Somewhere, Stuart Briscoe has commented that three attributes of a pastor are needed: ‘The mind of a scholar, the heart of a child, and the hide of a rhinoceros.’ The last attribute seems rather incongruous, even unspiritual, but it has much to commend it. Given the nature of the pastor’s tasks, especially that of preaching truths that are needful but not welcome to the natural man, it is to be expected that the pastor will meet with criticism. Christ warns us on this very point: ‘Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets’ (Luke 6:26). The handshake and the compliment at the end of the service may not be what you need.

Encouragement is helpful but applause is dangerous

It is right for Christians to encourage one another. In the midst of his struggles with Saul, David was strengthened by the words of his friend, Jonathan. Jonathan urged David not to fear, and reminded him of God’s promise that the kingship would go to him, not Jonathan. In this way, Jonathan ‘strengthened his [David’s] hand in God’ (see 1 Sam. 23:19, 20). The same notion is found in the New Testament. The Greek word for ‘encourage’ can also mean ‘exhort’ or ‘counsel,’ but Christians are told to encourage one another (1 Thess. 4:18; Heb. 3:13). This is not as the world would view encouragement, which is usually along the lines of soft words and flattery. Everyone wins a prize! Paul encouraged the fledgling church at Lystra that it was through many tribulations that we enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). Biblical encouragement is very much linked to truth.

It was Israel at its most rebellious who told the prophets to ‘speak to us smooth things’ (Isa. 30:10). When Hananiah prophesied that the exile of Judah would only last two years, that was rather more appealing than Jeremiah’s prophecy that it would last seventy years (Jer. 28). Ezekiel was told by God: ‘And behold, you are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it’ (Ezek. 33:32). Exhortations to winsomeness provide a large part of the advice given today to preachers, but salesmen and politicians may be winsome. It is needed, but it is not the same as love, and it is certainly not a substitute for truth.

There are a great many apocryphal stories told about Charles Spurgeon, and this could be another one. Someone is supposed to have listened to the Prince of Preachers, and thought that he would encourage him by telling him that he had just preached a wonderful sermon. Spurgeon was aware of the temptation, and replied: ‘Yes, the devil just told me that ten minutes ago.’ John Newton made the startling observation that ‘If opposition has hurt many, popularity has wounded more.’¹ Many a good pastor has absorbed too much from his friends in the congregation and too little from his critics. This can only have detrimental effects on the cause of biblical truth in the world.

In the eighteenth century, George Whitefield was always ready to be rebuked and to repent. To one minister in England, he wrote: ‘When I am unwilling to be told my faults, dear Sir, correspond with me no more.’² He was not easily discouraged, as he did not live for applause. In 1742 at London, Whitefield recorded: ‘I was honoured with having a few stones, dirt, rotten eggs, and pieces of dead cats thrown at me’.³ Yet he continued preaching for three hours. There is a real, albeit often hidden, strength in humility.

The people who help most may not necessarily be the most spiritual or friendly. Douglas Kelly comments rather wistfully that ‘Along with most ministerial salaries comes the added bonus of free criticism: some of it loving and helpful, and some of it mean-spirited and untrue.’⁴ There is much truth in that, but it is not always so clear. The trouble is that some of the loving criticism may be unhelpful, while some of the mean-spirited comments may actually be of greater use.

It is not uncommon to hear pastors state that their policy is to take notice of criticisms made by mature Christians, but not those made by those who belong to the world. Think this through first. At a devastating time in David’s life, his son, Absalom, rose up in rebellion against his own father, but ended out losing his life in the ensuing civil war (2 Sam. 15–18). As a father, David was shattered, and so wept and mourned. The people, however, interpreted this to mean that David was not appreciative of those who had fought on his side. It is Joab—of all people—who told David to speak kindly to his servants and comfort them. As a result, the crisis passed, and David reclaimed the throne (2 Sam. 19). Joab was imbued with political astuteness rather than sanctified godliness, but his rebuke of David was timely and needed.

In the days of king Josiah, in 609 B.C., the Pharaoh Neco went up to fight the Assyrians at Carchemish. To do so, he would pass by Judah, and Josiah—a good and godly king—decided to confront him. Neco warned him that if Josiah opposed him, he would be opposing the will of God. Josiah rejected this, and paid the penalty: ‘He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God’ (2 Chron. 35:22), and was killed in battle. Paying heed to Neco would not have appealed to Josiah—and it is mysterious—but in this instance Neco had more wisdom than Josiah.

