How, then, did things change? Not by any deliberate about face. Rather, it was a multitude of little providential happenings that moved me out of one ministry orientation into another. Looking back, I can say that, if what has occurred in my life is typical, God surely rules over each one of us in ways that, at the time, we don’t quite understand, to bring about His will.

How did things turn out as they did? It was in that first pastorate that some of my writing began. And teaching, from the start found its way into my life. Because of my concern about the liberalism in the community I wrote a tract exposing error and contrasting it with biblical truth. The tract clearly indicted the apostate Presbyterian USA denomination, a congregation of which was in the community adjacent to our church. That caused something of a furor as the pastor protested to my presbytery—which backed me, but urged me to be careful about how I presented myself in such matters. Then, writing also became of an increasing interest as I did an exegetical study for Wednesday evening prayer meetings in the Book of Revelation. Some people got wind of this, and wanted me to explain my views. Others also wished the same. Soon, I found I would be doing little else, if I didn’t write it out and distribute it instead. That, my first book, which was published in 1958 was the beginning of a writing ministry that I would have laughed at you for suggesting it at that time.

Interest in teaching also began in that pastorate in Eighty Four (the home of 84 Lumber) Pennsylvania. Two other pastor friends and I began a Bible school in nearby Canonsburg. There I began preparing syllabi, and learned something about teaching in a formal academic manner.

Things went on from there to the present, in unexpected and largely unplanned ways, until I found myself inextricably bound to the type of ministry that had been carved out for me long before I knew anything about it. Even the publication of Competent to Counsel, the book that made me more widely known, was not planned. I had no notion of publishing it. It was intended to be a text for my students at Westminster Seminary. But, since it was produced in smeary mimeograph of the day, I asked a printer friend to make a stiffer cover and bind it for me. He was doing printing for P&R Publishers at the time, showed it to them, and they asked if they could publish it. This, perhaps the most significant event in turning my ministry toward counseling, was likewise unplanned, as you can see.

Many, many other matters have happened this way. God’s providential work in my life has been noteworthy. I could never have charted such a course as I have taken–including a ministry of blogging in my old age! He alone could have fitted so many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together so as to make some sense out of it! No wonder I think providence to be a significant doctrine to proclaim.

feedback@nouthetic.org

If you would like to send a word of encouragement you can do so at Jay@nouthetic.org. He will not be able to read them online himself but I will print them out and deliver them.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, there is a list of the sort of people who will not “inherit God’s kingdom.” Here, the word “kingdom” refers, obviously, to its eternal phase, heaven.

This list sounds final, the way that it is worded, no hope in sight. But it isn’t. Indeed, in the very next verse we read,

These are what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were declared righteous, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

If you think you are too bad to go to heaven, then think again. Take a look at the list and see if it includes you. You see, it isn’t good people who are granted eternal life—there are none. What qualifies one for salvation is that he isn’t saved already.

Let me put it another way: if you aren’t a sinner it’s impossible for your sins to be forgiven, for you to be washed clean of them, for you to be declared righteous. Since you are a sinner, you can be cleansed.

The list was not intended to be a final word. It includes only those who remain in the unrighteous condition in which you now find yourself. If you are not saved, you will be excluded from God’s kingdom. But if you believe the Gospel, you will be transformed, placed in a different category—saved!

Now, will you continue in your present state, or will you come to Jesus Christ as Savior? If you want to be freed not only from the guilt of sin, but from its power, then repent of it (I.e., confess to God that you are a sinner, guilty of breaking His law), and believe the Gospel (that Jesus Christ died in the place of sinners like you, bearing their guilt, suffering in their stead the punishment due them).

If you will believe this message, you will be granted a place in God’s eternal kingdom on the basis of His merits. Your faith is but the way to receive the gift of eternal life.

