Is the Flesh Crucified or Not?

Mike Leake 1 Comment

And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. –Galatians 5:2

If that verse is true, then why do I still struggle with sin? If the flesh has been crucified why does it seem to be alive and kicking? Why is there still a battle against the flesh?

I’ve had more than a few people ask me those questions. They are legit questions because it seems that at times the Scriptures speak of the flesh being dead, crucified, gone, done away with, etc. but then at other times we are called to put to death the deeds of the body, to crucify the flesh, to not sow to the flesh, etc. So which is it? Is the flesh dead in the life of the believer or not?

There is an illustration that I like to use that helps answer this question—at least somewhat. And I believe the way the NIV handles Romans 8:9 really brings this out. There we read, “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh, but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you…” Part of what it means that the flesh has been crucified is that we are now citizens of a new kingdom. Sinclair Ferguson says it this way:

Being in the Spirit and no longer in the flesh therefore represents a larger and more significant reality than that we merely experience competing desires, good and bad. The reality is that (the world of) the flesh once dragged me down to sin and death in Adam; but now I live (in the world of) the Spirit and have been lifted up into righteousness and life. I used to be a citizen of the first. I have become a citizen of the second. Paul summarizes this later when he says that Christians are no longer in the flesh, but are now in the Spirit. (Devoted to God, 99)

I was once single. That meant certain things. There were things I could and could not do, in holiness, as a single man. When I got married everything changed. I was transferred from that world into the other. My wife would not be pleased if I pretended like I was still single and lived by those particular rules. In other words, I’m no longer a single man but I suppose I could act that way (to my peril).

Sin and the flesh are the same way. I think Ferguson is correct when he points out that the text doesn’t say, “the flesh is no longer in you”. When the biblical writers talk about the flesh being crucified they mean that it’s power and it’s stranglehold on us has been broken. We are no longer defined as those who are “of the flesh”. Instead we are of the Spirit. Now in the same way that married couples have to learn what it means to “become one” and to no longer live and think as a single person, so also those who are now “in the Spirit” have to learn how to live that way and not as one who is “in the flesh”.

This explain why believers still struggle with sin—the flesh is dead in the sense that we are no longer citizens of its kingdom but its not dead in the sense that it can no longer war against us. Again I turn to Ferguson:

My flesh wants to glory in the flesh. But this is the one thing that God will never permit. So what does the flesh do? Tragically it protects itself because it fears that because God destroys the glory of the flesh, he will also destroy us. It cannot grasp that this same divine glory is committed to doing us good. It cannot see that self-protection against God’s glory leads only to our own ultimate loss. (Devoted to God, 100)

This is why Paul can say one one hand, “we are dead to the flesh” and on the other hand say, “We must crucify the flesh”. If that first statement wasn’t true we’d have no power to engage in the battle of that second statement. Likewise, if there isn’t the battle of that second statement we ought to call into question the veracity of the first statement.

It’s as simple as saying “you’re married now act like it”. Yes, there are other single people out there and those who would call into question your desire to stay united to one person. But you’ve died to that world. Now live daily as a married man and crucify any desires or voices that would try to tell you something different. Pursue growing in your new community.

—
Photo source: here

When Your Congregation Falls Asleep

Mike Leake 1 Comment

It’s almost inevitable.

Sit a sour couple in a room and read through Ephesians 5:21-33. Go over the God-given roles for men and women. And almost every time what will result is that the husband will put his focus on the first couple verses (the wife’s role) and the wife will put her focus on the husband’s role.

Our sinful hearts are always inclined to lay blame in the lap of another person.

—

I’ve been reading through Bruce Wilkinson’s 7 Laws of the Learner. I’m not terribly familiar with Wilkinson except to know that I don’t agree with his Prayer of Jabez. But I’ve heard this was a decent book on teaching and I got it for a couple bucks at a used book sale, so I thought I’d give it a go.

Wilkinson’s first maxim is that “teachers are responsible to cause students to learn”.

My first instinct was to reject this as man-centered hogwash. We can’t cause students to learn—that is something the Spirit of God does. I tripped over the word “cause” and the word “responsible”. It’s been a long held belief for me that you cannot make a student learn. You teach the material and it is up to him/her to pick it up.

But as I got to reading a bit more and thinking through this I think Wilkinson might be on to something. For one, I noticed that he is isn’t saying teachers are solely responsible to cause students to learn. If a student refuses to learn there is nothing you can do to make him. Yet, I believe there is some truth in what Wilkinson is saying that we need to heed.

Can I let you in on a little secret? We pastors can sometimes be terrible grumblers and complainers. We’ll bemoan the fact that we just preached our hearts out last Sunday and the people responded with the vigor of a block of wood. Seldom have I heard preachers blame this experience on the fact that they preached a really sloppy and scattered sermon. For us preachers we perish the thought that our people fell asleep because we were boring. We usually lay the blame at the feet of the congregant.

It’s so easy to hide behind right-sounding theology. I’ve heard myself say before, “I just preach God’s Word as faithfully as I can, if they respond well that’s up to them and the Lord”. I suppose I still agree with that theologically but I wonder if it really reflects the heart of a shepherd. Paul sure didn’t seem to talk this way in his letters to the churches. A faithful shepherd doesn’t just throw a bucket of sheep slop out in the pasture and hope they eat it. No, he takes a bit more responsibility even going so far as to bottle feed little lambs if it is necessary.

