time, the denomination has allowed diversity on this and a host of other issues. And I don’t see much rationale for someone having the authority to eliminate congregational level offices or require a congregation to have a diaconate. (In fact, I’ve never seen anyone even attempt to construct an argument that every congregation in the NT was expected to have deacons. Nowhere do we read of Apostles appointing deacons in every town. All we know is that the Church in Ephesus and Philippi had them, oh and Jerusalem too because we say that the Seven were deacons. But what is our assumption, that any office mentioned must be universal? The widows of First Timothy 5 are not treated that way.)

I repeat that I don’t embrace the views of Dr. Wilson as related by Charles Hodge, and I’m not sure it was right to allow for them in the ministry. But I do think we could stand to be a little bit more flexible and maybe even a little bit more humble in how we declare the Lord’s will on these issues.

Shoving Scotland down their throats

At the end of that same article (“Rights of Ruling Elders, Princeton Review, 1843), Charles Hodge notes an interesting facet of American Presbyterian history:

At the time of the formation of our present constitution, there were one or two prominent men in our Church who held the same doctrine, but they were opposed to our whole system, and complained bitterly that the Synod insisted on “cramming Scotland down their throats.” The late Dr. James P. Wilson was another advocate of this theory; but he was the most zealous opposer of ruling elders our Church ever produced. In his work on the “Primitive Government of Christian Churches,” he says one of his principal objects was to show “the illiteracy of making mute elders a characteristic of the primitive Church.” “Had,” he says, “there existed mute elders in the apostolic churches, deacons would have been unnecessary. Elders must ‘feed the Church,’ and be ‘apt to teach.'” He everywhere maintains that presbyters had the same office, though they differed in their gifts, graces, and talents; some being best qualified for governing, others for exhorting and comforting, and others for teaching. he therefore says that First Timothy 5.17, “expresses a diversity in the exercise of the presbyterial office, but not in the office itself.”

Hodge then attaches a footnote saying,

Dr. Wilson carried his theory through, so far that he never had any elders in his church. He says, “We ordained deacons and called them elders, for that was the custom.” He considered the constitution, ch. 13, § 2, as giving him this liberty. It is there said, “Every congregation shall elect persons to the office of ruling elder, and to that of deacon, or to either of them.” We do not vouch for the fact,but we have often heard it asserted that he never associated his nominal elders with himself in the government of the church, kept no sessional records, or at least never produced them before presbytery.

On “deaconesses” and the broadness of American Presbyterian interpretation of the NT data

First, in the aftermath of the General Assembly perhaps it would be good to point out this post from a few months ago quoting from the Princetonian Samuel Miller’s classic work, The Ruling Elder.

Then there was Charles Hodge’s article in the 1843 Princeton Review, in which he began cataloging what we knew and (for his purpose, more importantly) what we did not know about the government of the New Testament Churches where he let go of this little tidbit without seeming to think it was controversial enough to require further argument: “In addition to deacons, we know that were in some instances appointed, but we have no evidence that this was the universal practice.”

Faith is not a work, so Arminians are not Pelagians

As I’ve reviewed this book, I’ve expressed some frustrations with it. I should point out that the spirit of discussion between opposing views is quite al depravi. The four contributors have modeled Christian dialog. For that I am extremely grateful.

Due to recent discussions, I found it somewhat humorous that the “Classic Arminian,” Grant Osborne, early in his essay, makes a point of claiming that faith is not really a work. He makes this argument in order to persuad the reader that Arminians can’t be legitimately accused of Pelagianism.

I’m not persuaded. No matter what words he chooses to use, the ultimate difference between the person who inherits resurrection glory, and another who is cast into punishment, is found in himself or herself. The saints may give thanks for God’s gift (I am convinced by Osbourne that Arminians are not Pelagian in how they approach human depravity) but they receive the exact save gift as others and the difference between the two responses is not itself a gift of God but a human creation.

Your Corporate Blog is not your sales brochure

I was reading a book on business by one of the more famous freelance writers (while the book was on starting a writing business, the section could apply to any small business start up). The author was giving guidance for how to network at meetings and generate leads. One of his first points was this:

Do not try to sell services or products; that is not why you are there.

