The Pneuma Review » principles

Basic Biblical Principles of Discernment

Paul King — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:41:17 +0000

The biblical principles of discernment are based on the seven foundation blocks of the previous chapter: Discernment is God-given, Christ-centered, Spirit-guided, prayer-saturated, Scripture-based, corporately-confirmed, divinely-balanced. Eight biblical principles of discernment, based on the acronym DISCERNS, include the following:

Image: Bourne Baljit

Discover Biblical Precedent.
Investigate for Scriptural Harmony.
Scrutinize for Sound Doctrine.
Confirm with Experience.
Examine the Fruit.
Receive Supernatural Discernment.
Note Examples and Lessons from the Past.
Sift and Weigh for Divine Equilibrium.

As we look at these principles, to make it simple, spiritual discernment is a bit like driving a car. We need to learn when to press down the accelerator, apply the brakes, or continue to move forward with alertness and caution. The illustration of approaching a traffic light while driving helps to picture the process of discernment: Green Light means Go for discernment. Red Light means Stop; go no farther. Yellow light means slow down and get ready to stop. A blinking yellow light is a modified green light when crossing some busy intersections, meaning continue to proceed with caution, looking both ways in case there are crosswinds or someone else wasn’t paying attention to the lights.[i]

Discernment Principle 1: Discover Biblical Precedent

Is the teaching, practice, or manifestation clearly found in Scripture? “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Biblical precedent may be demonstrated in one of three ways: 1) Commands—a direct command to do or not to do something (for example, the Ten Commandments); 2) Principles—guidelines for common or normal practice (for instance, most of the proverbs are observation of life truth, not commands); 3) Examples—demonstration through something that is said or done or not said or done (illustrations, real life instances, patterns, experiences). Based on these, we then can ask two questions:

Do any biblical commands, principles, or examples clearly question or condemn this teaching, practice, or manifestation? This is an automatic red light.

Do any biblical commands, principles, or examples permit or sanction this teaching, practice, or manifestation? This may be a green light, but it also may be a blinking yellow light that requires looking in all directions for further confirmation.

The Seduction of Public Leadership: Principles of Morality for Christian Leaders, by Stephen M. King

Stephen King — Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:16:35 +0000

Editor’s note: Much has happened since Professor King wrote this article in March 2000. The principles he outlines, however, are as applicable today as when it was first published on the Pneuma Foundation website.

Public leadership has greatly diminished in societal value, primarily because it is based less upon moral and religious foundations of civil society, and more upon political expediency of policy issues. Institutionalized civil leadership has suffered because many public leaders, even within the highest elected offices of the nation, have all but abdicated social responsibility and moral rectitude in favor of political advantage and personal gain. When this occurs—and it has happened many times over the course of human events—political crises inevitably result, and the consequences generally rock the foundations of civil society. Today more than ever moral leadership is captured within the tantalizing grip of political seduction.

Political crises are not new. Starting at the infancy of the United States there was the XYZ Affair of 1798 (which eventually led to an undeclared naval war between France and the United States), Ben Franklin’s bastard children, whom he sired while serving as ambassador to France, the alleged sex scandal involving Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, one of Jefferson’s slaves, who gave birth to a son, Easton Hemings, the Whiskey Ring, a national internal revenue scandal revealed in 1875, the infamous Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s, the graft and corruption of New York’s Tammany Hall, John F. Kennedy’s many sexual affairs, Richard Nixon’s Watergate, Reagan’s Irangate, and the various and diverse escapades of Bill Clinton—all should serve notice that political life is full of the sordid and dastardly deeds of historical politicos. Indeed, it seems a perpetual truism that persons of political power and influence have always engaged in actions speaking less of moral character and more of political expediency, even leaders as diverse as Louis XIV, Henry VIII, or Julius Caesar. Bearing all this in mind, let us examine what the Bible has to say about political scandal or crisis, public or private revelation of the scandal, the eventual political fallout, and the hard lessons to be learned.

One hallmark of the Bible is that it paints its heroes with brutally honest strokes. Nothing is held back. In a style that is most often painfully abrupt, it neither minces words nor waxes eloquent about its protagonists, but presents them with all the faults and foibles inherent in the human condition. Take, for example, the Biblical character David, the archetypal king and Messianic prototype. Scripture makes no apology for depicting not only his triumphs but also his dark side. Yet the Bible goes on to call him “a man after God’s own heart.” To be sure, the Biblical David was a fundamentally flawed, occasionally pathetic individual who vacillated between lust, megalomania, mental instability, and eventually personal misery. David is a case study in the socio-religious and political consequences of serious weakness of character and faulty judgment, as well as an example of a truly repentant leader, who suffered through the severe personal, social, and political problems resulting from his commission of sin.