I’m not trying to encourage us pastors to have even worse Monday’s. We do need to take comfort in the fact that God uses His Word and is faithful to feed his sheep even when we under-shepherds didn’t do our best on Sunday morning. Nor should we get big heads when learning does take place. But what I am saying is that we should work and labor as if we are responsible for our sheep being fed.

When reading Ephesians 5 the husband should focus on his role and his task and not whether or not his wife is doing her part. The same goes for the preacher. He should be focused on his responsibility to faithfully exposit and make the word of God clear. When learning doesn’t happen he should be very slow to blame the sheep and quick to consider how he might have been able to communicate better.

—

Photo source: here

Read This! 03.30.17

Mike Leake 1 Comment

Are Homeschool Families More Likely to Experience Divorce?

Interesting study results.

Confessing the Sin of Platforming

This is good and a very real struggle.

Why We Need ‘Useless’ People

So sad. Appreciate any efforts to advocate for those with Down syndrome.

10 Mistakes Churches Make with Special Needs Families

Every church needs to think through this. I need to put a team to think through how to better serve those with special needs.

To the Unknown Pastor

As one of those pastors I found this very encouraging.

On Emotionalism and the Gospel

Emotionalism is so dangerous to a real experience of the gospel.

Why Christians Should Read History

Amen!

Why I Think People Still Like the Shack

I love what Nate did here.

6 Lessons Learned Ministering in a Blue-Collar Community

There are differences to ministry in a blue-collar setting.

Church hunters…it’s sad to me how true to reality this is:

Is Preaching Headless?

Mike Leake 1 Comment

I wrote an article on preaching the other day. After finishing the last sentence I did what most of us bloggers do—I went searching for a picture to attach to the article. I went to my Google machine and searched the images for preaching. Though I’ve done this search numerous times, I noticed something on this I’d never noticed before. Most of the pictures were headless. Just a few arms holding a book and gesturing with their hands.

I thought to myself, “Wow, Google gets something that we preachers often fail to recognize—preaching isn’t about the preacher it’s about the book he is holding in his hands.” But then I paused for a moment and wondered whether or not this is actually a biblical concept. Is preaching headless?

Is Preaching Headless?

My mind immediately went to Paul’s discussion of his ministry in his various letters. He didn’t seem to be headless. On more than one occasion he encouraged his readers to imitate him. That isn’t . To the Thessalonians he said, “we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves…” That certainly isn’t without a face. Furthermore, Paul told his young protégés Timothy and Titus to not only watch out for their doctrine but also their lifestyle. If the preacher is just a headless entity expositing a book then his lifestyle doesn’t matter. The preacher is more than a mouthpiece.

There is also something to be said about personality and giftedness. There is a reason why in the qualifications for elders we read “able to teach”. Some aren’t gifted for standing in front of a congregation and expositing God’s Word. You need to be called by God and gifted for that work. There really is a personality to preaching. When I go to Together for the Gospel most of the guys on the stage belief about the same exact thing about the text—but their delivery is wildly different. Piper isn’t MacArthur. In one sense it is absolutely impossible for preaching to be faceless.

But…

I’m convinced James Denney was also correct when he said, “No man can give at one and the same time the impression that he himself is clever and that Jesus Christ is mighty to save.” We don’t need more personality and celebrity in the pulpit we need less. The best ministries are the ones in which the word of God is the only celebrity. Pastors are mere men, disciples like the rest of the congregation. The sooner we realize this the better.

I say something every Sunday as a reminder to myself and to the congregation. I spend a bit of time introducing the scripture passage and then I encourage the congregation to stand. As they stand I explain the reason. And I end by saying something like, “because we believe this is God’s infallible word spoken to us these will be the most important words you hear out of my mouth this morning”. My job is to exposit that word and to say, “Thus says the Lord…” That is where every ounce of my authority comes from. So in that regard preaching is indeed headless.

We do best when we follow in the footsteps of those like Robert Murray McCheyne who said, “perish my honor”. Or to heed the counsel of Martin Lloyd-Jones:

‘What is the rule then? It is: be natural; forget yourself; be so absorbed in what you are doing and in the realisation of the presence of God … that you forget yourself completely. That is the right condition. That is the only place of safety. That is the only way in which you can honour God. Self is the greatest enemy of the preacher, more so than in the case of any other man in society. And the only way to deal with self is to be so taken up with, and so enraptured by the glory of what you are doing, that you forget yourself altogether.’  (Preaching and Preachers, 264)

I realize the irony in quoting men to make the point that preaching is headless. That really shows the difficulty of this whole thing. In one sense we’re absolute fools to not pursue being headless preachers, but in another sense we’re foolish if we think that we can and should be headless. So what’s my answer?

Conclusion:

We should be mostly headless preachers but not headless pastors. The pastor steps into the pulpit and somewhere along the way there is a moment when he exponentially decreases while the Word increases. It’s those sweet moments when not only the preacher forgets himself but so does the congregation. In those moments the headless pastor gets replaced by the churches true Head.

This isn’t perfect, because the Word is always the celebrity whether in the pulpit or not. But it serves as a reminder to me that the most public moment of my ministry is meant to be headless, the whole time I’m meant to be pointing to another. And it also serves to remind me that even though my task is still the same (pointing to another) our people don’t need an unknown preacher-dude theologizing over their dead family member. They need a face.

It’s maybe a bit overly simplistic but for the most part preaching should be headless but pastoring shouldn’t. (And if you do a google image search for pastor I think you’ll see that Google agrees). 

—

Photo source: here