It is a fearful thing to have your name remain on that list. Now is the time for it to be expunged. Don’t delay.

feedback@nouthetic.org

There are people in counseling who think that they can read the hearts of their counselees so as to learn what “idols” they have in their hearts. That is an impossible task, and should not be pursued.

“But I’ve heard people (even some Nouthetic counselors) talk that way; are they all wrong?”

Well, judge for yourself.

First, it is absolutely clear that nowhere is searching another’s heart set forth as a counseling construct. If you don’t believe me, then search the Scriptures, fellow-Berean!

Next, consider these verses:

. . . may you hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and may You forgive and repay the man according to all his ways, since You know his heart, for You alone know the human heart.  (2 Chronicles 6:30)

. . . may You hear in heaven, Your dwelling place, and may You forgive, act, and repay the man, according to all his ways, since You know his heart, for You alone know every human heart.  (1 Kings 8:39)

Two absolutely clear passages—both say that nobody can read hearts but God. Right?

“Well. . . “

Right?

“I guess so.”

Guess? How can you guess about an outright affirmation of the fact?

“What about Ezekiel 14:3-8, then?”

This is what the Lord God says: When anyone from the house of Israel sets up idols in his heart, puts a sinful stumbling block before his face, and then comes to the prophet, I, the Lord, will answer him appropriately. I will answer him according to his many idols, so that I may take hold of the house of Israel by their hearts, because they are all estranged from Me by their idols. “Therefore, say to the house of Israel: This is what the Lord God says: Repent and turn away from your idols; turn your faces away from all your abominations. For when anyone from the house of Israel or from the foreigners who reside in Israel separates himself from Me, setting up idols in his heart and putting a sinful stumbling block before his face, and then comes to the prophet to inquire of Me, I, the Lord, will answer him Myself. I will turn against that one and make him a sign and a proverb; I will cut him off from among My people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

OK, I’m willing to let you change the subject. First, Ezekiel 14 isn’t a counseling context. Secondly, it says nothing about idols manufactured by one’s heart. In verses 3, 4, 7 it talks about setting up idols in (or on) the heart, not producing them. The context, and much of Ezekiel, takes up the serious matter of idolatry. The people had been exiled, in large part, because of idolatry. But here they were, exiles, who were forced to leave their idols behind, longing for the idols they had left. So, instead of abandoning idolatry, they carried thoughts (and, perhaps, imaginations) of those idols in their hearts. That’s what the passage is all about. Besides, no one is ordered to find out what idols a person might have in his heart. Right?

Moreover, when people go about looking for idols in another’s heart, even though there is no command or example to do so, they act almost like those who are looking for demons of this and demons of that. That’s not a good thing to do.

1 Samuel 16:7 should clinch it for you.

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or his stature, because I have rejected him. Man does not see what the Lord sees, for man sees what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.”

Here, man is set over against God precisely with reference to the matter of knowing hearts—man looks on the outside of another man; God looks on the heart!

In 1 Corinthians 4:3-5, Paul makes it clear that he doesn’t even judge what is in his own heart—let alone that which is in another’s.

To me it is of little consequence to be judged by you or by the judgement of any other human being; indeed, I don’t even judge myself. Now I am not conscious of anything against myself, but that doesn’t mean that I am innocent. The One Who judges me is the Lord. So don’t judge ahead of time, before the Lord comes, Who will bring to light the things that are now hidden in darkness and will make the purposes of heart to appear. At that time each one will receive his praise from God.

So—what do you think after examining those passages?

“Well . . . .”

Give it some more thought and I’m sure you’ll get it right. Man looks at actions and listens to the words of others, when he counsels. He would not presume to take over God’s task of looking into the hearts of counselees.

How about it?

feedback@nouthetic.org

“What is the meaning of that title?”

Well, no one is quite sure how it came about. The name just appears in Acts without explanation. As you can see, no point is made about it in the passages above. But many think it came from the words of Jesus When He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14: 3).

