Restoration Movement Theology: T. W. Brents on the “Foreknowledge of God”

On February 19, 2024February 17, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn 2005, College Papers, Foreknowledge, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Old Testament, Research Papers, Restoration Movement Theology, T.W. Brents, Theology

There is a certain measure of absurdity that occurs when a finite being seeks to understand the infinite God. The inquiry is no simple matter. God’s infinite nature transcends the finite and linear nature of human beings. Such a pursuit touches every major philosophical, theological, religious, and epistemic field of knowledge. The study of God and his attributes is a complex endeavor and is often accomplished by examining individual aspects of the nature or essence of God, or by considering the way in which God interacts with his creation. One classic question centers on God’s omniscience, and what it means for God to know the future of particular persons and events (i.e., foreknowledge).

The question of divine foreknowledge tethers together God’s omniscience and human free will. For example, why would God create the universe if God was aware more people would be lost eternally rather than saved? As one person asked in an online discussion, “Why go through on something knowing in advance that it is a bad investment?” The question presumes there is a logical inconsistency between an all-loving God and the reality of suffering and chaos in the world.

Some contemporary theologians have argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited and can only account for what can be actually known. This theory has various labels, but is commonly called, “Open Theism.” Among 19th-century Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement personas, Thomas Wesley Brents (1823–1905) argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited to what can be actually known. Brents’s viewpoint is set forth in his sermon, “Foreknowledge of God,” set forth in his classic anthology of sermons, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874). Brents was a well-respected nineteenth-century North American “pioneer” preacher of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. In short, Brents argued that unlimited foreknowledge lacks biblical consistency.

I dispute this conclusion. There are many presuppositions that underpin the argument of Brents’s sermon, “Foreknowledge of God.” This paper offers a refutation of his thesis that God does not have unlimited foreknowledge. I argue that God knows all that is possible to be known and that this foreknowledge does not interfere with human free will.

Statement of the Problem

Unlimited foreknowledge is asserted on the basis of three basic arguments. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God knows everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is essentially outside of time and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

In “Foreknowledge,” however, Brents posed what is a fair question:

may we not, then, with becoming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass?[1]

In The Gospel Plan of Salvation, “Foreknowledge” is part of the opening series of sermons Brents delivers against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, election and reprobation, hereditary depravity, and the doctrine of Universalism (i.e., all souls will be saved).[2] Brents principally attacked the fundamental basis for the two systems of belief; namely:

the assumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just who and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost.[2]

For Brents, “such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable decree” in which “man had no power to avert” this foreknown destiny. Brents argues that such a position violates human agency.[3] He then sets forth a series of arguments that follow a somewhat sequential order, building upon one another.

He concedes that this study can only appropriately operate if it is recognized that finite humanity has mental limitations and can only understand God as God has revealed himself.[4] Brents cautiously affirms:

We may know God’s will, and the extent of His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go. When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and believe, whether he can or can not [sic] see to the end.[5]

Then he moves to argue against God having unlimited foreknowledge on account that there are passages that appear to demonstrate that God was unaware of certain things, such as the depravity of the pre-flood population of Earth (Gen 6:5). Brents forwards his argumentation by means of the analogy of omnipotence, pondering that “if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”; consequently, infinite knowledge does not require that he knows everything.[6]

Brents acknowledges that this may be accounted for on the grounds of accommodation, and provides his definition of accommodation and its limits. Accommodation must embody the same thought from whatever source it is being transferred from and should the thought be different then it is a form of deception, conveying “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[7]

The next line of reasoning is Brents’ “all” argument, where he observes that while Scriptures teach that God and Jesus know “all things,” the word “all” may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[8] In his conclusion, Brents maintains that God only knows for sure that which He has decreed to be an absolute certainty, and is unaware of those things he has decreed to be contingent realities.[9]

First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know.

Preliminary to evaluating the biblical data, a brief definition of what is meant here is that God knows everything there is to know. That God knows everything there is to know is to say that God is omniscient. Omniscience comes from two words, omnis, “all,” and scire, which means, “know”; consequently, it means knowledge of everything – a perfect knowledge.[10] God has perfect knowledge of the past, the present, and the future from the human point of view; furthermore, if God has perfect knowledge of the future, then this suggests that God has foreknowledge. This aspect of God’s omniscience specifically focuses on God knowing the future acts as if they were already done.[11] Interestingly, Casper W. Hodge observes that God’s omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence” (2 Chron 16:9, Pro 15:3, Psa 139).[12] These concepts will be further embellished as Brents’s specific lines of contention are addressed.

