You're listening to the podcast of Antioch Presbyterian Church, a historic and charter congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America, ministering to upstate South Carolina since 1843. Come and visit us at the crossroads of Greenville and Spartanburg counties. Experience our past and be a part of our future. For more information, visit antiochpca.com or contact us at info at antiochpca.com. Hello and welcome to another edition of Faith in Practice here on the Old Antioch podcast. I'm with Dr. Joseph Piper over Zoom today. Dr. Piper, thanks for joining me. Well, thanks for having me, Zach. Glad we could get started back. Me too. If you're new to the podcast, we have been co-hosting this now for, oh, I don't know, something like seven and a half years off and on in various contexts. And currently we are co-pastoring a little church here, reorganization work that now has its own elders, which I think is news since the last time we recorded one of these episodes. And we love to answer your questions about, you guessed it, faith and practice. And so we have a list in front of us that's been accumulating. I think we'll be depleting it today, so please send us some new questions by going to antiochpca.com slash podcast. Again, that's antiochpca.com slash podcast. podcast where you can input your questions and you can do so anonymously or you can give us your name and location and we're happy to give you credit where credit is due one way or another. Dr. Piper, before we begin, would you open us with a word of prayer? Be glad to, Zach. Our Father in heaven, we bless you and we praise your holy name. We thank you that you have loved us in Christ from eternity. We thank you that you love this so much. Not only did you give us your Son as our Savior, but you gave us the scriptures that we might know you, whom to know as to have eternal life. We thank you that the scriptures then tell us all that we're to believe and do. And that's the name of this podcast. So as we start today, Lord, we ask that you, Spirit, will give us illumination and wisdom as we answer questions from these people who have sent them in. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen. Our first question comes from a longtime listener, Virginia Canuto, who's down in Brazil. Virginia, always great to hear from you. She asks, what is your opinion about a space created in worship where the pastor calls the children to the front and gives a short message or reflection in a language supposedly appropriate for them, and then praise for them. I think by space here she's talking about a particular time set aside within a worship service, and of course also a space probably up front where the kids can sit. What do you think, Dr. Piper? Well, it's become quite a custom, Zach, in many of our churches. I think it is unnecessary and really contributes to a bad view of preaching and to the role of children in our corporate worship. Preaching, not a Bible story, preaching is the means of communication that God's appointed in the worship service, and there is a unique spiritual authority and power in preaching. and we shouldn't suppose that our children, even the littlest ones, cannot begin to profit from preaching. We do have examples in the Old Testament at some of the festivals where the law was being read and proclaimed, but the children were present on those occasions as well. So I think we don't need that, but I think that pastors, as they preach, One of the things when the Confession talks about how we preach the Word, it talks about doing it wisely and accommodating to all hearers, that we must have in mind that children are present, and we should address them in various ways in the sermon. Ways to help them listen, and also to have application for them, as we seek to do at Antioch. And one of the things that you and I both have experienced, and you've shared some things recently with some of your children, is that more and more as they listen, they get further into a sermon and are responding to it with some understanding. And I think that's exactly what we want to see happen. So I think we Well, we show a lack of faith in the work of the Holy Spirit in preaching. We show a lack of faith in what little ones are capable of understanding through the Spirit's illumination. So I think we don't need it. Again, I think it violates the regular principle of worship as well, since this is bringing in a Bible story section into a corporate worship. As a father of little ones, you might speak to that as well. Yeah, I mean, my first impulse is to applaud the intent of the practice. We read in Matthew chapter 19 that some children were brought to Jesus so that he might lay his hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them, that is the parents and probably the children too, for coming. But Jesus said, let the children alone, do not hinder them, from coming to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." And then the parallel passage in Luke 18 as well says, they were bringing even their babies to him so that he would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. And Jesus called for them saying, permit the children to come to me, do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs. to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." And so the intent of bringing children to the Word is a good one, and the question is how. And that's really what you're getting at here. The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, proclaimed in the preaching of the Word, and thus our preaching of the Word must be to children. That's really the how. It should be to children and adults and all who are gathered. And I really don't know of any example in scripture where you have a herald of the king addressing a mixed multitude, in terms of ages, and then calling out certain