Continued from part 1: a review, with careful questions, of Sarah Young’s bestselling Jesus Calling.

Real promises: weakened, ignored or denied

“My writings must be consistent with [the Bible’s] unchanging standard.” I’m not sure if Young understands what a vital goal that is. Back in Old Testament days they used to stone men who “prophesied” something God didn’t say. Now some believe the gift of prophecy Paul discussed with the Corinthians is identical — and that is a related issue, but Young does not even try to prove her “listening” to God is Biblical. She simply assumes it is, then starts, and doesn’t even explain how it is that God’s words to her will also apply to readers; I’m confused!

Of course, if God had promised He would communicate more with His people using impressions during quiet times, I wouldn’t be criticizing this. However, He never promised He would.

Yes, of course He could do this. But the fact that God could do many things is not proof that He has or will. Even a VeggieTales episode portrayed this well: God could turn Larry the Cucumber into a chicken, but as Bob the Tomato reminded Larry, God only does what He wants to do. Scripture tells us how He has revealed what He wants us to know about Him: Scripture alone.

Even if God had chosen to reveal new things to “listeners” today, it must be consistent with His previous revelation. Otherwise He is a liar, and not the loving, truthful God He promised He is.

But despite giving credit to Scripture alone as being inspired, Jesus Calling’s author treats the precious, revealed Scripture in a very casual and cavalier fashion, frequently throughout the devotions. Her partial quoting of verses, often mixed with her own opinions of what Jesus was telling her that particular day, bypasses the context of each passage, and the whole Bible itself.

The first woeful result: this weakens the power of Scripture’s promises. For example, Jeremiah 29:11 is a wonderful proof of how God promised to remember the Jews even during their exile (which He Himself had promised and carried out because of their disobedience). But Young quotes only that verse, apart from context, apart from the glorious encouragement that God not only made this promise to them, but fulfilled it. She makes the “promise” not only narrowly personal but pathetic. The only reason we know God will do the same for us — which is promised more directly in other Scriptures — is because He has a track record, a history.

It’s typical of evangelicals to repeat God’s promises without their contexts, which actually would render them more powerful and encouraging. Why quote only partially? We treat no other book or writer like this. Is it more loving to Jesus to listen only to parts of His more-sure promises? How would He feel about any of us salvaging His words from the page, or our own memories — anyone steeped in evangelical culture for years could do this — for our own goals, and not His?

Second, Young’s partial quotes of Scripture phrases frequently end up ignoring what God has already and explicitly said. At random (that’s another wrong way of reading any book, including the Bible!) I flipped to Young’s personal-turned-meant-for-others entry for June 18:

You are my beloved child. I chose you before the foundation of the world, to walk with Me along paths designed uniquely for you. Concentrate on keeping in step with Me, instead of trying to anticipate My plans for you. If you trust that My plans are to prosper you and not to harm you, you can relax and enjoy the present moment.

Is this all just a pack of lies? No. But has Jesus really said this, in that order? Also no. Young italicizes the “I chose you …” to indicate its Biblical origin and cites the reference, along with others. But she ignores the fact that Paul was writing (Ephesians 1: 3-10) about a Christian’s salvation from spiritual death thanks to Christ’s death, redemption of us and resurrection: the Gospel! Instead she misappropriates this phrase as if it’s only about a Gospel result: following “paths designed uniquely for you.” This both weakens the actual promise and ignores the core truth: that only through the Gospel of Christ’s grace and forgiveness of our sins do we have any hope of staying on His paths for us. Because of this ignoring what God has truly said, whether intentional or simply careless, Young’s pep talk is neither loving nor encouraging. Despite her intentions, it becomes a lie by omission and a “unique path” that isn’t so unique as legalistic.

That leads to a third and last tragic result of Young’s attempts to speak on Jesus’ behalf: Jesus Calling implicitly denies the Gospel. This is perhaps the worst lie of omission in the book: in 365 devotions, Young never finds time to emphasize how Jesus came to Earth to fulfill the Law and die to save from sins. He came not just to show a better way to live or give us His special Peace and Presence that help in our troubles — any self-help speaker could do that. Instead Jesus showed the more amazing love: He died for His people’s sins to reconcile them and His creation to God the Father.