Old Testament evidence suggests that God is omniscient. Notice an example from the Exodus where God revealed the future of Abraham’s offspring in Egyptian bondage (Gen 15:13–15). When Moses is called, God is prepared to deliver them from this servitude (Exod 3:8–9), but Moses is warned that Pharaoh will harden his heart and not let the Israelites go easily (Exod 7:14) until the last plague is sent upon Egypt (Exod 11:1).[13] God was fully aware of the future events, and this assurance that God knew what would happen was a vital part of the confidence of Moses, as were the miraculous abilities and supernatural experiences he had gone through (Exod 3:4–6, 4:1–17).

New Testament evidence likewise provides strength to the picture that God is omniscient. An example from this group of canonical material is found in 2 Peter. One scholar reflects upon this material in light of omniscience and free will and points out: “Divine revelation as it is expressed in 2 Peter does not present a God who is learning, relenting, at times taken by surprise or retracting his eternal counsel.”[14] 2 Peter 3:14–18, as suggested by Neyrey, reflects the “themes and issues raised” from the beginning of the letter.[15] Edmond Hiebert likewise notes this connection based upon dió (“therefore”) in 3:14 and suggests two points: “these exhortations are based on what has been written” so far; and the author insists, “that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained” in light of the coming judgment.[16] This observation is vital in light of the heretical religio-philosophical school of thought under attack in 2 Peter 2:1–3:13. Thomas R. Schreiner, observes:

Peter’s argument is not pragmatic […] he did not invent the idea of a future judgment to foster ethical living now. On the contrary, the day of the Lord, consisting of both judgment and salvation, was bedrock reality for him. On the basis of this reality, believers are exhorted to godliness.[17]

This moral argument is given weight and authority throughout 3:14–18 in three ways: the inspired revealer of God’s knowledge reminds his audience of the coming judgment which is sure (3:14–15a).[18] God knows the future outcome of these false teachers and those who live immorally; therefore, “what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (3:11).

Brents’ attack is really quite simple: God is omniscient, but he only knows what can be known and what respects the free moral agency of humanity. This would necessitate that there are some things that God cannot know – which are the future actions of mortals. As an example of this, he cites Genesis 6:5–6 where the Bible says:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Brents asks why state that God “saw” the world bankrupt of morality if it was not new from God’s perspective?[19] “Why did God grieve over a result which was as plain to Him before He created man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness performed?” Again he asks, “Could there be anything unknown to him whose understanding is infinite?”[20] Brents believe there is, and here is his argument; which is somewhat analogous to the attribute of omnipotence; observe,

if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”[21]

“God is as infinite in power as He is in understanding. No one, we suppose, will deny that He is omnipotent as well as omniscient, yet there are some things He can not do; e.g., God can not lie [….]” because they are inconsistent with his other attributes and the free agency of man.[22] Therefore, Brents’s reasons,

He did not know, before making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free agency and responsibility of man. To be a responsible man must be free.”[23]

Any knowledge of future events, says Brents is equivocal to an immutable decree that cannot be averted, thus there is no freedom to “falsify” God’s foreknowledge –hence where is the freedom.[24]

In response to Brents, several things may be said. First, it is believed that too high a premium has been made upon a small sampling of Scripture that employs accommodative language, depicting God as repentant for making humanity. Brents argues that the accommodative language argument is fallacious, however, for two reasons: accommodations must embody the same thought. The other reason is that if the same thought is not employed then some form of deception is being undertaken, conveying, “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[25] Brents takes it one step further and suggests that God could have said that He knew from the beginning that man would fall and that he was not surprised by man’s spiral into immorality. The problem with this is that it does not square with the rest of the biblical evidence, a sample of which has been demonstrated above. Furthermore, as Hodge observes:

It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge (Gen 11:5; 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term.[26]

Furthermore, as will be developed later God is outside of time God does not live a linear life where life “exists of moments following one another,” C.S. Lewis observes.[27] There is a genuine anthropomorphic accommodation (i.e. “God is described in human terms”) when God reacts sadly to the fall of man, as instantaneously as humans would, demonstrating both concern and contempt for sin.[28]

Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom.

Brents is very clear that if God knows everything including the future events of humans, then that goes against free agency. He argues that if God knows a thing then it is as sure as an immutable decree. The problem Brents has with this analogy is that while the force of both foreknowledge and an immutable decree may be similar in that the future cannot be changed, the latter has participation in selecting one’s future destiny; whereas, with the former, it is simply a matter of knowing, not a matter of imposing a certain destiny. Hence the argument Brents articulate is quite problematic, for one of his major premises is crippled. Though we would not agree with everything said by Arthur Pink, he makes a good observation relative to this point:

It should, however, be pointed out that neither God’s knowledge nor His cognition of the future, considered simply in themselves, are causative. Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.[29]

In keeping with the critique of Brents, Pink’s observation likewise contributes to the credibility of the notion that knowledge is not causative. Simply because a person may know how an engine works, does not imply that this person is responsible for all engines everywhere to function. It simply means that this person knows what will occur under the present circumstances. Therefore, taking this limited illustration to a divine scale, God knows all the circumstances and what will happen under those circumstances, but does not decree that they occur in the sense of direct cause for it to occur. Humans are still left with their free agency intact.

Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Brents’s argument is the implied presupposition that God acts in a linear existence as man does. Part of this has to do with Brents’ view of the biblical statements, for example, consider the case of Abraham offering Isaac (Gen 22:12). The text says that when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, God through an angel said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld you son, your only son, from Me.” Brents responds to this passage as follows:

What can this mean? “Now I know that thou fearest God.” Did He always know it? Nay, how did He then know it? “Seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” Does not this language imply that God saw in Abraham a degree of faithfulness unseen before?[30]

Indeed, from the surface it appears to be the case, and honestly, there is a sense that God did experience something new about Abraham, for Woods writes that the phrase “Now I know” suggests the idea that God now knew “by experience.”[31] This would imply that there is a difference between God foreknowing a thing, and then actually experiencing it; which furthermore demonstrates that knowing and the action are mutually exclusive. Yet Brents asks, in light of Hebrews 11:7, where this was design to “try” Abraham, “How then could God try Abraham if He knew Abraham would past the test”? Brents then argues that in order to be a true accommodation, Abraham should have been to whom this statement was addressed: “Now you know” what kind of faithful service you can render to God, for “an accommodation of language to thought would require a change like this”[32] But as noticed above, God is outside of time.

Returning to the aspect of God living in a non-linear – outside of time – environment, C. S. Lewis provides helpful information. He writes:

How could He [God] at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples “Who touched me?” You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: “While He was a baby” – “How could He at the same time?” In other words I was assuming that Christ’s life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time […][33]

But Brents argues that since Christ had a limited foreknowledge of future events (time of his return Mark 13:32), then it means that God in heaven may have a limited foreknowledge of future events. He makes this leap of argumentation:

It is one thing to know all things, and quite another to foreknow all things –one thing to know a thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing, or when it has no existence.[34]

Then he says that the term “all” in all things may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[35] Brents moves to say that since all has this meaning, as demonstrated in his examples (all the people were baptized by John, though many rejected him; John’s audience only knew that which John was writing about; love does not believe lies though it believes all things), “then we shall continue to believe that our Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His foreknowledge to an extent compatible with the free-agency and accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised for him, until we are shown a more excellent way.”[36]

The problem here is simple. Brents assumes that Christ on earth shares the same omniscience as God in Heaven, but this is not so. Particularly is this true when Christ affirms that God knows certain future events that the Son did not; for example, the establishment of the kingdom (Acts 1:6–8). More specifically though, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among mortals, He emptied himself of certain qualities that he shared while being with the Father in Heaven. Philippians 2:5–8 reads as follows:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

All that Brents may argue from Mark 13:32 is that Jesus had limited foreknowledge, which is consistent with his departure from heaven to take upon human appearance. Furthermore, Brents’ discussion and argumentation cannot extend to God in heaven, since the Father and the Holy Spirit never divested themselves as Christ did. Consequently, Brents’ argument against the foreknowledge of God does not stand.

Conclusion

At first glance it appears that Brents offers a strong case as he moves from position to position, setting forth his claim that the classical concept of God’s foreknowledge is flawed, and that God’s knowledge is only about things that can be known, and that such things must occur in order for him to know. However, in the process of his argumentation, it appears that Brents is flawed in several particulars. Although Brents argues that unlimited foreknowledge is unbiblical, it is maintained in this paper that unlimited foreknowledge is biblical.

The basis for this assertion lies in three lines of reasoning. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is. With these things in mind, we close this discussion.

Endnotes

T. W. Brents, “Foreknowledge of God,” The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 17th ed. (1874; Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987), 75. All italics are original to the text of the sermon unless otherwise noted as “emphasis added” (i.e., emph. added).
Brents, Gospel Plan, “Predestination” (7–12), “Election and Reprobation” (13–40), “Calvinistic Proofs Examined” (41–73), “The Foreknowledge of God” (74–87), and “Hereditary Depravity” (88–116).
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74–75.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 75.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 85–87.
Charles Hartshorne, “Omniscience,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 546.
Charles Hartshorne, “Foreknowledge, Divine,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 284.
Casper W. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” ISBE 2:1128.
Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
J. Daryl Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate,” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 86.
Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter,” 247.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a,” BSac 141 (1984): 331.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: Broadman, 2003), 393; see also, Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 334, and Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 449.
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76–77.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (1952; repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960), 146.
Wayne Jackson, “Anthropomorphism,” Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 2002), 8; Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972), 17.
Arthur Pink, The Attributes of God (1930; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 56.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 147.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 83.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983.

Brents, T.W. “The Foreknowledge of God.” Pages 74–87 in The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 17th ed. 1874. Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987.