King David—as do most, if not all, political leaders—exhibited a roller coaster range of emotions, particularly during difficult times of political decision making including, sharp and zealous anger at the Philistines for laughing at the sacredness of God in the form of the Ark, and at his fellow Israelites for wallowing in fear at the sight of Goliath; humility while being anointed by Samuel as king; and lust in his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. He later shed tears over the death of Absalom, a deceitful son who nearly succeeded in seizing the kingship from him, but did nothing to avenge the rape of his daughter, Tamar. Too often, historians portray a one-sided David: either exceptionally spiritual, God-fearing, and humble—which he was—or a power hungry Machiavellian antagonist who used any measure, draconian or otherwise, to achieve his military and political successes, and was a man given to deceit, lying, and fulfilling his sexual passion—which he did as well. Neither extreme is entirely accurate, but both describe the human aspects of David, and of many other modern public officials. And both aid us in extracting from David’s character those traits that best depict the genuine composite of his person.

This essay will illustrate a leader who was both a man and a king; the honor and prestige of the latter was susceptible to the avarices of the former, including the events leading up to and going beyond the adulterous affair with Bathsheba (henceforth known as ‘Bathshebagate’). Bathshebagate represents a direct and telling crisis both in his “personal” as well as his “public” life, in which the inability or unwillingness to control his actions in the “personal” realm ultimately unleashed a torrent of problems upon David in the “public” environment. The same story—that of the pompous elected “king” abusing and misusing his political authority—has been retold many times, in various and sometimes differing degrees, such as with Richard Nixon and Watergate and more recently with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Only because of David’s humility, ultimately his willingness to listen to his trusted confidant and courageous prophet, Nathan, and his personal love for God did David survive the onslaught of negative repercussions, including decreased public support and internal political conspiracies by trusted advisors to strip him of his kingship. How have our modern leaders fared? Do the lessons of King David and Bathshebagate tell us anything about the political seduction of power, and how to avoid its tentacles of deception? If so, have we heeded the warning? If we have not, are we prepared for the consequences?

David’s early successes as king may first be attributable to the contention that he served not only as king or ruler, but also as judge. According to Jewish standards, a judge is one who dispenses justice based upon absolute principles of right and wrong, principles indelibly marked in the heart of man and codified in the Mosaic law. In I Samuel 8, the people demanded a king, one who rightly performs the principal function of the king: to judge righteously. With Saul, the people endured a ruthless despot, one who consistently and malevolently used the army for military retribution. David, however, was both a “victorious redeemer,” aided by God, and a dispenser of justice and righteousness to all the people, including such actions as the restoration of Mephibosheth, Saul’s crippled grandson, to the king’s house, and the use of capital punishment against two siblings for wrongly taking the life of Ish-Bosheth. So, David’s propensity for distributing justice included performing ethical and moral-based deeds for particular individuals, to meting out international justice through his military successes, and generally dispensing judicial, social, and even economic righteousness.

Principles of Church Leadership by John P. Lathrop

John Lathrop — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:01:16 +0000

How Shall We Lead the Church?

In this Pneuma Review conversation, Pastor John Lathrop says that New Testament leadership should be scripturally based, marked by servanthood, Spirit-empowered, and equipping everyone for ministry.

Jesus Christ has a very real relationship with the church. He described the church as His and said that He would build it (Matt. 16:18). Paul, in his address to the elders of the church of Ephesus said that God purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). The reference to purchasing with blood indicates that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is the one being referred to in this verse. The church belongs to Jesus. In a couple of other texts the apostle Paul affirms that we (believers/the church) have been purchased by Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:19-20; 7:23). In addition to His ownership of the church Paul also says a number of times that Jesus is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18). Jesus’ leadership of the church is not just a position of power and authority, but also one of service. Ephesians 5:29 tells us that the Lord feeds and cares for the church. Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 indicate that He is now constantly praying for His followers. The one who has the highest authority in the church is its greatest servant. The Lord can, and certainly does, feed and care for us as His people; He does this for us both as individuals and as a body. The Lord can minister to us directly, or He can work through the earthly spiritual leadership of the church. These men and women have been placed in the church by Him (Eph. 4:11) to accomplish His plans and purposes.

In the New Testament we find a number of different words used to describe leadership ministries in the church words like: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, elder, overseer, teacher, deacon and deaconess. All of these words describe various leadership ministries.