If you are using or starting or thinking about starting a corporate blog, you should keep this advice in mind. It applies as much to blogging as it does to networking.

Blogging is not like making a sells pitch. It is like going to an event, a meeting of some kind, and trying to meet people. Blogging is networking. You have your business card to give away; that’s your sidebar. But people do not come to your blog or leave comments because they have made an appointment with you to receive a sales pitch. They come for the conversation, the entertainment, and the information.

Naturally, you want your blog to generate leads. Who doesn’t? But trying to sell stuff will kill any chance of that happening. Just like it will be self-defeating when you try to meet people and network. No one will converse with you if they feel pressured to buy something from you every time you open your mouth. You generate leads from networking by being conversational, entertaining, and informative. That is what makes people interested in you and willing to take your business card.

www.scrollquill.com

www.markhorne.com

Posted also here.

Frame reviews Enns

I can’t say much about the accuracy of the whole review, other than that I have found John Frame to be reliable in the past. Since I never read all of Enns’ book, there’s no way I can give any more testimony about it. I did, however, read the first part (which was why I gave up in frustration) and I have to say that everything Frame asks under the heading, “Non-Uniqueness,” seems quite right. The most important quotation there is:

None of these possibilities deny that Israel’s documents were like the non-Israelite documents in significant ways. Enns rejects all these possibilities. The only argument I can find for this rejection is on p. 52, “…it would be very difficult for someone holding such a view to have a meaningful conversation with linguists and historians of the ancient world.” I cannot see this as anything but a desire for academic respectability. Enns, like many evangelicals, wants to be invited to the table with the mainstream scholars. I don’t condemn that motive, but it does not provide any kind of argument for his hypothesis.

Sound exactly right to me.

This does not mean that I think the seminary’s current crackdown is justified, even less that it shows any wisdom at all in how to manage conflict and do public relations.

Is Westminster as precise as it’s PR claims? Maybe it is better for being more Biblical.

(Note: While this entry was still in draft mode, Steve Wedgeworth blogged about a similar tension.  It might be helpful to read his post.)

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty,[James 2:10-11] goodness,[Exodus 20:1-2] and holiness of God,[Habakkuk 1:13; Leviticus 11:44-45] and against his righteous law,[1 John 3:4; Romans 7:12] deserveth his wrath and curse,[Ephesians 5:6; Galatians 3:10] both in this life,[Lamentations 3:39; Deuteronomy 28:15-18] and that which is to come;[Matthew 25:41] and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.[Hebrews 9:22]

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?

A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,[Acts 20:21; Matthew 3:7-8; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 18] and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.[Proverbs 2:1-5; 8:33-36]

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.[Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:42, 46-47]

So where in this statement do we have a precise definition of justification by faith alone, only at the point of effectual calling, that is carefully distinguished from subsequent obedience and sanctification?

On the one hand, we obviously have here some concern with justification. Sin deserves God’s wrath and curse. We cannot be forgiven, and our sin cannot be expiated, without the blood of Christ. Otherwise we have no escape from God’s wrath and curse in this world or the next. And to escape God’s wrath and curse requires faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But the requirements are more than faith. Repentance is added. This is arguably simply the convex side of the same thing of which faith is the concave. But an ongoing life if diligence in the use “the outward means” is also required. This question takes us through the whole of life through death to the Day of Judgment. Escaping God’s wrath speaks to both this life and the life to come, just as the answer to q. 152 explicitly spells out.

I’m not against precision. But I think the vagueness of these questions and answers is plainly faithful to the Bible.  I bring it up because I’ve notice a lot of people condemned lately for allegedly violating orthodoxy by not keeping precise distinctions in their statements.  I don’t think it is a denial of the distinctions to observe that they are now being used in ways that seem incompatible with the Westminster Standards.  Really now, does anyone doubt that, if they could be induced to temporarily forget the source, the statement quoted above would be condemned as works righteousness–as blending faith and works, justification and sanctification–by any recent guardian of orthodoxy