The Pastor And David’s Greatest Sin

Mike Leake

chart-close-up-data-590022What was David’s greatest sin?

Certainly his most notorious sin is his adultery with Bathsheba and his murdering of her husband, Uriah. But there is actually another sin which cost 70,000 lives. It’s a sin which appears quite strange and insignificant to us. Ready for it? Perhaps his great sin is that David took a census.

In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 we read of David’s census. The number includes “those who drew the sword” and so it seems that what David was doing was trying to determine how big his army actually was. Now, that might seem like a good military strategy. Jesus even spoke of kings counting the cost before going to war. So what was so bad about David doing this? I appreciate the way Russell Moore explains it:

The shepherd-king jeopardized his kingship by ordering a census, a count of all Israel’s men and armaments. This hardly sounds all that treacherous to us, especially those of us who live in countries that regularly conduct a census. But David was seeking out the numbers of a potential standing army. And this, in the words of one commentator, was to be “a kind of barometer of the Lord’s favor.” But David shouldn’t have needed a barometer. He had the Word of God. This test exposes a hidden flaw in David’s heart, a craving for verifiable security apart from a faithful trust in God. (Tempted and Tried, 106-7)

David’s census was symbolic of his “trusting in chariots and horses” instead of his trusting in the Lord. He was attempting to find security in his numbers instead of in the God who ruled over him. David realized that he was foolish and repented, but there were still consequences to his actions. David’s adultery slayed “his thousands” but his pride slayed his “tens of thousands”.

Recently I was reading through Jared Wilson’s book, The Pastor’s Justification, and he quoted that statement from Moore. We pastors are, I believe, especially prone to getting security from “census reports”. This is especially true when thinking about a church revitalization effort. We use the number of those “on board” as a barometer of whether or not our efforts are worthwhile and if change is happening.

While there might be some benefit from a census within your local church, such a thing is like building a house on sand. We are called to shepherd the flock of God among us. The entire flock of God. They don’t belong to us. Our job is to faithfully shepherd and be faithful stewards of the gospel. We aren’t to be poll takers. And we certainly aren’t to determine our ministry based upon poll numbers.

—

Photo source: here

A Suggestion For Accountability Groups

Mike Leake 2 Comments

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. –Erasmus (sort of)

If I were making a Proverb for accountability groups involving young men, I would say something like this: “In the land of sex-crazed perverts, the guy with a bit of self-restraint is king”. I’ve been part of several of these accountability groups and inevitably the discussion will turn to how we did in the lust category that week. That’s not surprising, that’s one particular area where young men might be prone to struggle. I thank God for those accountability groups. But I also think they’re a tad off balance.

Consider this from John Owen:

One lust, or a lust in one man, may receive many accidental improvements, heightenings, and strengthenings, which may give it life, power, and vigour, exceedingly above what another lust has, or the same lust (that is, of the same kind and nature) in another man….And on this account some men may go in their own thoughts and in the eyes of the world for mortified men, who yet have in them no less predominancy of lust than those who cry out with astonishment upon the account of its perplexing tumultuatings, yea, than those who have by the power of it been hurried into scandalous sins; only their lusts are in and about things which raise not such a tumult in the soul, about which they are exercised with a calmer frame of spirit, the very fabric of nature being not so nearly concerned in them as in some other. (The Mortification of Sin, 37)

Let me translate that for you…

One guy who looked at porn twice last week might actually be engaged in conquering sin, whereas a guy who didn’t look at a single abominable thing might be actually losing in his battle against sin. There are some sins which we don’t tend to talk about in our accountability groups. Seldom do we have a discussion about being overcome by a sinful focus on the negative of things. We typically don’t have questions about being overcome by cynicism or not severing the root of bitterness. Instead we focus on mortifying scandalous sins.

Every sin aims to destroy you and dethrone God. This is true of cynicism as much as of sexuality. But our accountability groups are focused on the latter whilst neglecting the former. This allows the guy who may not particularly struggle with sexual sin to be seen as the most spiritual guy in the whole group. That’s not going to help his pride. And it allows the guy who is truly engaged in mortifying sin, and yet has stumbled, to be overcome with despair.

What I’m attempting to say is there needs to be a bit more personality in our accountability groups and the questions we ask. There needs to be a structure where we can celebrate the guy who only looked at porn twice (because usually he falls multiple times a day). And yet also where we confront not only the two failures but also the heart which is still apparently desiring this particular sin. And we also need to come up with questions and structures which will challenge the guy who doesn’t struggle with porn but who is incredibly entangled in pride.