Charles, J. Daryl. “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate.” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 85–93.

Hartshorne, Charles. “Foreknowledge, Divine.” Page 284 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

_____. “Omniscience.” Pages 546–47 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a.” BSac 141 (1984): 330–40.

Hodge, Caspar Wistar. “Foreknow, Foreknowledge.” Pages 1128–31 in vol. 2 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Jackson, Wayne. Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy. Stockton, CA: Courier, 2002.

Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986.

Lanier, Sr., Roy H. The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries. Denver, CO: Lanier Publishing, 1974.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Revised edition. 1952. Repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37C. Edited by William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. 1930. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003.

Woods, Clyde M. Genesis-Exodus. People’s Old Testament Notes. Vol. 1. Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972.

Book Review: Leadership Questions Confronting the Church

On April 30, 2022April 6, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Book Reviews, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Deacons, Elders, Preacher, Word Studies

Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985), paperback, 111 pages.

Dr. Jack Pearl Lewis (1919–2018) was educated at Abilene Christian University and Sam Houston State Teacher’s College, receiving a PhD. from both Harvard University and Hebrew Union College. Lewis was associated with the Harding Graduate School of Religion (now Harding School of Theology) since it opened in 1958.[1] Lewis’s biblical scholarship, his influence as a teacher, his involvement as a translator of the NIV, his estimation in the academic community, and his love for the Lord’s church earned him a great deal of respect. He has laid much ground for those seeking an understanding of the biblical text and its historical context.

When I was a residential student attending Freed-Hardeman University (Henderson, TN), Lewis’s lectures were always a “must attend” session during the Annual Bible Lectureships. Thanks to my Greek professor, I had a chance to talk with him. When I asked him what an undergraduate Bible major should focus on when preaching and teaching Dr. Lewis said in his understated voice: “be prepared.” Clearly, it was advice he lived by as Dr. Lewis “prepared” himself for the task of providing guidance in the study of God’s word. As a result, he became a scholar’s scholar.

In 1985, Lewis released an anthology of articles from a variety of Christian periodicals and lectureships on critical leadership topics. These articles were collected into a single volume of fifteen chapters, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church.[2] Chapters 4 and 7 are the exceptions, having been serialized word studies now combined here. Each chapter can stand alone as a profitable study on leadership questions, but as a collection, it provides a helpful series of studies.

In the “Foreword,” Dr. Lewis states the reason for the collection: “The reception they received, both from those who criticized and those who applauded, suggested that they would be of use to a wider audience.”[3] The goal of this collection rests in his prayer, “May the Lord help us to find out and to practice his will in matters of leadership as well as in all other matters.”[4]

Well-Researched

The best feature of this compact volume is the wealth of research, analytical thinking, and practical wisdom crystallized on every page. In 111 pages, Dr. Lewis tackles a variety of thorny issues regarding the eldership, the eldership authority-influence debate, leadership without elders, preachers, and their function and authority, and responds to misunderstandings regarding authority (who has it, what kind is it, etc) in a style that is often described as an “economy of words.”

Dr. Lewis places the biblical evidence on display, summarizes the evidence in a few words, and calls attention to complications that often fall upon the church in applying the thrust of a word or passage. There are many instances where Dr. Lewis reveals his heart for the Lord’s church as a church “statesman” (Dr. Lewis would probably prefer Bible student). All these observations seem to be best demonstrated with the following quotation:

Words create the patterns in which men think. Before we divide the church over the implications of a word that does not occur in the Bible in the context with which we are differing from each other, would it not be rational to give thought to the possibility of the need for a more Biblical pattern in which to express ourselves? If we use Biblical terms we might not find ourselves so far apart after all.[5]
Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (1985)

Dr. Lewis is sensitive to pointing out a perceived or traditional view of leadership that is influenced by denominational tendencies, early Restoration Movement misconceptions, or a lack of preparation to study the Scriptures. He calls on the teaching leaders in the Lord’s church to adequately prepared themselves to understand their function and purpose by properly studying and applying Scripture. Only then will they have a foundation for their ministry.

Valuable Word Studies

A second aspect that makes the volume very useful is the word studies on the elders (ch. 4) and on the preacher (ch. 7).[6] The majority of the chapters are brief; however, the section on word studies stand as the bulk of the book. It demonstrates Lewis’s painstaking scholarship and his confidence in the Bible as the source for Biblical research.

While these approaches have their place and invite a wide appeal, Dr. Lewis approaches such topics by delving into the language of the Scriptures reflecting the very principles he calls others to apply:

“You must apply the seat of your pants to a chair for long periods of time.”[7]

In the course of these word studies, Dr. Lewis explores the various terms in all of their cognate and morphological considerations in order to explore their contextual use.