ages to come and physically approach and be set apart from in order to get a special message that everyone gets to listen in on. I don't know of any examples, at least of preaching, that you could characterize in this sense. So I think the real answer is, okay, how do we make our worship service as a whole then? properly engaging to all ages with reverence and awe, understanding that at the end of the day, our worship is for an audience of one, that is, the triune God. And I think the regulative principle of worship, as we apply it consistently from God's Word, is a very helpful guide for how to do that. And I've seen that even with my own children. And it's tough for us because half of the worship services we go to, if not more, I'm not sitting with them. I'm not parenting them in the pew. It's my wife kind of on her own, maybe with help now from the older children or from friends in the church. But certainly, where you have both parents able to be seated with the children, setting an example for them, and also helping them to listen, I think the regulative principle and the models we have in Scripture are sufficient. We don't need to introduce this innovative practice of a little Bible story time in the middle of a worship service. What we have done at Antioch, however, that I think is useful, and this is interesting timing because just yesterday I printed up a bunch more of these since we were running low, is we have a children's bulletin. that is really designed to help the children engage, to listen for certain key words, to write down things that stick out to them, and give the parents something that then they can discuss with their children afterwards, as well as encourage the kids not to be getting up quite as much in the service and to be thinking about how to limit their up and down movement. which is the perennial challenge, and really a delightful thing to help disciple children in. So it's a great question, Virginia. I grew up in a church that did this, but I don't think it's a good practice. In the larger Catechism 160, the counsel on how to listen to a sermon, how you approach it, what you do under it and afterwards, and in the old language, it is to confer on it, which means to have a conversation about it. One time in Houston, I had a father come to me and said, why don't you have a children's sermon? So I asked him, I said, how many points do you think a child would get from a children's sermon? He thought that was a stupid question. He said, one. And I said, well, you think if you went home and discussed the sermon, reviewed it with your children, that you can help them get one point out of it? And so, yeah, the Children's Bulletin's good, but to encourage our parents, and maybe in pastoral visitation, do more of this, to be sure that they're talking to the children. I know you, I think, discuss the sermon with your children before you preach it. You've got the advantage, you know what you're going to say, but we can involve them that way, as well, in the family activities. What we do, in my household anyway, and there's different ways of structuring family worship, but we have one family worship time a day as a whole family. My wife does other devotional activities with the children kind of throughout the day while I'm at work. But on Monday nights, we review yesterday's evening sermon. And then on Tuesday nights, we review the previous Lord's Day's morning sermon, Wednesday's prayer meeting. Thursday nights, we anticipate and look at the text for the coming Lord's Day evening sermon. And then Friday nights, we anticipate and look at the text for the coming Lord's Day morning service. And Saturday, I usually pick a psalm or some other occasional text that relates to something we as a family have been dealing with or discussing throughout the week. And, uh, that, that gets my children both reflecting on what we've heard, but also anticipating and, um, and beginning to think about what we're about to hear. And yeah, it's true. I have some idea of what it is I'm going to say on the Lord's day, but even sometimes Well, Friday night, I have to admit, I don't have all my my thinking done. And so a lot of it is is about what the text says, what sticks out to us. Sometimes I ask the children questions, you know, what do you think is the main idea here? or about, you know, what's the doctrine that's in play? How does this speak to God's grace or God's providence and his control or what have you? Yeah, that's what we do. I mean, other families will go through books together as a family. I think that's a wonderful practice as well, or go through McShane's reading plan or something else. And there's a lot of different ways to do this. But that's what we do and that I found helpful with a broad age range like we have in the Groff household. So good question Virginia, thanks for getting us talking on this. We love talking about family piety and devotion and studying the scriptures together. It's one of the great privileges of being a father and or being a part of a larger family is being able to have those conversations. Next question comes from our dear friend Isaac Overton in the land down under. He's a minister in the Reformed Church of Box Hill. outside of Melbourne, Australia, and Victoria State, and Isaac asks, how do you pastorally distinguish between no progress in sanctification in a Christian's life, slow progress in a Christian's life, and what kind of progress we ought to expect to see in a Christian's life? And in answering this, do you have any books you can recommend on the subject? So we got these three kind of categories in sanctification, no progress, slow progress, and what we might call normative progress, what we ought to expect? Yeah, well, the first one is difficult, pastorally, to observe this. I know I've often been vexed over the