Miriam and Aaron were the siblings of Moses, and not usually his rivals, but at one point, they succumbed to the sin of jealousy, and asserted in the name of a distorted egalitarianism that God did not speak only through Moses. For this presumption, Miriam was struck with leprosy, but Moses bore no grudges, and prayed to the Lord for her healing. Aaron too came to see the folly of his ways (Num. 12). Presumably, the three siblings all learnt something from the episode.

When Nehemiah was threatened and undermined in his work of rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, he refused to lose his nerve, being certain that ‘I am doing a great work’ (Neh. 6:3). Do not be easily swayed: preach, read, pray, try to evangelize, and most of all, seek to grow as a Christian. Persevere in the God-given tasks before you.

I was once told by a Jehovah’s Witness that I was arrogant. It did not seem right to argue back with great vehemence that I was really the epitome of lowliness and humility. Surely this was a rebuke from God, using one who did not know the gospel of the God-man Jesus Christ. David accepted that the curses of Shimei actually came from the Lord (2 Sam. 16:5-14, especially noting verse 11). We will miss much-needed rebukes if we insist on only listening to those whom we think have earned the right to correct us.

Spurgeon was the prince of preachers, but also the wisest of counsellors. He was a shrewd observer of humanity, including himself. So, he warned: ‘Those who praise us are probably as much mistaken as those who abuse us.’⁵ ‘Too much consideration of what is said by our people, whether it be in praise or in depreciation, is not good for us’ (p. 406). One wonders how much the ‘Believe in yourself ’ pop psychology has been behind the modern rise in what is called ‘mental illness.’ Spurgeon surely is correct in saying that ‘In proportion as praise pleases you censure will pain you’ (p. 331). We are not the centre of the universe.

Concentrate on the content of what is said

Rather than analyzing the motives of any critic, it is better to spend more time in sifting through the content. Jesus describes himself as ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40). We in turn are to seek the truth about ourselves. We are not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think, but to think with sober judgment (Rom. 12:3).

The risen Christ told hostile Saul, who was to become the apostle Paul: ‘It is hard for you to kick against the goads’ (Acts 26:14c). As one who was convinced that Jesus was a blasphemer, and that his followers were dangerous enemies of the God of Israel, Saul was like an animal—an ox perhaps—which kicked against a sharpened stick and so hurt itself. Deep down in the midst of all his ferocious Pharisaism, Saul had a sense that not everything was right. He was actually opposing God, not serving him.

Truth hurts and yet truth heals. The church will outlive any pastor. It was not set up as a pastor-appreciation society but as a blood-bought, Christ-centred, Bible-dependent body of sinners whom God is gathering to himself. The favour of God is what keeps us going, not the applause of the world, whether inside or outside the church.

Sometimes not responding is the best policy

It is the weak person who feels he has to win every battle, no matter how trivial. It is a common fallacy to think ‘Something must be done. This [proposal or response] is something. Therefore, let’s do it.’ Just as there can be wisdom in silence (Prov. 10:19; 17:28), so there can be wisdom in doing nothing. Job thought so (Job 13:5)!

A whisperer separates friends (Prov. 16:28), so be careful what you listen to and what you retain. A soft answer will often turn away wrath (Prov. 15:1). Prickly personalities are not to be commended, for love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8). Modern Western societies have become increasingly litigious as they have made taking offence almost an art form, and dressed it all up in the name of ‘justice.’ Many things are to be left to the judgment (Rom. 12:18, 19); perfect righteousness belongs to the new heavens and new earth after the return of Christ (2 Pet. 3:13).

Being impervious to others is not a fruit of the Spirit. It may give us a hide like a rhinoceros but only in a Stoic, not a Christian, sense. God does not need us (Acts 17:25), but most wonderfully, Isaiah tells us that in all the affliction of his people, God himself was afflicted (Isa. 63:9). Part of our striving to reflect the character of God will mean we weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15). To the Thessalonian church, Paul, this man amongst men, could say that he was like a nursing mother taking care of her own children (1 Thess. 2:7). Toughness is not insensitivity. In the words of Richard Baxter: ‘The whole of our ministry must be carried on in tender love to our people. We must let them see that nothing pleaseth us but what profiteth them; and that what doeth them good doth us good; and that nothing troubleth us more than their hurt.’⁶

Wisdom issues are difficult, but they have always been with us. Martin Madan, whom John Newton knew personally and loved, and who was William Cowper’s cousin, wrote Thelyphthora (‘A Treatise on Female Ruin’), which set forth an argument in favour of polygamy. Madan considered that a man who seduced a woman should marry her even if he was already married. Cowper ended up writing against his own cousin, but Newton was not convinced that it ought to be replied to, although he did think that he had to preach on the subject.⁷ He knew that people could not be battered into submission as if problems were only ever moral and spiritual, and so he wrote in 1796: ‘Sometimes when nervous people come to me, distressed about their souls, and think that is their only complaint, I surprise them by asking if they have no friend in Cornwall, or in the north of Scotland, whom they could visit’ (pp. 389-90). A response that seems right in one situation may not be entirely wise in another situation.

