Gregory Scott Blog

Disciple or Student?

The Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote, “…the road is long if one proceeds by way of precepts but short and effectual if by way of personal example.” Seneca knew something about discipleship. He was the tutor for the infamous Roman Emperor Nero.

He once told Nero, who was intent on killing everyone he thought wanted his job, “However many people you slaughter you cannot kill your successor.” He was a smart guy.

Seneca understood what modern educators and many Christians have not: the difference between making disciples and merely conveying information.

Attending law school lectures day after day didn’t teach me how to practice law; at best it taught me how to think. I learned how to practice law working under two fine attorneys and watching what they did. It was much more personal and a better education relationally, intellectually and ethically than I ever got out of a law school lecture.

A law school lecture to a class of 60 students is more expedient and seems more effective than one student being apprenticed by two lawyers. However, just as symbols and metaphors convey information on many more levels than mere description, apprenticeship imparts more information more than class room lectures, or weekly Sunday sermons.

Jesus’ parting words are significant, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matt. 28:19). Weekly sermons were never intended by the Master to be even the primary means by which Christians grew spiritually.

Jesus preached to the crowds to be sure, but He sowed His life into His disciples. Jesus wasn’t fooled into believing that if He just had bigger crowds He could achieve greater change. Jesus went from town to town preaching, but His disciples were always with Him and it was to them He revealed the meaning of what He said to the crowds.

Jesus told His disicples, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables…” (Mark 4:11). Jesus apparently wasn’t even that concerned that the crowds understood everything He said to them.

The disciples lived with Jesus, watched Him and learned from Him, and they would later disciple others, who discipled others, and so on and so on.

So, here is the question: Are you a disciple or merely a student? GS

On Discretion

Discretion is of late an unheralded virtue. To give the virtue its due, I herald it here.

The definition of “discreet” is “[m]arked by, exercising, or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed.).

Here are some aphorisms on discretion from the Bible, some from me and one from a portly Brit:

“As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion.” (Proverbs 11:22).

“A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook a transgression.” (Proverbs 19:11).

“When wisdom enters your heart, and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you…” (Proverbs 2:10-11).

“Imprudence speaks then thinks; discretion thinks and remains silent.”

“Discretion is a friend to the wise, but a stranger to the foolish.”

“He who exerecises discretion exercises wisdom.”

“Tact is the unsaid part of what you think.” Winston Churchill

Boethius On Congressman Rangel

Anicius Boethius (A.D. 480-524) was a Roman Christian philosopher who lived just after its last emperor was deposed. He had progressed to the highest of political offices in Rome before being accused (falsley, he contended) of a conspiracy against the government.

While in prison awaiting his death, he wrote his classic, The Consolation of Philosophy. In discussing those things men seek to make them happy, but which are unable to confer true happiness, he comes to political office.

Boethius writes: “But it is said, when a man comes to high office, that makes him worthy of honour and respect. Surely such offices don’t have the power of planting virtue in the minds of those who hold them, do they? Or of removing vices? No: the opposite is true. More often than removing wickedness, high office brings it to light, and this is the reason why we are angry at seeing how often high office has devolved upon the most wicked of men…”

Yesterday a panel of eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives found Congressman Charles Rangel guilty on 11 counts of ethical wrongdoing. Tomorrow the full Ethics Committee will determine his punishment.

Earlier this year former representative, Eric Messa, who had resigned from Congress amid sexual harassment allegations, admitted to groping a male staffer. (The rumor is he has now applied for a job with the TSA). Before that former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards had a love child with a female staffer while his wife was battling cancer, lied to the nation about it, and then finally came clean when the National Inquirer produced pictures.

We watch this perverse play and it is tempting to say, “All politicians are scoundrels and liars.” But as Boethius correctly noted 1,500 years ago, it’s not that all politicians are that, but that men are that, and high political office exposes them for what they are. The problem is not with politicians but with men. And only Jesus can make better men. GS

Money And The Ministry

Jesus and his crew roll into Capernaum and before Peter can even get to his house the Temple tax police corner him and ask if Jesus intends to pay His tax. Peter, apparently trying to avoid trouble just says “Yes” and then rushes into the house to tell Jesus.

Before he can open his mouth Jesus asks Peter a question, the point of which is that since Jesus is the Son of God, He obviously has no obligation to pay such a tax.

After all, the tax supported the temple where people worshipped God, and Jesus was God, the very object of that worship. Taxing Jesus was like making Peyton Manning buy a ticket to the next Indianapolis Colts game.

And here is the point of Jesus teaching: “However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.” (Matthew 17:24-27).

Jesus refused to let the issue of money come between Him and His ministry. If Jesus had refused to pay the tax based on His identity it would have been easy for His critics to say He was claiming to be the Son of God to avoid paying taxes. Jesus chose not to give them the opportunity.

When I hear of the salaries of some of the pastors of megachurches in the U.S. I wonder if they’ve ever read this passage of Scripture, and I wonder how badly they want to reach non-Christians.

Let me make something clear. Im not offended by pastors being well-paid. I think pastors should be well-paid. In fact, if it were up to me, in a perfect world, they would be the highest paid of all vocations.

But we don’t live in a perfect world, and in a corrupt world the No. 1 priority should be reaching the corrupt with the Gospel. So why hinder that effort over the issue of money? Jesus didn’t. GS

Moral Incompetence

A story ran on the internet last week about Amazon.com offering for sale an eBook called The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct.

Amazon originally defended the decision to sell the book claiming they weren’t into censorship: “Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable…”

Later, as the outrage of its customers mounted, Amazon relented and decided the prudent–or profitable–thing to do was to engage in censorship.

Amazon’s dilemma is typical of so many post-moderns who believe no one is competent to morally judge any conduct. But what is that based upon?

It’s not based on instinct or conscience because neither suggests such an imperative; in fact they suggest the opposite. Both repeatedly make moral judgments about ourselves and others.

Amazon assumes man is morally incompetent to say, “This is right and this is wrong” about anything. And if that is the case, how do they know it is wrong for them to engage in censorship?

If you don’t affirm anything, you must accept everything, and this is the problem at Amazon. Because they apparently endorse no ethos, they are unable to make a judgment call about any moral issue, and that does make them moral incompetents. GS