Any book that bypasses that — as if expecting someone else to take care of that tangential, trivial part of the Bible — does not help point people to the true-life Jesus. This “Jesus” ends up being only a solution for personal problems and a balm for one’s soul during quiet times. He’s not the actual Savior Who saves us not just from our little failings and imperfections, but from our initial hatred of God, and does all things for God’s glory.

Any professing Christian book ignoring that is not offering improved love, or bonus-feature love, but no real love.

Relationship through truth

My goal is not to be a mean “watch-blogger” type, or to act as though any imaginative portrayal of Jesus or creative work is an assault on the truth of Scripture’s sufficiency. As a fiction author myself, I’ve written “dialogue” for Jesus, and even imagined what He would say to a man who somehow visited the New Earth before he died! But all artistic endeavors, all imaginings of what Jesus would say or do in a particular situation, must be grounded in God’s actual Word. And is it really loving, both to the real Jesus and to our Christian brothers and sisters, to act as though we have managed to reach some spiritual plateau and received new words from Him?

Let us say I come home today after work and reunited with my loving wife. Then she begins telling me about her day, what thoughts she’s had, what goals she’s accomplished, anything she has done or hopes to do. What if I nodded politely, telling her (and others later) how much I appreciate what she says — but then go off by myself, in a quiet room, and wrote down what I thought she would say to me, even while using half-remembered phrases she did say?

This approaches too close to some of the rhetoric I have heard from those who say they want “relationship” but don’t need to worry about all that truth-and-doctrine stuff. I just want to know the real Jesus, they say, and all this theology and learning facts gets in the way.

Fortunately, Young does not say that. But she also never reminds us that true love for a person does not come apart from careful, grace-based, intentional listening to what he actually said. One can memorize facts about a figure without loving him or being in a close relationship, but one cannot love a person apart from caring and loving what he has said about what he is like.

Objection: But I’ve been in so many churches where everyone is all about dry facts and figures about Jesus. What I really need is rest in Him and have His peace, not just more things to do and truths to know about Him, “doctrine” without love. Why are you picking on this book?

Yet any professed “doctrines” about Jesus also become lies by omission, if separated from love for others in Christ — the same love the Father showed us by sending Him to redeem us.

Therefore, I would simply ask: how does correcting for lies-by-omission with more of the same help fix the problem? Jesus does promise rest, absolutely (as in Matt. 11:28). But the best rest we can receive in Him is because He has forgiven us — not just for stressing out or failing to believe His promises to help guide us, but from our rebellion against God Himself.

That is a greater story, and a far greater love, for the actual Jesus Christ.

Christians shouldn’t oppose creative re-presenting of His truth, either in fiction or nonfiction, including devotional books. But we must love the real Jesus. And He calls us to truth, and better honor His precious Word — the same Word that Peter said is “more sure” (2 Peter 1:16-20) even than Peter’s incredible experience on a mountaintop.

Stephen, a book reviewer who hopes to combine Biblical truth with God-honoring imagination,

To all the readers of a little hardback that was the Christian bestseller of 2010, and with hopes that these will see that I seek to support a real and true relationship with Jesus Christ,

Grace and peace to you! Yet might I honestly ask some questions about this book?

In her introduction to Jesus Calling, author Sarah Young says she knows these devotionals do not equal Scripture’s importance. Nevertheless, she writes “as” Jesus, in the first person, and doesn’t even attempt to find in the more-sure Word a precedent to seek God’s words that way.

Instead her reasons seem to be: doing this is what she needed and it helped. It works for me, so a) it’s right, b) it’ll also work for you. Did I read that wrong?

While sharing her life story of learning, church-planting work and counseling, Young admits, “I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more.” That seems to imply she’s already read the Bible, been there, done that, and knows everything that’s in it, and is therefore ready to move on to something better. For her, that superior method includes “waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and papers in hand, recording the messages they received from Him,” as once did two anonymous authors of another book called God Calling.