years, particularly with men in the congregation that seem to have no real spiritual appetite, but there's no marked sinning in their lives. And so, with these people, you're pressing them. And I will say that if a person is not growing to some degree, that they need to examine themselves and to determine if they're converted. As the writer of Hebrews says, pursue that sanctification without which no one shall see the Lord." Of course, the question implies, again, pastoral visitation. If the pastors and the elders need to be in the home, that's going to be the place where we can, particularly over a period of time, is this person growing in their use of Scripture, in their devotional and prayer life, a man leading his family. Discuss, you know— What are some things in your life, sins, with which you're wrestling? What temptations? And if over a period of time there's just no evidence there, then I think we must give warnings to such people that they really need to examine if they've been born again, because sanctification is not our work, it's the work of the Spirit in us. and because we have the seed of righteousness and the indwelling of the Spirit, there's going to be change. Now, in terms of the progress, again, the larger catechism, when it distinguishes between justification and sanctification, I think that is 77, wherein do justification and sanctification differ. The last part of that In the former, justification's sin is pardoned, in the other it is subdued. The one doth equally free all believers from the revenge and wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation. The other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection." And the cause is not equal in all, is a very important thing to realize, thinking about God's sovereignty and sanctification. Make the parallel with the development of little children. My daughter was talking while she was still crawling. My son, he talked later. Has nothing to do with the intellectual ability of a child. It has to do with, in physical development, mental development, God's sovereignty. And we don't have one standard fits all. So the same thing is true spiritually, because this is how God operates. And so we recognize that there'll be various levels of growth in people at various times in their lives. On the one hand, we encourage them, don't compare yourself with others. Compare yourself, of course, with Christ and the standard of sanctification in Scripture, and plead with God to quicken that work in you. In the same way, then, in terms of the last part of growth and sanctification is a lot like the stock market. You'll have steady progress, and then you'll have some declension. And we wish that it was always an upward line on the graph, but it's not. And so we all must recognize in ourselves that we're going to have times of greater progress and times when it will be slower, even some declension. And we mourn these things, and we use the means of grace and plead with God who's promised us to ask the Spirit, and that means the Spirit's work in us. We already have the Spirit. Spirit's work in us, and we should begin each day and throughout the day asking to be filled with the Spirit, to walk in step with the Spirit, that He will do this work in us. I find Pryor's book on sanctification to be very useful, and the first two books that Jerry Bridges wrote on sanctification, and of course J.C. Ryle's book, Holiness. is a great classic. All of those are classics. For shorter treatments, if you wanted to put something in the hands of a newer believer or just somebody who is not a big reader, there are two really good books treating on this subject in the Banner mini-guide series. One by David Campbell, just called Sanctification, subtitle Transformed Life. Another one by our dear friend Jonathan Master, a book called Becoming More Like Jesus, or it's called Growing in Grace with the subtitle Becoming More Like Jesus, both in the Banner of Truth mini guides series. That one, Growing in Grace by Dr. Master, I read when he first became president of Greenville Seminary, and I just thought it was a very good, succinct, focused treatment and practical treatment on what it means to grow in grace as revealed in Christ. Also, don't neglect some of the bigger books on the Holy Spirit. Frequently, there will be large portions of those books dealing with sanctification as the special work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, also regeneration and other kind of aspects of our pneumatology, but usually very helpful material on sanctification in those kinds of books. Yeah, and oh, and you could get the bridge if you want to tackle him, but our mortification and temptation also is very useful. That's right. That's right. All right. Our next few questions here that we have on the list are submitted anonymously. This one comes from a Presbyterian friend here in South Carolina, and it's a textual question. He says, What does 1 Peter 3, 19 to 20 mean? when it says Jesus, quote, went and preached to the spirits in prison, end quote. Some say Christ, through the voice of Noah, went and preached to that generation whose spirits are now in prison, that is, in hell. Others say Christ, after his death, proclaimed his victory in hell. And I think some even link that up to what we call the descendant in the Apostles' Creed, he descended into hell. to do this. Dr. Piper, what's your take on these verses? Well, let's read it quickly. I want to start with verse 18, though, that gets to the death and resurrection of Christ. For Christ also died for our sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit. Now, that's important that we catch that that's the Holy Spirit in the end of verse 18. In which, or in whom? So it's the Spirit also. He went and made proclamation to these spirits now in prison. So I believe, and I