The following is an excerpt of a booklet that I am working on dealing with the nature of covenant.
In order to understand the concept of covenant, we must begin at the proper starting place. We can not begin with Man. We must begin with God Himself. For it is in the relationship and structure of the Trinity that we find covenant in its purest form. Men are to follow the pattern shown them in the Triune Godhead. Man; even at his best, will “miss the mark” to some degree. Therefore, we must begin with God.
The Trinity exists as three related persons. God is one in His being or essence, but He is also one because the three persons are in covenant together. They form one ultimate society. Each lives in a “selfless” manner toward the others. They glorify each other, rather than glorify themselves (John 8:54; 12:28; 13:32; 16:14; 17:1,5). There is no competition within this relationship. All that belongs to one, belongs to the others (John 16:15). There is within the covenant of the Trinity equality. The Son is not “less” than the Father. The Spirit is not “less” than the Son, nor is He “less” than the Father. In their essence, or being, they are equal. This is sometimes referred to theologically as “ontological equality.”
But we also find within the relationship of the Trinity a structure. This structure is functional. There is a “distribution of labor.” The theologian James B. Jordan views the distribution of labor in this way: “Within the relationship of the Trinity the Father serves as the Source of personality in some sense. These persons live in a living bond with one another, with the Spirit who moves between Father and Son as the Source of life-bonding in some sense. They also exist in a structure, with the Father as Father to the Son, and the Spirit as sent by the Father to the Son, and by the Son back to the Father. The Son is the Source of this structure in some sense, as He is the Word ‘in whom all things are linked together’ (Col. 1:16-17).”
This structure requires a functional “chain of command.” The Son and the Spirit covenantally function in submission to the Father. This is sometimes referred to theologically as “economic subordination.” They do this, without losing their equality with God the Father. This shows us that in covenant, submission does not mean a loss of equality. For example, within the marriage covenant the wife submits to her husband, yet maintains an “equality” with her husband in “being.” In other words, she is not inferior to her husband, though she submits to his functional authority. Jesus submitted to the Father, yet remained equal with the Father (Phil 2:5-8).
On the basis of this covenantal relationship, God is a family. Notice I am not saying He is like a family. He is a family. From eternity, God alone possesses the essential attributes of family, and the Trinity alone possesses them in their perfection. Earthly households have these attributes, but only by analogy and imperfectly (Ephes. 3:14-15).
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Paul Harvey Christmas Story
[I heard this many years ago on Paul Harvey's radio program. It is a powerful illustration of the Incarnation.]
Now the man to whom I'm going to introduce you was not a scrooge, he was a kind, decent, mostly good man. Generous to his family, upright in his dealings with other men. But he just didn't believe all that incarnation stuff which the churches proclaim at Christmas Time. It just didn't make sense and he was too honest to pretend otherwise. He just couldn't swallow the Jesus Story, about God coming to Earth as a man. "I'm truly sorry to distress you," he told his wife, "but I'm not going with you to church this Christmas Eve." He said he'd feel like a hypocrite. That he'd much rather just stay at home, but that he would wait up for them. And so he stayed and they went to the midnight service.
Shortly after the family drove away in the car, snow began to fall. He went to the window to watch the flurries getting heavier and heavier and then went back to his fireside chair and began to read his newspaper. Minutes later he was startled by a thudding sound. Then another, and then another. Sort of a thump or a thud. At first he thought someone must be throwing snowballs against his living room window. But when he went to the front door to investigate he found a flock of birds huddled miserably in the snow. They'd been caught in the storm and, in a desperate search for shelter, had tried to fly through his large landscape window.