Where some may spurn such a study, Dr. Lewis explores the stewardship necessary to understand what God has said regarding leadership roles in the church. For this very reason, Dr. Lewis encourages his readers,

“As a preacher you need time in your schedule, not directly related to sermon preparation, when you are not available for the telephone […] a time in which you will sharpen up your Greek and Hebrew.”[8]

Why? Lewis explains the responsibility,

“Have you ever thought of the presumption there is in passing yourself off as an interpreter of a book you cannot read?”[9]

His words are a wake-up call to every leader who desires to understand God’s Word and to lead God’s people in the follow-through of obedience.

Slight Limitations and Suggestions

In general, it may be said that Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is quite valuable and provides guidance in particular areas; however, Dr. Lewis only indirectly addresses questions confronting the church with regard to the role of women and the topic of deacons. Dr. Lewis touches on certain elements of the role of women in chapters 1 and 2 but does not address the broader issues. It should be said that Dr. Lewis addresses the positive case of Scripture — what does the Scripture say? — and then proceeds to call upon church leaders to uphold what the Scripture teaches.[10] In both cases, Dr. Lewis concedes his focus is not to exhaustively treat the question of women’s roles in the church.[11]

Regarding the leadership question of deacons, Dr. Lewis pays little direct attention aside from allusions to certain similarities of qualifications with elders or in those distinctive qualifications that separate the two ministries.[12]

In the second place, there are a few modest suggestions that would improve the usefulness of Dr. Lewis’s anthology as a leadership resource. Should a revised or updated edition be considered, an index of Scriptural, Rabbinic, and Ancient Literature references, an original language word listing index, and a topical index would be a welcomed feature of the book. The content is very rich and quickly invites many personal notations and highlights, these suggested indexes would be very welcomed to make this book more useable.

Another suggestion that would require an updated edition is to re-release in two formats, in print and electronically (Mobi, Kindle, Logos, Adobe, etc). This suggestion would bring a very helpful book into the hands of the “e-reader” generation, and such an update would allow perhaps an appendix to include other available material such as his “A Challenge to New Elders.”[13]

Recommendation: High

For its size and for the fact that Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is nearing its 40th anniversary, Dr. Lewis has produced a primer of enduring value for those searching for answers to broad and thorny issues regarding the ministry of elders and preachers. Few books can boast that kind of longevity. The scholarship, the wisdom, the clear thinking, and the leadership to call out observed inconsistencies in brotherhood applications make this small volume a must-read for preachers in training and the veteran, for newly called elders, and elders who have been in the work for some time.

Christian leaders need to sharpen their deliberative skill set, as Dr. Lewis writes, “The most valuable thing about a man is his power of judgment.” The work is well written and there is much to chew on, and aside from the larger specialized word study chapters (4 and 7), this series of articles would benefit every concerned leader and Christian looking for guidance on these leadership topics. Leadership Questions Confronting the Church is more than a mere series of articles, it is a reminder of the importance that church leadership must constantly be undergirded by biblical authority and proper study of the Scriptures.

Endnotes

Jack P. Lewis, Basic Beliefs (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2013), 7.
Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985).
Lewis, Leadership Questions, “Foreword.”
Ibid.
Lewis, Leadership Questions, 11–12.
Lewis, Leadership Questions, 13–35, 49–70.
Lewis, Leadership Questions, 104.
Lewis, Leadership Questions, 106.
Ibid.
In one instance he writes, “It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the minutia of what women can and cannot scripturally do. It is to call attention to specious reasoning that is being engaged in on a concept that is not in the Greek text at all” (Lewis, Leadership Questions, 8)
Lewis, Leadership Question, 6, 8. Elsewhere Lewis addresses the matter of Phoebe in “Servants or Deaconesses? Romans 16:1” in Exegesis of Difficult Biblical Passages (1988; repr., Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, no date), 105–09.
At the time of publication, Dr. Lewis had not addressed New Testament materials regarding deacons of the church. See Annie May Lewis, “Bibliography of the Scholarly Writings of Jack P. Lewis, ” Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice – Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis (ed. F. Furman Kearley et al.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1986), 329-36. An online search on the Restoration Serial Index results in no articles by Lewis on deacons.
Jack P. Lewis, “A Challenge to New Elders,” Gospel Advocate 143.5 (May 2001): 34-35. Another suggestion would be to include, “Elders’ Wives,” Gospel Advocate 136.12 (Dec 1994): 35.
Lewis, Leadership Questions, 37

The Public Reading of Scripture: Six Practical Suggestions

On April 18, 2017February 13, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Church Practices, Gospel Advocate, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Practical, Publications, Published, worship

***Reprinted with permission from the March 2017 issue of* Gospel Advocate *Magazine.***

A vital element to the worship assembly of the body of Christ in the first century was the reading aloud of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:13; Acts 13:15). Today, it is probably hard to imagine a time when God’s word was accessible only when assembled with God’s people; it was a communal experience. The proliferation of Bibles today has truly made reading Scripture an individualized practice; yet, this has not always been so. In fact, the meaning of “church” (ekklesia; “an assembly”) presumes a people gathered to hear, to commit to, and to act upon the Word of God (Matthew 16:18; Deuteronomy 4:10-11; 31:9-13). Thus, hearing God’s Word is part of who we are as “the church” (Acts 11:26; 14:27).