think it's pretty much the historic interpretation, this goes back to Genesis 6, where God, for 120 years, bore it with that generation. and Peter tells us that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. And so Noah was not just building an ark, he was preaching during that time, calling people to repentance. And the biblical truth here, then, is that Christ is always the one who, by His Spirit, spoke through the prophets and spoke through preaching then as He speaks through preaching now. the spirits now in prison—the now is an italics, but I think that is a proper interpretive word—so that they are now in hell because they rejected the preaching of Christ by His Spirit through Noah to them during that 120 years. Christ said to the thief on the cross, today you'll be with me in paradise. He immediately, his soul at death, went into the presence of God, as the souls of the righteous do as well, and there's just really no ground to imagine that for some reason he went down to boast or to proclaim his excellency or to give a second chance or whatever. Well, definitely not to give a second chance. That's... I mean, to announce his victory is more plausible, but it's a difficult text. The Reform had never understood the text in any other way than I explained it, and both Calvin, Westminster, and the Heidelberg Catechism interpret descent into hell differently. I think both things could be true, but one has to do with his being in shield, his body in the grave as punishment. And the other is a summary of the entirety, because there's no real summary statement in the Creed in terms of substitutionary atonement. Yeah. Well, thank you for the excellent question, Anonymous. This is perennially difficult, but Dr. Piper has laid out the traditional Reformed view, and probably, at least in my mind and thinking, the most compelling of the views that get circulated on this text. Okay, here's another question submitted anonymously. What's the symbolism involved in the removal of the foreskin in circumcision? My first thought, Dr. Paipa, in this is it symbolizes the circumcision of the heart in regeneration and our identity covenantally then in Christ and in covenant with God, but how would you answer this question? What's the symbolism involved here? Yeah, I must think that's surely a part of it, but I think because it's the foreskin, it's a statement about total depravity, and so that we have been born in sin, and because of the organ of procreation, circumcision then is applied there, teaching then the need to, as you say, to be regenerate. It also, I think, to some degree, enforces what Dabney would teach, and that is that the male is the primary agent of the passing on of the sinful nature to the children, which is why then it was in the male. And then there's obviously a a typical element to it, because Christ then was cut off for us, in his being cut off for us, in his sense, then of being slain in our place, and in his baptism, showing then anticipating what will take place, what Paul says in Colossians, that He identified with us in circumcision, as well as then taking our place covenantally. Right. And just directing it to The, uh, statements involving even just this word, the circumcision of the foreskin is, is always related to circumcision of the heart as well. And that's really. that's really what needs to happen. And that's why, when we come over to the New Testament, this is not a practice that must be continued, and certainly should not be continued in any ceremonial sense. But what does need to carry over from Old Covenant to New Covenant is the reality of heart renewal and rebirth and conversion and regeneration. And that's really what is called for here. Right. In Deuteronomy 30, Moses applies it both to regeneration and to mortification. Our next question, Dr. Piper, is about a narrative detail now in the latter part of Genesis. Why did Joseph deceive and scare his brothers when he was a ruler in Egypt? Yes, he was testing their repentance. Where were they spiritually was the first thing he had to know. Were they still filled with envy and hatred against Benjamin, who would have been Jacob's favorite? And then, to the extent of their repentance, when they came back and he said that he would simply take Benjamin and because he was the perpetrator. So he was being a very good spiritual pastor at that point. Yeah, but are we as pastors within our rights to engage in the same tactic? I mean, can we pretend that we're something we're not or we're somebody we're not in order to put somebody through a spiritual test? And what I'm thinking of, the closest analog to this is, You meet somebody on the train or on the bus or out in public, you get talking with them, and you steer the conversation somehow or another into spiritual things, but you don't divulge that you're a minister, because you want them to speak freely. Is that something that we can do, or is that conniving? And is that a betrayal of confidence? Well, no, I don't... I don't know the analogy holds up, but no, I don't think it's a betrayal of anything. They're simply using the proper spiritual wisdom to get a person to talk. Okay. I've never interpreted what Joseph is doing as deception. I guess how one defines deception, he He simply just didn't disclose who he was, and they didn't recognize him because he was all dressed up like an Egyptian ruler. I mean, he didn't really lead them to believe that. He put temptation before them, but you know, God does that, leads us into things providentially to test us whether we're going to obey his word or whether we're going to go off under a sinful direction. So I looked at Maura as a series of tests. He didn't tell them he wasn't Joseph. When he gave him these tests, but he also was very beneficent in giving them all their money. He had to test them with