“But, if it came from that verse, what about the other two items—truth and life? ”

That’s a good question, but remember, Jesus went on to say, “Nobody comes to the Father except by Me” (6). And these words all occur in a discussion of the “way” to the place that Jesus was preparing for His followers (v.3). So, it’s quite likely that John 14 is the source of the name.

“OK. I can see that. But, then, our faith would be described, fundamentally, as the way to eternal life or something similar.”

Right. And that wouldn’t be inaccurate. Surely the apostles who later on it seems dropped it, didn’t do so because they thought it was inaccurate. Luke, in Acts, freely described the faith by the term. It is a highly expressive title for our faith. Indeed, it might be interesting to revive it at times in certain circles to get people to think more about a prime objective of Christianity.

“Did the church eventually reject it or substitute the name “Christian” for it?”

There’s no record of its being rejected. It seems that the name “Christian,” in time, became the more popular designation, and the earlier designation just faded out.

“Then, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with using it?”

Not so long as you explained what it means. Otherwise, people might think you were describing some cult (there once was one that went by that name).

“Interesting.”

Quite. I kinda’ like the title. Wish it were more widely known, appreciated, and used.

“Me too.”

feedback@nouthetic.org

“OK. OK. Get to the point.”

Sure. Some things seem routine to those who are used to doing them, but on the outer edge to those who are not. Nothing could be more foreign to them. That is how it is with the subject of this editorial. To the former, what I have to say will not seem strange; to the latter it probably will. I am suggesting that out of love you ought to shepherd the people of your congregation by approaching them when you suspect that there is something wrong.

“Now wait a minute. Are you telling me to probe into their lives when they haven’t asked me to do so? Isn’t that asking for trouble?”

That depends.

If your relationship to your people is close (as a shepherd’s ought to be to his sheep), the thought may not seem strange at all. Not only will your congregation know that you care enough to do so, you will also know that they know. They may not always appreciate it, but on the whole they’ll recognize that not only are you doing this because it is your pastoral duty, but also that you are willing to do such difficult things because you care for them.

“But why would I take such an initiative? If I do so, won’t people begin to think of me as a snoop?”

Not necessarily. You see, there is a second thing as well. You must do it properly. In time, you will cultivate proper methods of approaching people. And you’ll do it because you know that to treat a wound when it’s fresh is so much better than waiting until it festers. As Spurgeon put it, “It is easier to crush the egg than to kill the serpent.” If you’re one who hopes that things will go away on their own, you’ll soon find those problems seldom go; instead, they grow!

“Well, I guess that I’ve seen that to be true at times. So, what’s the proper way to approach people about perceived problems?”

I like the way you put it; you just spoke of “perceived” problems. You’re already on the right track. You certainly don’t want to go around accusing people when you only have suspicions. What you think is only how you have “perceived matters.” You may be right. On the other hand, you may be quite wrong. Recognizing that fact is half the secret to pulling this off well—i.e., in ways that honor God and help His children.

Let’s take an example. It seems to you that Larry and Martha have been very unhappy lately. You have noticed this over a period of three weeks or so. Suppose you conclude from the data that you gleaned that they’re having marital problems. What will you do? Forget it? Or deal with it? If you go piling in, cornering Larry after a church service, and say, “Larry, I want you to tell me about it old man. I’ve noticed you and Martha lately, and it seems evident to me that you two must be having marital problems,” you may have made a colossal blunder. If, after that faux pas, Larry decides to tell you, he may say something like this: “Wait a minute, Pastor. Don’t accuse us of any such thing! Sure, we haven’t been as bright and cheerful recently, but it has nothing to do with our marriage. In fact, our problem has drawn us closer together, and to the Lord, than ever before. If you must know, I’ve had a biopsy for cancer of the liver and I am afraid that it may turn out positive.”