Face-to-face is almost always better

The apostle John said that he had much to write, but instead he preferred to come to ‘the elect lady’ and talk face-to-face (2 John 12; 3 John 13, 14). Even when Paul departed from this practice, as he did with the Corinthians, he made it clear that he wanted to visit them, but did not do so for what he saw as crucial reasons: ‘But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth’ (2 Cor. 1:23). He thought it in their own best spiritual interests—as well as his own—that he not make ‘another painful visit’ (2 Cor. 2:1).

The book of Proverbs is not designed to give us hard and fast rules and promises of life, but rather observations of reality. One proverb to ponder is: ‘When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him’ (Prov. 16:7). There are few things more conducive to that than a face-to-face meeting conducted with the maximum amount of goodwill.

Social media is usually the worst place to interact with people, although it can be used for good—by a small minority. Email is a playground which easily becomes a battleground. Facebook and similar networks are even more fraught with danger. On many occasions the various forms of social media only help to reverse Proverbs 16:7, and turn our friends into our enemies. The result is an escalation of hostilities: ‘The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out’ (Prov. 17:14).

Love and humility in all circumstances

The Preacher warns us: ‘Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you. Your heart knows that many times you yourself have cursed others’ (Eccles. 7:21, 22). In his invaluable Lectures to My Students, Spurgeon has a chapter entitled, ‘The Blind Eye and the Deaf Ear.’⁸ Here he comments that ‘It is the part of the generous to treat passionate words as if they had never been uttered.’ Spurgeon comments as the Preacher does, that ‘[You] would now be in an awkward position if you were called to account for every word that you have spoken, even about your dearest friend.’ Blaise Pascal put it even more graphically: ‘I state it as a fact that if all men knew what others say of them behind their backs, there would not be four friends left in the world.’⁹

It is a disturbing truth that it is often those with the sharpest tongues who have the thinnest skins. To cite Spurgeon again: ‘You must be able to bear criticism, or you are not fit to be at the head of a congregation; and you must let the critic go without reckoning him among your deadly foes, or you will prove yourself a mere weakling.’¹⁰ None of us enjoys having our faults—real or imaginary—pointed out to us. But if you admit your faults, no one will argue with you.

On 15 February 1553, just a year before he began his series on Job, Calvin opened up about the need to be tamed by trials:

It is very difficult for me not to boil over when someone gets impassioned. Yet so far no one has ever heard me shouting. But I lack the chief thing of all, and that is being trained by these scourges of the Lord in true humility. And therefore it is all the more necessary that I should be tamed by the rebukes of my brethren.¹¹

Know yourself and know what you need to experience to curb your temptations.

Attacks on Charles Simeon—and there were plenty—were diffused by his humility. ‘My enemy, whatever evil he says of me, does not reduce me so low as he would if he knew all concerning me that God knows.’¹² In suffering, he could not fail to be right, but in acting he could easily do amiss. Such an attitude softens our hearts and prepares us to love all, and to desire their welfare.

Josiah Bull has rightly emphasized Newton’s strengths as his humility, sound judgment, and the beauty of his all-round character. His conclusion is compelling: ‘it was his goodness rather than his greatness that rendered him so especially attractive—the abundance of the grace of God that was in him.’¹³

The last word belongs to one of the Puritans, and all pastors would do well to make it their own:

Teach me how to take reproofs from friends,
even though I think I do not deserve them;
Use them to make me tenderly afraid of sin,
more jealous over myself,
more concerned to keep heart and life unblameable;
Cause them to help me to reflect on my want of spirituality,
to abhor myself,
to look upon myself as unworthy,
and make them beneficial to my soul.¹⁴

Peter Barnes is editor of The Australian Presbyterian. For many years he was minister of Revesby Presbyterian Church, NSW, Australia, where he continues as a member.

Featured Image (visible when article is shared on social media) by Nicole Wreyford on Unsplash

The post Developing the Hide of a Rhinoceros appeared first on Banner of Truth UK.