respect to Benjamin. It's the only way that would be clear. that they had truly repented and come out of their previous character. But again, he was, I think, operating also under some inspiration of the Spirit and what he did. He was knowing that he was fulfilling the prophecy of the dreams, So no, I don't think we can take him as a model for how we would deal with people. But we don't tell people everything at times, as God doesn't tell people everything at times. And even then, there are biblical deceptions that I think are not a violation of the Ninth Commandment. So I've never taken it that way. Yeah, that's a good point. The question assumes that Joseph deceived, and he certainly frightened his brothers and intimidated them a little bit, but he didn't deceive them. He allowed them to believe what was reasonable to believe based on the presentation of the situation. Which, for example, Jesus did that with the two on the road after the resurrection. Yep, that's right. louder than to think he was someone else. Mm-hmm. Interesting question. Interesting puzzle to think through. There's a lot of... Yeah, Anonymous is a good thinker. I wish he'd let us use his name because his questions are always, unless he's acting more personally about his family or the church, his questions are always very thoughtful. Yeah, my understanding is he just likes to get these questions out there, and he's a humble guy. He doesn't want people to know who it is. It's not me. It's not Dr. Piper. These aren't contrived. These are actually submitted by a listener, and they're anonymously submitted, a friend of ours here. All right, next question. Why did Jesus tell the disciples to buy swords in Luke 22, 36 to 38? And I think it's probably best to read that passage. So I'll read it here. Luke 22, and we got 36 to 38. I'll back up and go to 35. He said to them, when I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you? And they said, no, nothing. And he said to them, But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in me. And he was numbered with transgressors. And that which refers to me has its fulfillment. And they said, Lord, look, here are two swords. And he said to them, it is enough. Yeah, I'm glad you read the previous verse, because I think that shows us he's revealing to them a transition, that while he was with them, they were under a peculiar care, even when he sent them out. But as he's announcing the transition of his own death, will become a transition then for them and for the church, so that they as emissaries and the church now are to use ordinary means in the propagation of ministry. And in the propagation of ministry, there will be danger from robbers, as Paul refers to those dangers later in his own writings. And I think that we could interpret that in terms of the requirement of the Sixth Commandment that we are responsible to self-defense when it's in a position when we know that our lives are in danger. So he's laying down the principle. Then, he might be a bit ironical when they said, well, here's two, and he said, well, two's enough. Well, two's not enough for the twelve, nor is two enough to resist the the people are coming to seize him. So I think he's directing attention then back to right now, this is not the place of self-defense because I must go to the cross. So it's a situational command is what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. There's a change in situation. And so now the protocol has changed as well. I think that's... But it doesn't apply to that night. Yeah, that's right, that's right. Alright, good question, good answer. Now we have a very interesting question here about some very popular literature. Is Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia a violation of the Second Commandment? Now some say Aslan is an allegorical representation of Christ. Others, including Lewis, say he's only or merely an analogy or perhaps a type. a Christ-like character. And our beloved listener gives us a series of quotations from Aslan and his engagements with the children in the Chronicles of Narnia, and also from C.S. Lewis' writings. I'm not going to read all of these, though they are very interesting and informative, and perhaps we can weave them into the answer. But Dr. Piper, what do you think? Do you think Aslan, as such, is a violation of the Second Commandment, or perhaps even the Third Commandment? I don't. Let's just do the one quotation from the letter that Lewis wrote to Mrs. Hooke. If Aslan represented the immaterial deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality, however, he's an invention, given an imaginary answer to the question, what might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and he choose to be incarnate and die and rise again in the world as he actually has done in ours. And that's his idea of analogy. I think also behind Chronicles of Narnia would be Lewis's whole theory of myth. And he saw myth as a proper way to communicate truth. And so I don't know if at other times he applies his theories of myth to the book. I think it surely shows kind of the worldview in which he's operating. So, no, I don't think it's a violation, nor I think it's taking God's name in vain. an imaginative way to get us to think about what Christ did, so it would fit his idea of myth. You know, when Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress, there were many people in England upset, basically the same thing. and that he shouldn't be, you know, picturing Christian life as an allegory, and they accused him of particularly probably violating the third commandment. But again, what he did, what Bunyan did, was clearly allegory. He did not, in his allegory, ever in any way represent Christ, as I can remember. But I think what he did with allegory and what Lewis did with analogy are useful. You know, it's