But does the actual Word from God recommend doing this? Why does Young seem to expect “the Presence” (her term) to speak new words? Scripture says the Holy Spirit’s job is to show us Christ and His Word, sufficient for our needs (1 Timothy 3: 16-27). Why desire more?

In Ephesians 1, the apostle Paul’s loving letter to a new church, he prays for them: not that they would find new wisdom, but that they would have “the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” (verse 18), through Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus, open their eyes to the amazing salvation and spiritual riches You’ve already given them!

Young does credit the Bible as “the only inerrant Word of God,” but after explaining how her wish for more led her to “listen” for other “personal messages” and “directives” from God. But why not focus on the Word? “My writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard,” she says, and thank God for that. But why write messages “from Jesus” at all, for ourselves or for others? I know I haven’t mastered the Bible in a 101 course and am now ready for more! But even if Young had mastered Scripture, why does she ignore the Bible’s Gospel narrative — the holy God sent His Son to save sinners? That actually weakens His love and promises.

“My writings must be consistent with that unchanging standard.” Are they? Might we test this book in love, the same way we do any preacher or writer who claims to speak for God?

An allegory

Allegories are helpful. This one breaks down only because Jesus is real. Otherwise, consider:

My darling, you may have heard such different accounts of me so as puzzle you exceedingly. But though I am absent you today, my heart ever returns to think of you and anticipate greatly when we will reunite. Permanent happiness shall be ours, with passions (that) were stronger than our virtue. And now as I plan to return from London in a fortnight, know that my love remains with you. You may not know how this began; neither did I, for I cannot fix on the hour, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. … I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun. Do contemplate my return and think of me in return, for it is our quiet times together I treasure the most.

Very truly yours,

Your Mr. Darcy

Photo illustration by yours truly

This could be the next great literary success: Mr. Darcy Calling, with daily devotions “from” Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy himself, brooding and mysterious, owner of Pemberly, hero of Jane Austen’s classic Pride and Prejudice. In fact, quotes from Pride and Prejudice itself — the parts where Mr. Darcy was talking — are in the above letter as I “listened” to him, to relay his thoughts to you, gentle reader. My past experience with Pride and Prejudice allows me to know what Mr. Darcy wants and what he’s daily thinking about: you, and how much he desires your company.

Yes, Pride and Prejudice is the only source for learning what Mr. Darcy did and said, and what we know about him from his creator, the actual author, and what is also mysterious about him. But don’t you feel like you want to know more than that? Like you want his actual Presence?

… Just a few little issues that all those nitpicky Austen book purists will take with my approach:

1. Pride and Prejudice was not intended to be read this way. Even assuming Mr. Darcy were a real person, the only sure record we have of his doings is the novel itself!
2. The italicized quotes do not place what he said in the rightful contexts.
3. Mr. Darcy’s dialogue takes place in completely different settings than a Letter to You, Gentle Reader. Sometimes he was talking with Elizabeth Bennet, his actual love!
4. Pride and Prejudice is not meant to be read piecemeal. It has an overarching storyline.
5. Elizabeth Bennet is nowhere in the 365 “devotions.” Her role, and Mr. Darcy’s courtship of and eventual marriage to her, is integral to the story. You can’t just hijack a real-life person (again, imagine he’s real) and “listen” for new messages from him to another.
6. The “quotes” give lip-service to the original book, but are useless and even contradictory additions. For example, Mr. Darcy does not endorse passions stronger than virtue.

And if I have let errors slip into this open letter’s Pride and Prejudice portion, such as minor plot disparities, or misspelling Elizabeth Bennet’s last name with two Ts instead of one (which I haven’t) — why should those trifling oversights get in the way of having a Personal Relationship with Mr. Darcy, or my own qualification to speak on his behalf?