The church needs to elevate the importance of the Scripture reading assignment in our assembly (Act 13:15; 2 Corinthians 3:14). There is a tendency to be too casual about this assignment. Perhaps it is because we take literacy for granted, though the capacity to read words is not the same as understanding the words being read. In this connection, we may then take for granted that anyone can read the Scripture aloud to the church. In some societies, reading is still regarded as a technical skill, much as it was in Bible times.

If reading the Scriptures will make a child of God “complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 ESV) when read for private devotion, then the same God-breathed writings read aloud will provide the same effect for the congregation. In the Scripture reading, God is speaking to His people. For this reason, the public reading of Scripture is a crucial element of the worship assembly and should not be taken casually or lightly.

A Note on the Context

In fact, Paul anchored to this very core principle when he wrote to Timothy to provide a strategy for the faithful to protect themselves from a departure from the faith, which will consist of Christians “devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). The antidote against “irreverent, silly myths” (4:6-7) and any possible competitors to divine revelation is the healthy teaching from God (4:13). Public reading of Scripture inoculates against false teaching and invites faithful discipleship and commitment to God (Exodus 23:22; 24:7). It syncs us up with God.

Paul makes similar requests in other letters to the churches of the first century. When detailing the unveiling of the mystery of Christ, Paul anticipates and expects the church to share his understanding (Ephesians 3:4-6). After he writes on the supreme role of Christ in redemptive history, he expected the Colossian congregation to letter swap with Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). And, to the Thessalonians, he was quite strong when he placed “an oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27), for through the reading aloud of his letters they would be taught (2 Thessalonians 2:14-15). And in the final revelation of Jesus, the apocalyptic portrayal of divine victory through the gospel is framed as one that must be read aloud and safeguarded against addition and omission (Revelation 1:3; 22:16-19).

Reading Scripture aloud can bring the church into sync with God’s word. The more exposure, the better our biblical literacy; then, ideally, the healthier our churches will become. Let us switch gears, now, to provide practical suggestions for this powerful act of reading Scriptures aloud in our worship assembly.

Six Suggestions for Reading Scripture Aloud

There must be a spiritual gravitas connected to reading Scripture before the assembly. I had a mentor, Don W. Hinds, that would stop me when I misread a passage aloud. He would use the adage, “take heed how you read,” to instill in me the importance of properly reading the biblical text aloud. I would like to use this as a refrain as we consider some practical guideposts for reading the Scriptures aloud when the church is assembled for worship — although these suggestions can be applied in various settings of church life.

Furthermore, in many congregations, those who manage or arrange the various elements of the worship assembly (deacons, elders, etc) should seriously consider the points below as they select public readers of Scripture. We are worshipping God and engaging in spiritual and divine matters, we are not merely filling a roster. God’s word must be the centerpiece of our worship.

First, the reading should be met with a respect for proper pronunciation and performance. This is the “oral” spiritual heritage of God’s people, to hear and understand God’s word (Nehemiah 8:1-8). Not only should one practice to read clearly and distinctly, but some types of Scripture (genre) require an element of performance (cf. Psalms). For example, we should not read a psalm of lament (Psalms 51) as if it were a genealogy. Take heed how you read.

Second, we should consider the verbal skill set of those who will read before the assembly. The goal is to instill an understanding of God and to invite the church to obedience. There is no verse that prohibits individuals with speech problems from publicly reading Scripture. We should both be sensitive and inclusive. Fortunately, audio technology facilitates what requires loud speaking in other settings. Still, as long as the public reading reaches its goal then it has accomplished its purpose. Take heed who will read.

Third, the reading selection should be long enough to understand the message. This is especially true when the selection is independent from the sermon. Some congregations may design their readings to go through a book (Psalms) or a large section of Scripture (Major Prophets). Other times, they are connected to the sermon. The readings must be of sufficient length to provide context and understanding and should have a natural and intended connection to the worship service. All things being equal, we may ask, “why read from the Song of Solomon when the sermon is on the ‘second death’ of Revelation?” Take heed what you read.

Fourth, the readings must be the Scriptures free from alteration. From time to time some like to add a few impromptu thoughts in connection with the reading of the Scripture. The points may be very excellent, but they run the risk to be of another variety. It is important to keep to the task at hand, which is to read the assigned portion of Scripture. There are many reasons for this. The most significant reason is to elevate the word of God over the words of men. As Revelation 22:18-19 warns, the text must be read without omission and addition. Take heed that you read.