an interesting thing—literary representations of Jesus, so not pictorial representations. but literary ones. I mean, this is a longstanding tradition. It goes back even to the apocryphal Gospels or the Gnostic Gospels and different writings through the years that featured Jesus as some kind of character. And even Dostoevsky's The Idiot, the main character, is an analogy or allegorical figure relating to Christ. And it is an interesting question. What is the appropriateness of this? And I've heard Carl Truman one time talk about the line that he draws, anyway, for what constitutes a second commandment violation in terms of pictorial representation. And that line is the line of capturing the imagination. So drawing a stick figure on a board as part of a diagram or a big circle and a little circle like Van Til's famous diagram of the creator-creature distinction, those kinds of things wouldn't be a Second Commandment violation because they don't capture the imagination. Nobody's closing their eyes and praying to Jesus and imagining a big circle or a stick figure. But having a detailed drawing or even a cartoon representation of something purporting to be one of the three persons of the Godhead or Christ in His Incarnation, that is a Second Commandment violation. Does the same rule apply in literature where you have detailed imaginative descriptions of a figure that is standing in for Christ or an analogy of Christ, or an allegory, or even purporting to be Jesus in some kind of extra-biblical story, would those be a Third Commandment violation? And can we apply the same rule? That's good. I think... I think if I'm... I agree about the stick figures. Actually, John Murray is the first ever to use that figure. Oh, that comes from Murray. Okay, got it. take Revelation, they would have physical depictions that in no way can the imagination even begin to grasp them. They're all symbolic. And so there you've got symbolic representation that would not be a violation of the second commandment, because they are things, they're symbols. And so I would go then that an allegory or an analogy could be a symbol teaching something higher and true. And again, back to Lewis's myth. So I've never, as you know, you and I are both very strict about the second commandment. I've never, never in any way in my conscience thought I was violating the second commandment to read about Aslan. Now, when they have done the films, I guess that that's, you're right. Literarily, there's nothing wrong with the analogy. And long as it's an analogy, I can't see that the films either would be a violation of the second commandment. It's tricky for me Because I'll hear my friends, and Chronicles and Arnia are not near and dear to me. Lewis is, I appreciate Lewis quite a bit, but never really one that I've latched onto. But I hear my friends, and it makes me uncomfortable every time I hear it, say things when things are going well in the country, or when the church is doing well, or whatever they say, Aslan is on the move. I haven't heard it recently, but I've heard that, and it always makes me uncomfortable, because it's ascribing to the name Aslan glory that belongs to the Lord. Right. I think that would be a violation of the third commandment. That's where I land on this too, and perhaps we have overly sensitive consciences on this, but it just makes me uncomfortable. Not just the flippancy of it, but just the correspondence at that point. Not just an analogical correspondence, but almost a numerical identity here between God as land and that's you know theologically and philosophically problematic but we've spent enough time on this question I think it's definitely thought-provoking and again par for the course with Presbyterian in South Carolina here and we he has one more for us that I want to tackle before before we close out our episode here how practically Can we be both content and ambitious? What should we think and do to be content with our current conditions yet work to improve? our conditions, and I immediately think of the apostolic injunction that whether you eat or you drink, whatever you do, do all to the glory of God, and that's a holy ambition to have. But Dr. P., how would you balance these two things, contentment, the virtue, and then a holy ambition? I think Paul helps us in 1 Corinthians 7 when he talks about contentment with our present circumstances, but if you are a slave, and you can get your freedom, do so. So contentment has to do with, I'm not murmuring or complaining, I'm satisfied with God's providence where He has me. And we must, whatever we do to try to improve our condition, we are to do so with a contentment with God's providence, where we are, and whether or not he blesses what attempts we make to improve our estate. Negatively, Paul condemns seeking to be rich for the sake of being rich. But we have a good friend who has helped the seminary over the years, and I've discussed this years ago with him a good bit, And he says, I seek to prosper in my business so I have money for the Lord's causes. So he's never lived at the level of what he could live, and he has been very true to those convictions in terms of what he has gotten. The Catechism's interpretation of the Eighth Commandment teaches that we are to seek the improvement of our state and that of our neighbor. And so we have a responsibility, we know from Scripture, to care for ourselves and to plan for our future. Solomon says that it's a blessing of God to have an inheritance to give to your children, to your grandchildren. So as long as we are not striving restlessly or discontentedly, we are to seek to improve our state, proper investment, preparing for the future. We're responsible to prepare for our own time if it could, but we could not be productive workers. So I see no conflict. It may be ambitious how we use