Seriously, I hope no one who respects Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice would decry these six critical questions as ignoring a need to have a “personal relationship” with Mr. Darcy. Why? Because this “Darcy” is made-up, based on partly remembered quotes from the book. It gives lip-service to the book, such as the character’s name and origins and some traits, but the very existence of this product implicitly says: Austen just didn’t say enough to help. Now it’s my turn.

How might Jesus feel to hear His wonderful Word so dismissed? Moreover, can one say he or she wants a personal relationship with Christ, and then decide not to listen to what we know He said — or, even with good intentions, listen to someone else who wasn’t listening?

On Friday: how does Jesus Calling consider the complete and in-context promises of Scripture?

This sixth of seven issues inhabiting the otherwise Biblical “young restless Reformed” movement is more vague than the others. I don’t know what to call it besides a Persecution Complex.

And I don’t mean feeling you are persecuted when you are not — for example, saying a non-Christian is rejecting you because of your faith, when really he only thinks you’re a jerk. Instead I mean feeling you should be persecuted or have a harder time as a Christian, when you aren’t.

6. Desiring persecution on purpose (or feeling guilty for not having it).

Last time I had specific examples to illustrate this notion; this time I only have fragments of quotes in my head. So let me just smash them together into a single synthetic paragraph:

The American church is in trouble. We’ve been all about entertaining ourselves, and coming up with programs that cater to our felt-needs, that we’ve missed out on the Gospel. But I want to challenge you that it’s time to step out of your comfort zone. While we’re sitting inside our air-conditioned buildings, eating three meals every day, people in other nations are dying from lack of basic necessities. And while our brothers and sisters in other countries are suffering for their faith, even tortured, the worst thing that could happen to Christians in America is having someone laugh at us for wearing a WWJD bracelet! Now, are you really sold out for Jesus? Are you so devoted to Him and to your faith that you’d stand in the street, or go to a foreign land, and die for your Savior?

Do elements of that sound familiar? I know I’ve heard them, either echoing in my own mind or from pieces of rhetoric found throughout the YRR blogs-and-books world. And there’s so much there to agree with. The American church is in trouble (when has it not been?). Evangelicalism does suffer from too much amusing-ourselves-to-death. And many Christians are too relaxed with their own Americanized Christianity, and persecution, if it did come here, would weed out many from professing faith who, it would turn out, were never truly among us anyway.

Yet can we prove those points, and enhance the Gospel message, without also connoting guilt?

Here’s what notions Christians may logically, but not Biblically, deduce from the above material:

1. Christians should always or often expect persecution.
2. Some more-zealous types, again with much Biblical basis and right motives, may even imply or say: If you’re not being persecuted, you must not be doing it right.
3. And by implication, a third notion accompanies those two: If you’re being persecuted, the Bible shows only one right response: face it directly and suffer.

But Christ does not call all Christians, at all times, to suffer in only one way for the sake of His Name. All the cautions in Scripture about persecution never imply the same kinds of suffering happen to every believer, 24/7. If that were true, Paul would not need to remind some believers to “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). Others wouldn’t need the reminders to respect their employers or love their families (Colossians 3, Ephesians 5). And we wouldn’t expect at least some downtime from persecution to set up church policy (1 Timothy 3) or work out Godly church discipline for those who aren’t behaving as believers should (1 Corinthians 5).

Furthermore, Scripture contains not only one, but at least three different reactions Christians have in response to even overt religious persecution. They’re best shown in the book of Acts. When Christians came under persecution, did they only ever face it head-on? Not at all.

1. Christians can flee persecution and minister elsewhere.

And Saul approved of [Stephen’s] execution.

And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.

Acts 8: 1-4

Different believers, through circumstances not mentioned here, had different fates thanks to the persecution wrought by Saul and others. Some may have been unwilling or unable to leave Jerusalem, because of family or job restraints. The text singles out the apostles, for example, but doesn’t say why they stayed. Others were “scattered” all over the place, for reasons the text doesn’t give — but it certainly sounds like they were hoping to avoid being captured. And neither the author nor his inspiring Spirit condemns them for this. Instead, God used them.