Without question all of these ministries existed in the New Testament church, and I believe that all of them exist in the church today. However, some of these leadership ministries do not seem to have been found in every local church. For example, there is no concrete evidence in the New Testament that every church had apostles and prophets who remained in the congregation on an ongoing basis, they seem to have been more mobile ministries¹ Local church leadership seems to be entrusted more into the hands of pastors/elders, teachers, deacons and deaconesses.

It is not my intent to make this a highly academic paper. Neither do I intend to go into a detailed description of any of the ministries listed above. Instead I would like to focus on four characteristics that I believe should mark all leadership ministries of the church. These four essentials of ministry are that it should be: scripturally based, marked by servanthood, empowered and directed by the Spirit, and should equip people for service.

Let us turn our attention now to a brief consideration of these four essential qualities.

Scripturally Based

The church belongs to God, because this is so we need to build it in accordance with His instructions. These instructions are found in Scripture; the Bible should be the blueprint for the church. Now I know that not everyone holds the same view about how a church should be governed. Some people feel that a church should be pastor/elder led, based on texts such as 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5: 1-3. In these verses elders/pastors are given the responsibility of providing direction and oversight to the congregation. Other Christians lean toward a more congregational form of government. They may cite Acts 6 where the larger church body chose the seven men to take care of the widow’s distribution. It should be noted in this case that the larger church body made the decision only after the apostles gave them the criteria for who could be considered for this ministry. The apostles authorized the congregation to make the choices. I personally believe the Bible teaches that the church should be led by pastors/elders. Regardless of the view that you or your church holds we should all agree that the Bible is to be the source of authority for the beliefs and practices of the church.

Rightly Understanding God’s Word: More Principles of Context, by Craig S. Keener

Craig Keener — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:43:18 +0000

In this chapter from the Rightly Understanding God’s Word series, Craig S. Keener explains more interpretation principles for understanding the biblical context.

As appearing in Pneuma Review Summer 2004.

Take a course on biblical interpretation with New Testament scholar, Professor Craig S. Keener.

We should briefly survey some other context principles: context of author; anticontext methods to avoid; and the value of outlining Scripture to catch the flow of thought.

Context of Author

In some cases, we have additional help in understanding a passage or statement in the Bible because we can look elsewhere at the particular author’s style. Paul says that God inspired the Scriptures “through” people (Rom 1:2), which suggests that the author’s point corresponds with God’s point. It is therefore important to understand the author’s point. Understanding inspiration recognizes that God inspired different writers in their own basic styles. Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel all heard God’s message, but each has a very different style. God even gives Ezekiel a special nickname, “son of man.”

Sometimes the author’s style is relevant within the book. For example, when some people today claim that “abundant life” in John 10:10 refers to material prosperity, we should note that this is not what John means by “life” anywhere else (1:4; 3:15-16, 36; 4:14, 35; 5:24, 26, 29, 39-40; 6:27; etc.) If this were not enough, however, one could also note references to “life” by the same author in 1 John (1:1-2; 2:25; 3:14-15; 5:11-13, 16, 20). Some argue that Jesus healed everyone on the basis of Matthew 4:23. But does “all” mean every individual in the whole region? Matthew also says that they brought him “all” the sick in the whole province of Syria (which included Galilee and Judea); if he meant that literally, no one would have needed healing after this point (against the testimony of Acts and even the rest of Matthew’s Gospel). Jesus did not heal everyone who was sick near him (13:58), although there were reasons for this and the text indicates that Jesus normally healed people. When we read Isaiah and the Psalms, “salvation” has a broader meaning than it usually bears in the New Testament, and we should respect the context of Isaiah’s and the psalmists’ usage and not read other texts into these.

When some people today claim that “abundant life” in John 10:10 refers to material prosperity, we should note that this is not what John means by “life” anywhere else.

Let me take two examples from Paul’s writings. In neither case are we addressing a particular doctrine; a doctrine often may be based on other texts. But it is helpful to pick examples that will underline the point. For example, some say that the Church will not go through the Great Tribulation at the end of the age because Paul declares that we will not experience God’s “wrath” (1 Thess 1:10; 5:9). This, however, is a questionable argument for that position. Occasionally Paul speaks of God’s “wrath” in the present era (Rom 1:18), but usually when he uses the term he speaks of future wrath on the day of God’s judgment (Rom 2:5, 8; 5:9; 9:22)—nowhere of the Great Tribulation before that day. Some interpreters want to appeal to the use of “wrath” in Revelation, but Revelation had not yet been written, so Paul could not expect the Thessalonians to simply flip over to Revelation to guess what he meant by “wrath.” (If one does appeal to Revelation, however, this particular Greek word for “wrath” always refers to judgment at the end of the tribulation; the word which sometimes—not always—refers to the tribulation as God’s anger is not even the same word!)