How would you feel if you blundered that way? Lousy? Certainly. Sputtering apologies, you’d probably walk away. Now, perhaps Larry should have told you and the elders of the church about his concern so they could pray for him. But he didn’t. And you did no one any good but, possibly, a great deal of harm by accusing them of marital difficulties.

“I can see that. But there wouldn’t have been any problem if I hadn’t attempted to become involved. It seems that it’s probably better to wait until people approach me. What your scenario with Larry does actually proves my point, doesn’t it?”

No, it doesn’t. There’s a right way to approach Larry that in almost all instances will cause no offence. If you follow it, and Larry is offended, it’ll be his fault and not yours. Consider the following. Suppose you phoned Larry and asked him to meet with you for a fellowship lunch. After the meal, over desert, you then say, “Larry, I suppose you wonder why I’ve asked you out to lunch. Well, there are a couple of reasons. It’s always good to meet with church members. I enjoy just talking over things that we have in common—the way we’ve been doing today. That’s one reason that I wanted us to get together. But there’s another too. I want you to know that, in my opinion, you just haven’t seemed to be your old cheerful self lately. Maybe you’re working late, and you’re overly tired. Maybe something’s come up that’s troubling you. I don’t know, and I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess about it. On the other hand, I may be seeing things that aren’t there. It all may be in my head. So, I also asked you to have a fellowship lunch also to raise the matter so that I could offer my help if it’s needed.”

Larry might respond to such an approach this way, “Well, you see, pastor, there is something wrong. I wasn’t going to tell anyone about it until I was sure, but . . .” and then he explains about the biopsy. Even if he doesn’t tell you about it (he and Martha may be “very private persons” ), Larry’s response should (and probably would) be something like this, “Well, pastor, this time I’m glad to say that you’re wrong. There isn’t anything that you need to help us with. But I do appreciate your offer, and if something does come up, I’ll remember to call on you.”

Now, you see, there are right ways to approach a matter. You don’t accuse, you don’t guess. You don’t even assume that your “perception” is correct. You allow Larry space to back off the matter, but you haven’t neglected him. And, if and when, the biopsy is positive, he may want to ask for prayer and counsel.

Does this seem foreign to you after all? If my words haven’t raised a matter that you believe you ought to consider seriously, then think about this. When a sheep has a problem, does the shepherd neglect it? Suppose it seems to be limping. Doesn’t he examine the sheep to see if something is wrong with its leg? If he discovers that it isn’t anything serious, he backs off with a sigh of relief—he doesn’t manufacture problems. But if there’s a genuine injury, he helps heal the sheep before the problem gets worse. Does the sheep think less of him for doing so? Not really. Indeed, in most cases, the experience draws shepherd and sheep closer together. Think again about what I have suggested—then about some members of your congregation who, like that sheep, seem to be limping.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Well, if it was, please indulge me for a couple of minutes’ read to try to change your opinion.

What is theology anyway? Systematic theology, as its name indicates, is the culling of the principal aspects of various teachings in the Bible, placing them in juxtaposition to one another, and reaching general conclusions about what God has to say concerning each one. Let’s just take a taste of what this means.

For instance, consider the Bible’s teaching about salvation. In the Scriptures, we learn that the original word for “salvation” means “rescue.” So, to begin with, we discover that there is a need for rescuing people from a desperate situation. We also read that all have sinned and come short of eternal life. That is the situation from which there is a need to be rescued—failure to measure up to God’s standards. Moreover, we discover that because God demands perfection in order to enter heaven—which is a perfect place from which all sin is excluded—we are unable to rescue ourselves. We probe some more and note that the situation from which we must be rescued is everlasting punishment for our sin. Thinking biblically about sin—this barrier to heaven and cause of punishment—we conclude that sin is offending a holy God by disobeying His commands. So, in order to be saved from hell, and get to heaven, we next understand that someone else must rescue us by satisfying those commands. Moving along in the Bible, we next come to see that this is why Jesus Christ came to the earth. Since a holy God demands satisfaction, Jesus—the only perfect man (Who obeyed those commands in our place)—came to die in the stead of guilty sinners in order to save them from the consequences of their sin. As a perfect man, He did this by bearing the punishment of all who would believe in Him, as He suffered and died upon the cross. That God accepted His sacrifice for sinners is made clear by the fact that He raised Him from the dead and ascended into heaven. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that He will return a second time to receive all believers who are alive and to raise those who have died. Then, we shall ever be with the Lord.