Ever heard a line like this? The early Church had gotten too lazy by then. That’s why God sent the persecution, to drive them out of their comfort zone in Jerusalem and make them take the Gospel to the nations like He’d commanded them to do.

But the author of Acts never draws this conclusion. Also, at least twice the apostles had already been arrested for preaching, and been warned not to continue (Acts 3 – 5). So Jerusalem was hardly a spiritual comfort zone for believers. Regardless, though, we’re faced with the truth that at least in this case, God used these Christians’ attempts to evade persecution to spread the Gospel to the nations. This gives the lie to implications that you should always face persecution.

2. Christians can complain to the governing authorities.

But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, “Let those men go.” And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city.

Acts 16: 35-39

But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” […] So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.

Acts 22: 25-26, 29

Paul used his Roman-citizenship card, at least twice. The first time he was very snarky about this — almost like an American Christian who could get a bit too gleeful slamming the ACLU. The second time you can almost imagine him thinking, I’ve already been beaten enough and illegally so, and I’m sick of it, and it’s time for it to stop. Scripture doesn’t draw any conclusions one way or the other about his motives. Yet Acts’ author does not condemn Paul’s choice, or any other believer’s choice to attempt halting persecution by claiming legitimate rights.

One might also point out that in the latter case, the soldiers still didn’t set Paul free. But they did stop beating him, and were thus obeying the civil authority as Scripture teaches (Romans 13). That same standard applies to Christians today, to support the civil government that God has set up, encouraging it to be “not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Romans 13:3).

This could entail being persecuted under a bad government. But it could also entail supporting good government by speaking up when someone violates the law — as the U.S. government or any court or person does when it acts contrary to its founding document, the Constitution.

Paul also had a higher purpose to being captured: he wanted to take the Gospel to Rome. Even then, other believers tried to dissuade him from going, and aren’t condemned (Acts 21: 1-16).

Someone I know recently said about suffering victims that they must always “suffer in silence,” because of Jesus’ actions before governing authorities and the “turn the other cheek” principle. Yet the same Bible that outlines this truth shows us that a) Jesus also had a higher purpose, to die for the sins of His people, and at many other times opposed sinful authorities; b) the “turn the other cheek” reaction does not apply to illegal persecutions, but to personal blows to pride.

3. Christians can suffer under persecution, rejoicing that they’re ‘counted worthy.’

[… W]hen [the Jerusalem religious leaders] had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name [of Jesus].

Acts 5: 40-41

Here’s the part we all must face: despite options to evade persecution, or stand up for our God-given rights both as humans and as beneficiaries of our nation’s good laws, God may have “counted [us] worthy to suffer dishonor” for His Name. All Christians should pray that if that time comes, they will indeed pass through the test and glorify God with their testimony.

But that’s a far cry from what may be a logical deduction that’s internally self-consistent, but not consistent with all of Scripture, that if persecution is good, let’s go find it, or, if you’re not being persecuted, you must be one of those comfort-zone Christians.

That conclusion just doesn’t follow from Scripture. It relies on selective reading of believers’ actions described in narratives, and isn’t based on any direct prescription in the epistles.

Why do some Christians, Reformed and otherwise, have this belief? Maybe it’s because selective reading of Scripture affects us all, coupled with Ministry Myopia that says my ministry Thing must be your ministry Thing just as much. Yet such Christians may need to consider that:

1. God may test His people with prosperity, not persecution.
2. We shouldn’t overcorrect for the “prosperity gospel” nonsense with the exact opposite, as if we feel we must teach people to fear God’s blessing of possessions or just-plain rest from active service that results in persecution or not.
3. Believers suffering persecution in China may be growing in many ways, but have many drawbacks as well. Some bad theology gets around a lot over there, I’ve heard! Yet believers in countries such as the U.S., which is relatively free of religious persecution, have the advantage of growing in other ways — and helping their brothers and sisters in China or elsewhere from the blessing of a safer position.
4. If we have in the backs of our minds the notion that my real ministry will begin when God brings persecution, we may wait for that far-in-the-future imaginary moment to get moving instead of working with what we have, even in our “comfort zone” lifestyles.
5. Christians should not be afraid of persecution or pleasure God sends our way — which is according to His timing, and not ours.