This isn’t meant to be used as an encouragement for the guy struggling with porn that his sin isn’t a big deal. It’s not meant to clothe him in fig-leaves of made-up righteousness. He needs to be encouraged by the growth that Christ is accomplishing in his life, and also driven to the throne of grace for real legit blood-bought covering for the areas where he still hasn’t quite lived up to the glory of God.

Likewise, this is meant to help the guy with a bit of restraint in sexuality to see that he isn’t king of the land just because of this. He might be further along in his growth in grace. But perhaps he actually has far more insidious sin lurking deep in his heart. Better accountability groups which are tailored to the individuals walk with Christ will be helpful in exposing these particular areas. 

What are your thoughts?

—

Photo source: here

Read This! 07.24.18

Mike Leake

Want to Share the Gospel Effectively? Always Ask About the Tattoo

I’ve actually done this with some success.

A Sober Warning from the Earliest of Christians

I really appreciate the way Tim draws out some of our similarities with the early Christians in Rome.

Jesus More Than Likes You

I needed to hear this today.

Letter to an Aspiring Theologian

Kevin Vanhoozer talks about the task of being a theologian.

Why Keep Humor Subtle

This is a helpful way of thinking about this.

Why It’s So Hard to Stop Reading Books You Don’t Even Like

It is tough. But I’ve gotten much better about this over the years.

The Essence of Pastoral Ministry

This is so true, and also why this particular season is so difficult for me.

How to Uproot Bitterness as a Pastor’s Wife

I’m assuming that Mary Mohler has had plenty of opportunities for this in her long career as the first lady of SBTS.

Don Whitney explains a few misconceptions about spiritual disciplines:

Do Children Need to Take Care of Their Parents? OR Another Reason Context Is Important

Mike Leake 1 Comment

black-and-white-curtain-indoors-927690

For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. –2 Corinthians 12:14

Before you put that verse on a coffee mug and send it to your parents to explain why you aren’t getting them a Christmas present, perhaps consider the context of 2 Corinthians 12 first.

The Context

We will not understand this verse without understanding a little about the patron/client relationships in the Roman world. When a traveling salesman, speaker, or explorer came to a new land he would find a wealthy and influential person to support his venture. It was a great honor to be considered a patron. And it was beneficial to be the client of a well-respected patron. In a world which relied so heavily on hospitality such a thing was vital.

But there were also strings attached to this relationship. It’s not completely analogous, but we see something similar in our politician/donor relationships. If someone gives a substantial donation to a politician then he/she expects to have some say on policy and the way the politician will govern. The same was true in the ancient world. The patron had a bit of influence on the client he was supporting.

When Paul came into Corinth he completely rejected this model. He refused to take their money. This was relatively insulting. Hence, we read in 2 Corinthians 12:13 that the Corinthians felt disrespected by Paul. They wondered why Paul would receive support from the churches in Macedonia and yet refuse support from them.

In 2 Corinthians 12:11-21 Paul is sharing why he continues to refuse to “be a burden” to them. The crux of his argument is that his relationship to the Corinthians is that of a father and his children. It is the duty of a father to provide for his children, not the other way around.

The Meaning:

Paul’s meaning here is not to be considered a universal principle but an illustration. The key phrase here is “children”. Paul’s meaning we can derive from the context. He does not mean adult children and their relationship with their aging parents. He means small children who are under the care and guidance of their parents. As an example, I do not expect my small children to pay our mortgage. Instead, I know it is my duty as a parent to provide nurturing for them and to work towards their maturity.

This doesn’t really move the potential offense, though. Paul is basically calling the Corinthians children. Yet, that should not surprise us. He said this much in 1 Corinthians. They are still exhibiting immaturity. If they want to show that they have matured, then Paul has given them a perfect avenue to do so; namely, the Jerusalem mission. But Paul rejects their patronage because it would not be for their benefit. That would put them in the role of father and Paul in the role of child. This would harm their understanding of the gospel, and so even though potentially being misunderstood Paul continues down the path of love.

Conclusion:

This is why context is vital when reading Scripture. If you ripped this verse out of context, you’d end up actually encouraging disobedience of a verse where the intention is to lay down a principle about care for family:

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8

If possible, widows should be provided for by their immediate family members. That is the principle Paul is laying down. In fact, the principle in Scripture is that children are required to help their parents as they age. The roles reverse.

Always look at the surrounding context and find the meaning of a verse based on the author’s original intention. It is clear from the context that Paul is not teaching something which would contradict 1 Timothy 5. Yes, parents should provide for their children when they are pursuing their maturity and growth. It’s the loving thing to do. But there comes a time when these roles reverse and children should care for their parents.

—

Photo source: here