"Taking a step of faith" — a few thoughts

There are two kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who know about Francis Chan's decision to leave his pastorate for an array of various activities

2. Those who'd say, "Who's she?"

"She" is a he, Francis with an "i." He's an author, a pastor, a surferdude, and whatever fame he had was multiplied by Justin Taylor

finding him newsworthy. Now, that's fame.

Chan did at least a video and some written communication explaining this decision, which you can see at the link. Doubtless there

will be more. I have not watched the video, I won't make it a focus of study. I just want to offer a few remarks about his written

explanation. My focus is really the remarks, and not Francis Chan himself. His words form a springboard. Clear enough?

They're a springboard because they reflect phrases one hears among "evangelicals," phrases which I think haven't been examined

closely enough. I'll single out two.

The target quotation

...Lisa and I believe God is calling us to take a step of faith. We believe we are supposed to

move into a major city such as LA, San Francisco, or New York. ...I’m still not completely sure

of everything, but it feels great to be living by faith.

"God is calling us... we are supposed to move"

The whole picture summons to mind the call of Abram, which I think is probably either deliberate or semi-deliberate. Is that a fair

allusion?

This is what a Biblically-minded interviewer would ask Chan. "Are you likening this move to Abram's move from Ur?", I would ask.

To anything like an affirmative response, I would follow up with this: "So are you saying that you received an inerrant, verbal,

prophetic, morally-binding revelation directly from God, apart from Scripture, telling you that you needed to walk away

from your pastoral commitment abruptly and go off doing other unspecified things?"

If he means anything else, Chan is drawing from some spiritual authority other than Scripture. That is what a Biblical writer would

mean, unless it were Paul speaking of the effectual call to salvation (which clearly does not fit). "God is calling us" must mean that, to

a Biblically-oriented Christian.

If Chan is saying he receives direct, prophetic, inerrant revelation, he should be made to say so up-front, so that all Christians can

see his orientation and respond accordingly. If he is not, he should be held accountable, encouraged to drop the spiritualized lingo,
and made to say whatever the truth is. "I was bored"; "I was curious"; "My kids hate it here"; whatever. Say it, and take responsibility

for the decision. Don't try to put it off on God.

This matters, for reasons I've explained literally countless times. Note: "we are supposed to move." That is the language of moral

obligation. If Chan does not do this, then — if he disobeys a commandment from God that he leave his pastorate — he is committing

a Hell-worthy sin.

Again, Chan needs to be called on this. Christians who look up to him need him to be called on it. Should they do the same? If they

"believe" God is calling them to leave their jobs in IT Support or truck-driving or whatever, the jobs by which they feed their families

and pay their creditors, are they similarly morally-obliged to lurch off in that direction? How can they tell? How did he?

One more.

"...take a step of faith... it feels great to be living by faith"

What does Chan mean? In the Bible, faith was defined by its first mention. Remember where that was? Why, it takes us back to

Abram once again: "And he believed [Yahweh], and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). What we have here is two

things:

1. A word from God

2. An embrace of that word

That's faith, in a nutshell. That is what it is in Scripture. It is a response to a word (or words) from God.

Brings us right back to the first issue, doesn't it? Did Francis Chan have a direct word from God? I know of no Bible verse saying

"Francis Chan should bail on his church." Or anything like it.

So how is this a step of faith? I know, I know it's common Christianoid coinage. And I think that's bad. We should mean what the

Bible means, or stop saying it. Specifically:

1. When I trust Christ alone for my salvation, with no backup plan and no supplements, I am stepping out in faith.

2. When I invest my time and energy in studying the Bible, worshiping God, laying up treasures in Heaven, I am stepping out

in faith.

3. When I fix my hope completely on the grace to be revealed at Christ's return, I am stepping out in faith.

I could go on and on, with about as many specifics as the Bible has verses. But you catch my drift, I hope.

Further, Chan says it "feels great" to be living by faith. No doubt. So, the guys who go to work 5:30-2:30, 8-4, 9-5 — are they living by

faith? Can they feel great? The guys who count the cost, who make plans, who take counsel, who are responsible and rational and

God-honoring in their use of their brains and means, who do not try to blame God for decisions that it is theirs to make — can they

feel great too?

I think they should, because that's the Biblical way to make decisions.

Now, perhaps Chan means, "I have come to the conclusion that this is the best stewardship of the gifts God gave me. I did so for the

following reasons: ____." Or, "I did so for reasons I discussed thoroughly with my wife and with some wise, Biblically-faithful

counselors." Then he should say, "I still have a responsibility to provide for my family and pay my bills in the following way. I would

never presume on God to foot the bill for irresponsible, impulsive behavior, and I would not want to encourage anyone to behave

that way. We trust God to bless the preaching of His word in new venues, as He has promised."