That last is one of the best reasons, and I can’t cite it here without presenting the quote and source from one of the better blogs around the YRR online universe. (And my YRR friends, you know this: if it’s on the Gospel Coalition, you know it’s Gospel truth!)

Lord, save us from making locale the measure of Christian commitment. God gifts us, nurtures us, and calls us to different places and different kinds of ministry. All matter to God because all people matter to God.

Be willing to suffer, but don’t feel guilty for pleasure. Be strategic, but don’t think our strategies are always God’s strategies. Be willing to do anything, go anywhere, and minister to anyone. It matters more who you are than where you are. City, suburb, or country, if we are growing in godliness we will not be unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:8).

“They Need Good Pastors and Good Churches Everywhere,” Kevin DeYoung, March 9, 2010, on GospelCoalition.org

Over several weeks one could say I’ve been neglecting my “job,” or part of it anyway. But why? No one, to my face anyway, has been chiding me for not writing weekly blogs over the holidays (and longer). I’m not beholden to write YeHaveHeard columns for an outside employer. And I haven’t Gone to Seminary to do this as an official Ministry.

These are all pathetic excuses. And they show how even the man who’s writing a series on Top seven risks for young restless Reformeds can fall into risk no. 5.

5. Neglecting the doctrine of Christian vocation.

Several times this subject has arisen on YeHaveHeard, mostly because I’ve been looking into it myself. Such thoughts do not come naturally, that God is just as glorified by “menial” and even “secular” jobs as He is when we do overt ministries.

But does all — yes, I do believe that should be our standard — young-restless-and-Reformed rhetoric reflect this truth? Are more Gospel-driven folks believing and speaking against the opposite view? I hope that’s not itself just a calling for some Christians, for we’re all meant to preach all of what Christ has commanded (Matt. 28: 18-20). That includes the full counsel of God in the Word. Yet I keep seeing examples of books, sermons, etc., that either assume people already get this, or else say or imply (our of ignorance, I hope?) the exact opposite:

• A Christian pastor and radio program host, in the name of preventing compromise with the truth that Scripture is sufficient, spends half an hour disparaging anyone who would want to allow liturgical dance or other creative expressions of worship in a church service. “If the Bible’s not enough, nothing is enough,” he says, and speaks not all wrongly against those who want to add special effects and other stunts to worship services. (But then, after a comical slip of the tongue, he laughs and says he didn’t mean to say we don’t need Christian radio programs like his. Why the double standard?)
• Radical, a popular book released last year by David Platt, a pastor, rightly challenges many American Christians’ blending of some favorite Christian ideas with “American dream” prosperity-style beliefs. But in proclaiming the Gospel and asking readers to apply it to their lives, Platt was quite selective in his examples: all of them related to Professional Ministry, overt church work. For examples about Christians who stay in their “secular” jobs, he only mentioned the time they might take for mission trips.
• Two Christian parents are adamant that their children must go to Bible college and learn courses specific to some kind of overt Ministry. This is the family’s default direction, it seems, without recognition for the fact that God may have gifted the children as they grow with other ways to serve in His Kingdom: engineering? artistry? full-time stay-at-home-motherhood? political activism? education? music? movie-making?

For myself, I didn’t inherit the impression that some jobs are more spiritual from any Christian teacher. Instead the “meme” is implicit, and left unopposed, in too many Christian books and slogans: If you’re doing any work besides overt Ministry, you may not be in the right place.

Or the quiet thought which surely many of us sometimes have (I’m sure it’s not just me) that says, Someday I want to quit this job and Go Into the Ministry.

Implicit in both of these suspicions: Your job is not as important as the professional Minister’s.

For Christmas my wife bought me Job-Shadowing Daniel, and when I am finished I hope to review this book by former “bi-vocational” minister Larry Peabody. His Biblical basis and experience with both “secular” and church work lends to his excellent overview of vocation truths and the life of Daniel. (See, appropriate “advertising” on this site has advantages!).