that word. I think in our culture it has probably more of a negative connotation. So content and yet seek to improve my estate. I don't see a conflict. Content, but I'll pursue higher education that I might serve the Lord. I know that when Bebo and I set up at two o'clock in the morning, he's trying to convince me to leave the pastorate and go get a doctorate, which I had no desire to do. And the argument that finally compelled me was, well, you have gifts. I didn't say that, and I don't say that, he said that, and you need to prepare yourself so if the Lord were to, in his providence, put you in a position to become a teacher of men, then you should be prepared to do so. So I had no ambition to be a doctor of theology, but I eventually took that course in order at the counsel of others, so that if God moved me in that direction, I would be prepared to do so. In His providence, then, I surely had no desire to become president of Greenville Seminary. In fact, I often say I'd be happy if I were back in my first church in the country, and I really would. But then I would not be content, because God's providence did not leave me in that situation, so I would be discontent if I denied then what past God set before me, and seeking other godly counsel as well, did those things. So, yeah, I think that it has to do with our motivation. As you mentioned, glorify God in what we do. It's a heart reality, and even as you were anecdotally describing your own experience with this dynamic, Dr. Piper, what came to my mind is this question, do we know better than God? And God has clearly said in His Word, as you cited from Proverbs, as you made reference to other texts, that we are to pursue wealth and prosperity insofar as He gives us opportunity for the good of our families, our neighbors, our churches, the ministries we're a part of. There's no sin in having ambitious goals. At the same time, vain ambition is about the ugliest thing a minister of the gospel or really any Christian can have. Because vain ambition is going to force you, and we all feel it, to cut corners, to advance oneself, to treat churches like stepping stones and rungs on a ladder for ministers, for example, and ultimately to bring shame to the name of Christ. Because your sin will find you out, and the hustle and the bustle and the dog-eat-dog world of ambition will consume you. But there is also a false, and I would even call presumptuous, pietism that sees any high achievement and high achieving person or effort or goal setting or whatever as ugly and unsanctified, when in fact if such energies are put toward the Lord's service according to the Lord's means, they're really glorious examples of what a sanctified ambition can produce by God's grace. And I like to say, you know, I say to the guys here at our church, guys, let's get after it. Let's take that verse about, you know, if you're a slave, be content, but if you can get your freedom, get it. Take that. If you're a wage laborer, if you're punching a time card, if you're engaged working for somebody else, be content in that. But if you can start your own business, if you can get out on your own, if you can, uh, you know, pursue public office or whatever the case may be, well then go do it to the glory of God and not for the praise and fame of your name. And I think that, you know, that, that is a good, helpful, balanced way of approaching things. Earlier illustration you use. I mean, I, I, again, in my little pastorate, I don't know, three years into it or whatever, an older minister, he was my first pastor when I was converted, told me that I needed to go to a bigger church now, that I needed to move on. And that is horrendous. It's sinful, it's abusing the flock. But if God probably sets doors before you, and with proper counsel and everything, you move on. Well, that's why I encourage men, unless they're in a difficult situation, don't. I never put my name anywhere. I figure, God called me here, God'll call me someplace else if he wants to call me. And that might be too passive in it, but I said, you go to your church with no intention of ever leaving. And actually, there's an associate. I want to see our guys pastoring. But if you take a church as a pastor, then you stay there, and if God wants to move you, he'll move you. Now, there are guys in difficult situations, and I'll encourage them. And you and I can look at men, and when we're asked for a name, then we surely have the freedom of God's providence to give that name to churches, for that's how the Spirit does work. But to push myself into another situation, I've always been uncomfortable with that. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I'm with you on that. My philosophy is when you take a call, you pack your books in your coffin and you go. But at the same time, the Lord can certainly call you away. And, you know, I've had some interesting conversations even here One dear brother whom I love and respect said to me, Zach, if you ever want to have a big church, you can't get there from Antioch. And I'm like, you know, I don't really want a big church. I just want to be where the Lord has me. And quite frankly, it would take a lot to convince me that I should be going anywhere else but Antioch, because the situation here is just so well suited to what I bring to the table, and my family does so well here, and we love our people here, and the ministry opportunities are tremendous in this area. But at the same time, if the Lord were to call somewhere else, I'd take counsel with you, Dr. Piper, with other trusted advisors, certainly pray with my wife, talk to our session here, but yeah, I can't say I'm a hundred percent close to going somewhere else. It's just, it's, it's up to the Lord. It's not up to me. The Thornwell principle. And you're so right. You, even when I went to my doctoral