Fifth, the reading of Scripture must be purposeful. There should be communication before hand to prepare those who will read aloud in worship. Sometimes we can displace others when we lean upon “good readers” in a pinch. With a purposeful schedule, we can give enough notice so that our readers can prepare, become familiar with the text, and develop a comfort level. Preparation and practice are the best helps to reduce “stage fright.” Take heed before you read.

Sixth, the reader should not cause a distraction by what they wear. It is true that God seeks and looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7; Matthew 15:8), but one should dress for the spiritual occasion (Matthew 22:11-14). While attire may sometimes be a distraction, it is more important that the reader’s lifestyle should not be a distraction. If those who pray in assembly should have “holy hands” (1 Timothy 2:8), what of those who read Scripture. Paul told Timothy that he should be an example; this would make an additional influence when he would read aloud the Scriptures to the church (1 Timothy 4:12). Take heed by whom you read.

Concluding Thoughts

The public reading of Scripture was an essential component of the first-century worship assembly. If in today’s time, the church seeks to be in conformity with the early worship practices of the New Testament church, then it will seek to incorporate this practice and develop those who will read. Moreover, the church will grow when she integrates the three-fold instruction given to Timothy: the public reading of Scripture, the exhortation, and the teaching (1 Timothy 4:13). In a day and time when so many church groups are seeking new and innovative methods to “enhance” worship, the age-tested and inspired method to read aloud God’s word must be in the forefront of our worship assemblies. Blessings to the reader, and blessings to the hearer.

Jovan Payes preaches for the Highland Church of Christ in Bakersfield, Calif.

**To subscribe to Gospel Advocate, click here.**

Why Balance Still Resonates Today

On March 11, 2009April 6, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Balance, Book Reviews, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Gospel Advocate, Ira North, Leadership, Leadership Ethics1 Comment

Ira North, Balance: A Tried and Tested Formula for Church Growth (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1983), paperback, 156 pages.

In the academic Spring of 2004, I was enrolled in Freed-Hardeman University’s Masters in New Testament program. I took a course entitled, “The Education Program of the Church.” One of my favorite experiences was reading the book, Balance: A Tried and Tested Formula for Church Growth, written by Ira North (1922-1984).

Judging from North’s accomplishments, it is reasonable to assume why his last contribution to congregational development was selected as mandatory reading for the class. After all, North came from a strong Restoration Heritage pedigree of church leaders, was an accomplished student (Ph.D. Louisina State University), a “known” preacher throughout the Nation, editor of the Gospel Advocate (1977-1982), and educator in Speech and Bible at David Lipscomb University for 18 years.[1]

Aside from the bright red sport-jacket that has become iconic Ira North, it is his relationship with the Madison church of Christ (Madison, TN) which has memorialized him among church leaders. From 1952 until his death in 1984, North worked with the Madison congregation and the effect of his collaboration was the development of the largest church of Christ in the world in 1984 (from about 400 to well over 4,000 members).[2]

Despite the fact that in 1959 North authored, You Can March for the Master, his most celebrated work is Balance; some might say, it is his ninth symphony. Surely, then, the experiences (the good, bad, and ugly) North pulls from, and articulates in meaningful aphorisms is worth the time and energy it takes to read through the book’s 156 pages.

10 Main Points to Explore

In order to have a strong congregation, North places a high premium on common sense. It is the most general of all the points in the book, but common sense is particularly emphasized in the maintenance of the balance of organization, never overly emphasizing one program to the exclusion of all the others. Ideally, when the teaching program is strong, the congregation is mission minded, and is diligent to provide benevolence, church machinery will be in a balance homeostasis. The church symmetrically pushes forward in each biblical emphasis.

Proper usage of time is vital to the well-being of a congregation in two ways: building use and worship time. North asserts that the church building usage should reflect the business would model – everyday and with regular hours. After all, North argues, the building was designed to be an avenue to serve Christ. More functional and meaninful use of the building is good stewardship of facilities, time, and money. Time management likewise applies to the worship period. “Dead air” should not exist, but instead the worship service ought to be well organized, streamlined, and spiritual. Whenever a congregation keeps its worship and Bible class time within the specified time mentioned in the bulletin or other public notices, then it is obvious that the church is focused upon being an asset to the spiritual development of its members and visitors, without being taxing on the individual time needs of each family. In six words: worship can be timely and spiritual.

Designing a broad program for the work of the church is vital to secure a well-rounded, inclusive labor “in the vineyard.” An approach to implementing scriptural programs should not isolate a few members to do the work of the church. The local work was never designed to run on the backs of a few people (Acts 6.1-4). Thus from the beginning of design, the Bible school curriculum, benevolent programs, and other endeavors for the church, a key component should be that any member of the congregation may participate and contribute their abilities to the cause of Christ (i.e., the vineyard). In other words, make it church policy that the work of the church be inclusive so that all may “enlist.”