Throughout the book Peabody focuses on Daniel’s ascent in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court, every bit a bureaucrat as any legal office intern who outshines his peers — and gives Godward advice and witness at the same time. Peabody shows how Daniel was just as much a minister of God in his calling as any of the more-overtly-spiritual prophets were in theirs. Though others may have had more amazing methods of being called — such as Isaiah and Ezekiel with their visions — Daniel’s call was just as important and the plan of the sovereign God just as active in his life.

At first for me this meant purging the mental shrapnel of this-is-work-and-that-is-Ministry — sorting through and rejecting the wrong beliefs I’d picked up intellectually. Pieces of that false dichotomy are still there, but reading this book has really helped, after I’d listened to a Discover the Word radio series, read God at Work by Gene Veith and even analyzing Radical by David Platt (who gives an I’m-sure-unintentional negative example).

But more recently I believe these truths have begun sinking deeper. For me it’s begun going beyond the more-overt Ministry of showing how regular, even drudging work is part of God’s plan for His people — even in “secular” jobs, even when one isn’t actively sharing the Gospel. Instead I must apply this even more personally. Doing these dishes is glorifying God through work. Trying to get along with your family of origin: also glorifying God through work. Going to this city council meeting, interviewing this person, even covering anti-Gospel rhetoric honestly and with as much objectivity as I can muster — this glorifies God, even apart from witnessing.

One can overdo corrections for this, for sure. Already I’ve seen a few of those examples, such as in another book I’m reading. It overemphasizes “the priesthood of believers” truth almost to the point of disparaging those who are called to be an overseer or a teacher, which is certainly a legitimate and honorable calling for some Christians (example: 1 Timothy 3).

But Reformed folks could stand to start swinging back the other direction on the truth of varying vocations apart from what is popularly construed “full-time ministry.” We’re all part of “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Thus I hope more Gospel-driven types will ensure they’re recognizing the special role of more-overt Biblical ministers of the Gospel, such as pastors and missionaries, but also challenging “lay” ministers to fulfill their unique callings. Yes, all of us are “ministers,” as Peabody points out, and we should even stop using the term as if it denotes our ranking among a lower Christian caste!

• The Christian pastor and radio program host might recognize that his calling is to preach the Gospel directly to his congregation, and combat “compromise” with those truths on his radio program. However, he ought to be more careful about slamming any other methods of ministry as if they’re automatically equivalent with attacks on the Sufficiency of Scripture. If one of his callings is radio, why should another Christian not also worship and share the Gospel through dance or even a “program”? We should have serious conversations about whether these things can glorify God during church services, but let us not assume anything not worthy of overt-ministry service isn’t worthy at all.
• As I’ve said before, I’d love to see extended thoughts to Radical and other books, which champion proving in our lives that we’re really sold out for the Biblical Jesus out of gratitude for His lordship and salvation. My guess is that Platt, quite naturally, could only think of his particular calling while typing anecdotes for his chapters. He and other leaders might not even think of the connotations, or the fact that these reinforce the subtle idea that God is given the most glory through overt missions. Shall we share this with Platt and others, honestly, and even hope for Radical at Work, Radical at Home?
• And for Christian parents: sharing with them books such as Job-Shadowing Daniel, or perhaps a similar work about high-school age Christians trying to find their careers in Christ, may help. Gnostic ideas affect us all. All redeemed parents want to see their children succeed and be kept safe; but they simply may not have considered that the way God kept Daniel in His will was to send him into exile and assign him “pagan” jobs such as learning Babylonian mythology and “magic” (Daniel 1) and carry out often-seemingly useless bureaucratic tasks (Daniel 2, 4-6). Broader beliefs about “separation” from the world come into play here, and some Christians need to have those challenged as well. But all of this, I’m sure, must be done in the contexts of loving relationship.

Next: do YRRs feel guilty if they’re not being persecuted?