Nearly every statement in the paragraph above (and almost every word) is a theological statement. It wasn’t hard to follow them was it? Yet, whether or not you know it, you have compassed a great deal of theology merely by reading it. If you find it interesting to note such interrelationships, and want a truly systematic approach to Christian theology, I suggest that you buy and devour either L. Berkhof’s Systematic Theology or A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Systematic Theology. If you are a serious student of the Bible, you couldn’t do better than to purchase both!

feedback@nouthetic.org

Perhaps you don’t even know why you are becoming interested—couldn’t spell out the reasons out if you were forced to do so at gun point. There simply may be something about counseling that entices you that you are unable to articulate. Perhaps you believe that you have gifts that seem to point you toward counseling. Whatever the reason—or reasons—you ought to sort them out. Why? Because the time will come when you will have to ask yourself whether or not your reasons are sufficient to sustain your interest in counseling. Counseling can get wearisome at times. It can become demanding, discouraging and time-consuming. It is in times like those that a proper, biblical motivation will enable you to endure.

If you are a minister of the Gospel, you have a flock and, of course, your motivation ought to be to fulfill your responsibilities to the flock—many of which will involve both informal and formal counseling as a part of the office to which you were ordained. If you are called by the church of Christ to minister; you are called to counsel. It goes with the territory.

What of you—a layman who has no flock, who is not ordained to a shepherding ministry? You too are required to counsel—informally. Galatians 6 puts you in the business of doing such counseling. If after reading the first verses of that chapter you don’t understand your place in counseling, you might want to read my explanation of it in the book, Ready to Restore.

All I’m saying is if you are going to counsel it ought to be

1. because God requires it of you
2. because you care about your hurting brothers and sisters.

Any lesser motives ought to be expunged from your thinking and, instead, the proper ones must take their place. Otherwise, your counsel is likely to falter, fail, or be seriously flawed. Why not take time to think these things through, pray about them, read again Acts 20, Galatians 6?

Is it time for you to check out your motives? Then, to do so, without distraction. In the long run, you will be glad that you did—and so will your counselees.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Here, let’s consider only one item—one that may appear insignificant. But it is often of significance to consider how one handles insignificant matters. It usually tells you much about him.

In Nehemiah 5:15c (HCSB) we read,

I and my associates never ate from the food allotted to the governor.

Here, we see a man who cared. The people who had returned to Jerusalem remained a pitiful lot. They were poor, lived among the ruins of a formerly great city, were outcasts among those who lived in the land; their situation was miserable. Nehemiah recognized the fact and cared. Already burdened beyond belief, to take upon themselves a new responsibility, now that the new governor had arrived, would have been almost beyond their ability. Or, so Nehemiah saw it.

So, on his own, he determined not to place an additional burden upon their shoulders. He was entitled to his share of the food allotment that was to be given to him and his officials. But he chose not to enjoy that entitlement. He understood the needs of others and, in effect, determined to identify with them. Here was no pompous person, gobbling up all he can get from others; rather, here was a servant of the Lord who saw his responsibility in that service to stand with—not above—those he served.

What a difference there would be in government today were our officials to adopt a similar attitude. Of course, it would not take the same form that it did with Nehemiah. But to adopt Nehemiah’s attitude would have significant impact. Of interest, in this regard, can you think of five ways in which our officials could refuse to take advantage of those perks that are rightfully theirs for the taking? It might be a challenge to you as well if you should do so.

feedback@nouthetic.org