‘According to John Flavel the Puritan, ‘There is a good and an evil use of the law.’ We read the same thing in Paul, ‘Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully’ (1 Tim. 1:8). The sixteenth-century Reformers, more particularly John Calvin, discerned three major uses of the law:

To convict the sinner of sin. Paul declared that the law did not acquit any sinner before God, but by the law came the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). In Paul’s own case, it was especially the tenth commandment, which forbids coveting (Rom. 7:7). The law is no man’s saviour, but it shows us that we need to be saved. C. S. Lewis recalled that when he first came to university, he was as nearly without a moral conscience as a boy could be. Such a person sees no need of Christ as Redeemer until the Spirit convicts him of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8–11). The Spirit does this partly by revealing the full depth of God’s holy law (Matt. 5–7).

To restrain evil. To use Samuel Bolton’s graphic image, the law chains the wolf, while the gospel changes him. The law does not make us good but usually, albeit not always (Rom. 7:8–9), acts to curb our sinful instincts. We are ‘held captive under the law’ (Gal. 3:23). If a man does not burgle my house because of the law against stealing, that hardly makes him a new creation in Christ, but it does mean my house is not burgled. Sin is not eradicated, but the expression of it is restrained. To cite Calvin: ‘This constrained and forced righteousness is necessary to the community of men, for the tranquillity which our Saviour provides by preventing all things from being overturned in confusion, which is what would happen if everything were permitted to everyone.’

To guide the Christian. Love fulfils the law; it does not abolish it (Rom. 13:8–10). The Christian is under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2). Those who abolish this third use of the law have difficulty in defining clearly how the Christian should live, and how the moral law reflects the unchanging holy character of God. Thomas Watson considered this most serious indeed: ‘They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.’

The Present Need

There are challenges from all sides today to the authority and relevance of the Ten Commandments. Modern secular society is determined to make up its own ethics, with the over-riding virtue being, not love, but tolerance. Meanwhile a retreating church is often fearful of offending the world at large. In seeking to avoid legalism (trying to keep the law in order to be saved), we flee to antinomianism (discarding God’s law) and then construct a new legalism (we make up our own set of regulations). Hence intolerance and sexism are treated as sins in the modern world. Even in evangelical circles, matters are not made as clear as they should be. The law of Moses does not provide a complete and binding guide to Christian morality. On the other hand it should not be dismissed as irrelevant. The approach adopted by situation ethics (where we decide what is right by the circumstances) abolishes law. Joseph Fletcher says, ‘Only love is a constant; everything else is a variable.’ To which we might add the claims of Paul Tillich, ‘The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law.’ This approach has a tendency to be translated into the somewhat simple 1960s philosophy of Jerry Rubin: ‘If it feels good, do it.’ The Bible’s reply to this would be that the heart is deceitful above all things ( Jer. 17:9), and the language of love can easily be used to disguise deepseated selfishness and immorality (note the example of Amnon in 2 Sam. 13:1–15).

We are no better off if we try to make the law stand on its own. Motive is important in what we do (Matt. 6:1; Mark 12:43–44). So too is context; those who are going to misuse the truth, for example, have no right to hear it (Exod. 1; Josh. 2; 1 Sam. 16:2). The Christian is purified as he maintains his hope of seeing Christ in glory (1 John 3:2–3). Law is vital but it is not to be treated in isolation. Bonhoeffer put forward the biblical view: ‘There can be no preaching of the law without the gospel, and no preaching of the gospel without the law.’ Law needs to be distinguished from grace and love, but to separate these three is to rend asunder what God has joined.’

Excerpted from Peter Barnes, Do We Need the Ten Commandments? in Love Rules: The Ten Commandments for the 21st Century (pp. 7–9).

Some Banner resources on Law and Gospel:

Alderson, Richard, No Holiness, No Heaven: Antinomianism Today

Bolton, Samuel, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

Bonnington, Stuart, and Milne, Joan, eds., Love Rules: The Ten Commandments for the 21st Century

Reisinger, Ernest C., Whatever Happened to the Ten Commandments?

Ryle, J. C., Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots

Sibbes, Richard, Glorious Freedom: the Excellency of the Gospel Above the Law (Puritan Paperback)

Traill, Robert, Justification Vindicated (Puritan Paperback)

Watson, Thomas, The Ten Commandments

Our one-week Law and Gospel Special*:

*Available to UK and Rest of World customers from June 13–20, 2023, while stocks last. Postage not included.

The post The Three Uses of the Law: <br> <em>Love Rules</em> Excerpt appeared first on Banner of Truth UK.