The delegation of responsibility to qualified members of the congregation stimulates congregational mobilization. In other words, use “in house” abilities, or to use another slogan, “keep it in the family.” When brethren in a local congregation have responsibility in their hands for specific “church-related” tasks, it alleviates the entire burden from being on a small group of people. More work can be accomplish. Add to this the use of members qualified through their own particular skill sets (accounting, management, baking, encouragement, etc.), then two things are accomlished; The maximization of quality work and specialized work. Because members are in place to accomplish tasks they are familiar with, then personal ownership of the work of the church materializes and the need to serve the Lord is satiated. A true benefit to the congregation is to have members serving in ways they already have the “know how” for Christ.

Another staple for church growth, according to North, is to remain creative and willing to try new ways to help the congregation look for creative and Scriptural ways to fulfill biblical commands. For example, the building can be used as the hub of so many programs as the church develops benevolent programs and evangelistic outreach programs which puts the church in a positive light in the community. A congregation that is busy can generate interest and appreciation from the community, which may encourages people to consider the Gospel. North’s point is not to engender a “stay busy for busy sake” disposition, but instead to break the stagnant complacency found in many congregations. Sometimes a program sounds good on paper, but not in practice. However, whether the programs “work” or not, the church should try numerous biblical ways to serve Christ in the community.

Maintain a positive and optimistic attitude, because it raises a congregation’s atmosphere to higher spiritual altitudes. Since Christianity is a positive religion, it follows that those who subscribe to its teaching out to be so infused with its goodness that it flows over into the atmosphere of a congregation. Joy, peace, thankfulness, and love are not the hidden fruits of the Spirit, instead they are those things which have become manifest, so these are emotions and blessings that we should expose to the world. It is true that Christains are people, and consequently it is not always the easiest thing to be “happy go lucky.” North feels it is better to be proactive in encouraging and fostering a congregational atmosphere to is positive and loving. This reinforces the attractiveness of the Christian religion, as set forth in the Scriptures (1 Pet. 4.10; Rom. 13.8-14), as being a vibrant and good force in the world.

It is absolutely necessary that the work of the church is inclusive(i.e., social, economical, and age demographic). An extension of designing the congregations programs for all groups in the church, North emphasizes that attention needs to be paid to each individual person in the church. This will make them feel as if they are a part of something and not left out. Members of the Madison congregation would shake hands with each other and with their visitors before each service. North affirms that a strong church needs to implement ways for personal contact and interaction that develops the feeling of mutual dependency among its members.

Evangelistically, North advocates that in order to grow, a congregation ought to search for the one. Whether it is VBS, a “Gospel Meeting,” or a regular service the evangelistic emphasis ought to be on the one, i.e., the individual person. This is echoes the Scriptural teachings of Jesus in the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son (Luke 15.1-32). One more person stimulates constant growth and encourages others to be evangelistic. To be successful, evangelism does not have to be by “the thousands and ten thousands”; it can be a simple and steady stream. There is no reason a whole congregation cannot do this. In order for a congregation to thrive it must continue to search for the one.

At all cost a congregation ought to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3; emphasis added). Unity is one of the bedrocks of the Christian religion and must be established in order for true benefit to occur for the church. This affects the atmosphere and purposeful drive of the church in the work of the Lord. Attitudes needs to be set aside, personal ambition ought to be cast away, differences must be “handled with care,” and the goals of Christ must be realized. Members must truly work together and respect the various roles they play in the congregation.

North advocates that in order to grow, a congregation ought to go all out. This seems to be an extension of the broad church program, the focus upon the individual, and keeping the unity of the church together. All ages ought to be considered for care. If any group in the church needs special attention, all must be done to secure a spiritually invigorating program to help those needs. The widows and the orphans are not the only ones who are “afflicted.” The church can help in those areas where God has desire for there to be help.

Concluding Thoughts

This brief reflection cannot emphasize sufficiently the various beneficial observations North has provided in Balance. North’s “common sense” advice is balanced, focused, and all encompassing; moreover, this common sense served him well while he ministered to the congregation in Madison, Tennessee for 32 years. It is desired that these reflections portray the power of the book in some fashion. All ten points have been thoroughly infused into each chapter and underline the point that there are many factors involved in church growth; it is not simply “a” single factor which is the key.

It is not our conviction that should these principles be employed in the life of a congregation that the church will grow by the thousands, but we believe it is better to say that a congregation that incorporates these principles will breed the right atmosphere for great things to be accomplished for the cause of Christ.

References

Gospel Advocate 126 (1984), 124.
Robert E. Hooper, “North, Ira Lutts (1922-1984),” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, eds. Douglas A. Foster, et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 569-70.