But he didn't say that. And he needs to be called on it.

Why?

I've already said, but repetition is sound pedagogy, so here goes: because Chan has chosen to become a leader, and people

look up to him.

There are scads of impulsive, glandular, irresponsible Christianoids trying to blame God for their immaturity, impulsiveness, and

irresponsibility. These are precisely the terms they use as a pretext. It makes them look holy and spiritual, but in Biblical terms, they

are not.

As I do the math, I just am not seeing the numbers indicating that God benefits by being shamed by more irresponsible, immature

Christians blaming Him for their lame behavior. Just do not see it.

Maybe — and I really mean this, sincerely — Chan has a bevy of wonderful, solid, God-honoring reasons for making this decision.

He should feature those reasons centrally, if so.

Otherwise, I see this as a harmful example. Teachers are judged harshly for what they say and how they phrase it. We should know

that, going in (James 3:1).

Therefore, I'm not asking too much, and Christians at large should ask no less.
 2 Timothy 3:14-16
In this post, I will use Paul's words to Timothy as my springboard:

But you — you remain in the things you learned and became convinced of, because you know from whom you learned, and because

from infancy you knew the sacred letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All

Scripture is God-breathed and beneficial for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, for training in righteousness, in order that the

man of God might be equipped, for every good work fully-equipped. (2 Timothy 3:14-16)

It is as if Paul deliberately words himself in a way calculated to drive restless and discontented folks nuts. They'll want to get as far

away from these words as fast as they can. But let's linger.

The backdrop of this is Paul's word to Timothy in light of the difficult days that he will face (3:1-9). It seems certain to the apostle

that Timothy will not have Paul personally present, to lead and guide him (4:6-9). He'll be on his own, and the church will be under

the care of such as he.

So what would Timothy have to guide him?

1. Timothy would have the teaching Paul gave him, and the life which underscored that teaching (3:10-13).

2. Timothy would have the grounding in Scripture that his believing grandmother and mother had given him from infancy

(3:14-17)

And that, Paul insists, would be sufficient.

Now, break it down with me.

Timothy had learned the Old Testament since he was an infant. Paul speaks of the hiera grammata, which are literally as I

render them: sacred letters. This may well allude to the fact that Timothy's Jewish mother taught him to read, not from "The Further

Adventures of Dick and Jane," but from the Old Testament. Lenski envisions it:

Little Timothy learned his ABC’s from the Bible, learned to read from the Bible, and thus from earliest childhood spelled out “sacred

letters.” As he spelled out this and that word, mother and grandmother told the story. Soon he could read a little, ask questions, hear

more. A lovely picture indeed! I like it better than our method of today which supplies secular matter for the primers and holds back

the sacred letters until later years (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians,

to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 839 [Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937]).

The Old Testament continues to have the power (ta dunamena) to produce the wisdom of saving faith in Jesus Christ. From

it, Timothy would learn the vital categories of the Creator/creature distinction, the attributes and works of God, man's creation and

fall, and blood redemption. He would learn of the coming Messiah, so that when Jesus came he could see in Jesus the fulfillment of

all the longings, aspirations, and predictions of the Torah. OT Scripture would prepare him for the knowledge and service of Christ.

The Paul shifts gears and speaks, not of the sacred writings of Timothy's childhood, but of all Scripture. Here the apostle uses the

term he'd employed earlier in 1 Timothy 5:18 to denote both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Later, Peter will apply the same word
to Paul's writing as on a par with the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:16-17). What Paul is about to say applies to Scripture as Scripture,

thus proleptically taking in the whole of the NT.

He says that all Scripture is God-breathed, it is theopneustos. John Frame rightly says that

... Scripture is “breathed out by God,” which is the correct translation of a word sometimes translated “inspired.” The word means

not that God breathed something into the Bible but that God breathed it out, or, in other words, that he spoke it. The written Word is

God’s personal speech. It is nothing less than the divine voice. (John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to

Systematic Theology, 63 [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006])

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is the very word of God. More than that, it is the words of God. You can quote Scripture

appropriately and say that you are quoting God. In fact, none has yet even come close to demonstrating Biblical authority for

attaching "God said" or "The Lord said" or "The Lord told me" to anything other than Scripture, unless he is claiming direct and

inerrant prophetic revelation.

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is also profitable. It is inherently profitable by its very nature, of course. But the apostle

details four ways in which Scripture is profitable:

1. Teaching (didaskalian). This is the impartation of information meant to inform and control both what we think, and

how we think. Scripture lays both the premise and the template for thought. It lays out the lines for us to color in.