studies, it was only with the approval of the elders who called me that we discussed the, and when I left Houston to go to California, Even when I came here, I was pastoring as well as teaching, and I sought those elders. In fact, I had a call to a church in Canada where I probably have—Peter and I were talking about this the other day—the most blessed time in my ministry in that church. I actually went up there in the first stage of candidating, but I discussed it with the elders in Escondido. They said, we don't think you should do it. Providentially, it was only a few months later when Greenville Seminary reached out, meeting the first president, went back to the same elders, and they said, yes, this is what you should do, and the church here will be fine. Well, in God's providence, the church, through other causes, closed, but we need to consult our elders when we make that, both in terms of our gifts and how they view the situation. But is this congregation now at a point that I can leave here and believe that this ministry will continue to go forward? And so in Thornhill's place, twice, His presbytery would not allow him to leave South Carolina. Was it Thornwell or was it Palmer? Thornwell. It would hinder the progress of the gospel in South Carolina, his position at the seminary, at the college. in the seminary. It really cuts, it really cuts against the grain, that whole mentality that you're talking about. It cuts against the grain of our modern individualistic, self-promoting, self-advancing, even ministerial culture. And the low view that so many men have of their session. And of their presbyteries. Yeah, and the presbytery. Yeah, we live in a relatively, relative to the old school, you know, presbyterian community of the 19th century, I guess we live in a low trust age. I mean, I talked to brothers who say, hey, I'm an assistant, I'm an associate pastor, I'm thinking about candidating, do you think I should talk to my session about it? And I have to admit, I'm like, you know, on principle, yes. However, on Pragmatic considerations as soon as you bring that to them. They're starting to think about your replacement In most cases and it's a sad reality because of the low trust Environment that we live in now if your session comes to you and says hey We're happy for you to stay you're you got a place here as long as as long as you know you want it But we also think that you would be a real blessing as a pastor somewhere else or whatever. Um, that's a bit of a different situation, but yeah, these are tricky, personal wisdom issues. And, uh, I spent time a few months ago with, uh, one of our graduates who is very close. Uh, he actually was under my ministry in Texas and he's been an associate and, uh, he had come to the conclusion, because of some probably tensions with the senior pastor, that should he seek to leave? Would that be best for the church, and the future of it, and his own ministry? But eventually, I guess I put his name in some places, and so the next thing was, now should I, you know, exactly what you said, should I tell the session that I'm going to go candidate at this church? And at that point, I said, yes, you need to at least speak to some of the elders and get their advice on that. And I think it was a good peaceful. He now is going to take a church in the OPC. Oh. So you send another guy out of the PCA to the OPC? Well, we're all going to get together one day. Hmm. Well, on that note, I prefer him to stay in the PCA. Yeah. Yeah. You say that. And this was clearly of the Lord. I believe you. You're fine. We just got a good guy out of the OPC in one of our PCA churches, so I can't complain too much. We go back and forth here, there, and everywhere. It does. It does. Hey, with that, I want to put the word out to our listeners. I just heard from my friend Steve D'Amato, an elder at Emanuel Chapel OPC in Upton, Massachusetts. Their dearly beloved pastor, Greenville graduate Mark Marquis, retired recently and they've started a search. And so Steve asked me for some names. I gave him a couple of names. And so if you're listening and you're an OPC man or interested in serving in the OPC, Emanuel Chapel in Upton, Massachusetts is looking for a pastor. If you're a PCA man and you're willing to serve in the OPC. I said if you're looking to serve in the OPC, that's what I said. No, you said if you're an OP man. Or if you're looking to serve. I said or, not and. I said or if you're looking to serve in the OPC. Yeah, well, you know, there it is. Sweet congregation. I don't know if I'm saying where it is, but there's another very, very good OPC pulpit about to open up because the pastor's going to retire. We got a couple pulpits here in Calvary Presbytery looking for pastors. If you're interested, give me a holler. Or if you're interested in church planting in the Blessed Bounds, of Calvary Presbytery. I would love to talk to you. Several opportunities coming up here down the pike. But anyway, we're riffing now. Dr. Piper, any other concluding thoughts you have, sir, for our dear listeners? No, simply we had a glorious Lord's Day, didn't we? Oh, it was great. Yeah. Good Sunday school lesson on the first five questions and answers of the larger catechism. I'm glad we're doing that. Glad you're doing that. I'm excited about it. And thanks for tuning in. We're going to try to be more consistent with this program. We say that every time. But seriously, now that Dr. Pipe is done with Job, we think we can do this monthly. So we're going to go for it. But thank you for listening. God bless you. Thank you for listening to this edition of the podcast of Antioch Presbyterian Church. To submit your questions for the next Faith in Practice segment, please visit antiochpca.com slash podcast. For more information about Antioch, visit us on our website at antiochpca.com.