2. Reproof (elegmon). Flowing naturally from the first is specific information showing where we are in the wrong in how

we think and behave. It shows where we have crossed the line, exposes our sin as sin — heinous, indefensible, and always

with God as the primary injured party.

3. Restoration (epanorthōsin). This noun means to make something straight and right again. God breaks us with the

reproof of His Word; then with His Word, He restores us, sets us straight, heals us and puts our feet on His path. It

means... reformation! (Da da daaaaa!)

4. Training in righteousness (paideian tēn en dikaiosunē[i]). The Word provides divine pedagogy, giving sole

authoritative and comprehensive instruction in God-centered living. It is, itself, an entire course of study in that life which

serves, pleases, honors and glorifies God.

Given the all-embracing nature of these four benefits combined, a thoughtful reader is forced to ask: what does that that leave out?

The net effect (and design) of all this is as the apostle himself says: "that the man of God might be equipped, for every good work

fully-equipped." There is a play on words that, rather to my bafflement, most English versions (including CSB, ESV, NAS, NIV,

TNIV, NKJ) do not even try to bring out. Equipped renders the adjective artios, and fully-equipped translates the

participle exērtismenos, which is etymologically related to artios.

Paul is saying that the Word of God, including the Old Testament retrospectively and the New Testament prospectively, represents

the very words of God, and thus tells us everything we need to understand in order to know and serve God.

Red light
Impatient and discontented Scripture-denigrators, infected with Eve's bug of never finding God's provision quite adequate, will be

eager to change the subject, or to look for (or invent) a loophole. I predict that this meta, like the last, will be subjected to attempts to

shoot it off in a dozen different directions.

But we mustn't hurry on too hastily. Stop. Wait. Slow down. Think! Learn something!

The apostle is about to die, and he knows it. This possibility looms over all the Pastorals, most especially in 2 Timothy. Paul has

loved the church, served the church, suffered for the church, and bled for the church. "No, for the Gospel," one will say. Right; but

specifically the Gospel which united Jews and Gentiles in Christ — that is what got him arrested (cf. Acts 22:21-22; Ephesians 3:1; 2

Timothy 2:10).

So, thus loving the church, and thus seeing clearly the gut-wrenchingly dangerous times ahead — to what does Paul turn his

apprentices' attention? What will guide them, steady them, equip them for the future? To what should the church cling, to keep it on

God's path?

Does Paul speak of listening for the Spirit's voice within? Does Paul urge Timothy or Titus to seek, expect, or even be open to a word

from God for themselves? Does he assure them that the Spirit will communicate to them directly what they must say and do? Does

he set them to expect experiences, feelings, urgings, movings, burdens, whisperings, still small voices, big loud voices, or any such

thing?

No. Not once. Not remotely. Quite the opposite.

Paul gives them his authoritative apostolic instruction, and points them to Scripture. They must stay with that, stick to that, think in

terms of that, believe that, guard that, proclaim that (cf. also (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2. 7, 15; 4:1-2). It will fully equip them.

That, I shall try to argue still more fully in the next posts, is the Biblical position.

Any other view, even if held by Christians, is a view that is defective, deficient, dangerous, and damaging.

The real question to us is: does that matter? To vast hordes of professed evangelicals, whatever their formal answer, the de

facto answer very clearly is "No."

Which is the point and focus of this series.

From my own statement of faith, the first point: on Scripture.

Scripture. The sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, in their original writings, comprise the verbally
inspired, inerrant Word of God.
The thirty-nine books known as the Hebrew Old Testament are God-breathed, products of the Holy
Spirit’s inspiration, and thus free from error in all that they affirm (cf. Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Psalms
19:7, 8; 119:89, 142, 151, 160; Matthew 5:17-19; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Similarly, the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of
Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35), and are thus the words of God (John 7:16; 12:49). The Holy Spirit enabled
the writers both to recall what the Lord said (John 14:26), and to continue to receive His revelation (John
16: 12-15). As a result, the writings of the New Testament are the commandment of the Lord (1
Corinthians 14:37), are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

For this reason, the sinner finds the way of salvation through Scripture (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15;
Hebrews 2:1-3). The believer is made fruitful (Psalm 1:2, 3) and successful in the will of God (Joshua 1:8),
warned and kept from sin (Psalms 19:11; 119:9,11), made holy (John 17:17), given wisdom (Psalm 9:7) and
freeing knowledge of the truth (John 8: 31, 32), taught the fear of God (Psalm 119:38), counseled (Psalm
119:24), taught, reproved, corrected, and disciplined in the way righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) by
Scripture. Scripture is, in short, the fully adequate revelation of the person, ways, and will of
God.