Well, he couldn't let the poor creatures lie there and freeze, so he remembered the barn where his children stabled their pony. That would provide a warm shelter, if he could direct the birds to it. Quickly he put on a coat, galoshes, tramped through the deepening snow to the barn. He opened the doors wide and turned on a light, but the birds did not come in. He figured food would entice them in. So he hurried back to the house, fetched bread crumbs, sprinkled them on the snow, making a trail to the yellow-lighted wide open doorway of the stable. But to his dismay, the birds ignored the bread crumbs, and continued to flap around helplessly in the snow. He tried catching them. He tried shooing them into the barn by walking around them waving his arms. Instead, they scattered in every direction, except into the warm, lighted barn.
And then, he realized, that they were afraid of him. To them, he reasoned, I am a strange and terrifying creature. If only I could think of some way to let them know that they can trust me. That I am not trying to hurt them, but to help them. But how? Because any move he made tended to frighten them, confuse them. They just would not follow. They would not be led or shooed because they feared him. "If only I could be a bird," he thought to himself, "and mingle with them and speak their language. Then I could tell them not to be afraid. Then I could show them the way to safety ... to the safe warm barn. But I would have to be one of them so they could see, and hear and understand."
At that moment the church bells began to ring. The sound reached his ears above the sounds of the wind. And he stood there listening to the bells - Adeste Fidelis - listening to the bells pealing the glad tidings of Christmas. And he sank to his knees in the snow.
Author Unknown –
(Shared by Paul Harvey on his radio show)
Now the man to whom I'm going to introduce you was not a scrooge, he was a kind, decent, mostly good man. Generous to his family, upright in his dealings with other men. But he just didn't believe all that incarnation stuff which the churches proclaim at Christmas Time. It just didn't make sense and he was too honest to pretend otherwise. He just couldn't swallow the Jesus Story, about God coming to Earth as a man. "I'm truly sorry to distress you," he told his wife, "but I'm not going with you to church this Christmas Eve." He said he'd feel like a hypocrite. That he'd much rather just stay at home, but that he would wait up for them. And so he stayed and they went to the midnight service.
Shortly after the family drove away in the car, snow began to fall. He went to the window to watch the flurries getting heavier and heavier and then went back to his fireside chair and began to read his newspaper. Minutes later he was startled by a thudding sound. Then another, and then another. Sort of a thump or a thud. At first he thought someone must be throwing snowballs against his living room window. But when he went to the front door to investigate he found a flock of birds huddled miserably in the snow. They'd been caught in the storm and, in a desperate search for shelter, had tried to fly through his large landscape window.
Well, he couldn't let the poor creatures lie there and freeze, so he remembered the barn where his children stabled their pony. That would provide a warm shelter, if he could direct the birds to it. Quickly he put on a coat, galoshes, tramped through the deepening snow to the barn. He opened the doors wide and turned on a light, but the birds did not come in. He figured food would entice them in. So he hurried back to the house, fetched bread crumbs, sprinkled them on the snow, making a trail to the yellow-lighted wide open doorway of the stable. But to his dismay, the birds ignored the bread crumbs, and continued to flap around helplessly in the snow. He tried catching them. He tried shooing them into the barn by walking around them waving his arms. Instead, they scattered in every direction, except into the warm, lighted barn.
And then, he realized, that they were afraid of him. To them, he reasoned, I am a strange and terrifying creature. If only I could think of some way to let them know that they can trust me. That I am not trying to hurt them, but to help them. But how? Because any move he made tended to frighten them, confuse them. They just would not follow. They would not be led or shooed because they feared him. "If only I could be a bird," he thought to himself, "and mingle with them and speak their language. Then I could tell them not to be afraid. Then I could show them the way to safety ... to the safe warm barn. But I would have to be one of them so they could see, and hear and understand."
At that moment the church bells began to ring. The sound reached his ears above the sounds of the wind. And he stood there listening to the bells - Adeste Fidelis - listening to the bells pealing the glad tidings of Christmas. And he sank to his knees in the snow.
Author Unknown –
(Shared by Paul Harvey on his radio show)
Monday, November 29, 2010
Liberty and Christianity
[This is another article I wrote a few years ago (September 2003). But in light of what I see taking place around the world, I believe that it is still relevant.]
"Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity."
Lord Acton
Western Civilization is running as fast as it can from its Christian heritage, denying the very “mother” that gave it birth. In rejecting its Christian roots it undermines the very foundation that its freedom is built upon. Allow me to very briefly summarize the role that Christianity played in bringing political liberty to the West. This is not the usual “stuff” taught in Western Civilization 101 in most major universities.
The most liberating political force in the history of mankind has been Christianity (Jn. 8:36). Christianity branched from the trunk of godly Old Testament Hebrew religion, and the ancient Hebrew commonwealth (before the era of the kings [1 Sam. 8]) was arguably the most libertarian society in the history of mankind. Christianity inherited from Old Testament faith the bedrock belief in the sovereign, transcendent God Who stands above and judges all humanity, including its systems of civil government. The political order is never ultimate.
Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient, pagan world. The source of that unity was the state, usually identified with society itself, at the head of which was a great political ruler, a king or emperor, thought to be a god or god-like. The unity of the ancient, pagan world consisted of the divinization of the temporal order in the form of the state.
Christianity recognized "another king" (Ac. 17:7). The early Christians recognized that no earthly authority, especially political authority, could be ultimate. God¹s authority is ultimate.
In articulating the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) laid the foundation of Western liberty. Jesus Christ alone is both divine and human, fully God and fully Man, the unique link between heaven and earth. He is the only divine-human Mediator. This decision dramatically repudiated every divinization of the temporal order. No state, no church, no family, no man could be God or God-like. This perspective set the early Christians on a collision course with the politic power of Caesar. Christians were savagely persecuted not because they worshipped Jesus Christ, but because they refused to worship the Roman emperor. Polytheistic societies encourage the worship of deities. What they resist is the exclusion of all deities, particularly the state, except the true Deity, the God of the Bible.
Though at times during the medieval period, the Roman church overstepped its authority and acted in tyrannical ways, it often functioned as a countervailing force against the tyranny of the state. The medieval world, despite its many defects, supported a large measure of political liberty in fostering several human institutions besides the church which claimed the allegiance of man: the family, the guild, the feudal lord, and so forth. This meant that the state had to share its authority with other equally legitimate human institutions. No human institution may exercise ultimate authority.
Constitutional limitations on political power, which gave birth in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century to constitutional democracies, started in Christian England with the Magna Carta. England also delivered the first successful assault against the evil doctrine of the divine right of kings during the Puritan Revolution in the first half of the seventeenth century, and in 1688-89 during the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary it secured political liberty. The founding of the United States was the greatest experiment in political liberty of the age, and it operated self-consciously on certain distinctly Christian premises. The Founding Fathers, for example, recognized the Biblical doctrine of original sin and human depravity, and therefore fashioned a system of civil government that divided decision making among several branches and did not give any single branch of civil government with too much power. Second, they argued that the role of civil government is to secure the rights of "life, liberty, and happiness," with which God as Creator endowed all men. Third, recognizing the Biblical doctrine that civil government should protect minorities (Ex. 23:9), they drafted a constitution to which they attached a Bill of Rights, thus inhibiting tyranny arising from quick political change at the whim of democratic opinion.
Political liberty as reflected in the separation of powers, as well as checks and balances; the role of the state in protecting life, liberty, and property; and the constitutional protection of the rights of minorities all these were the outgrowth of Christianity.
In our day abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, materialism, socialism, and the injustice of racism plague the Western world. These tyrannies are all the direct result of the abandonment of Biblical Christianity. The Western world has increasingly accepted the proposal of that first modern political liberal, Jean Jacque Rousseau: the state will emancipate you from responsibility to all non-coercive human institutions like the family, church, and business, if only you submit yourself to the coercion of the state. Modern man has been willing to trade away responsibility to the family and church and business for subjugation to an increasingly coercive civil government. We are returning to the classical, pagan world in which the coercive state is the unifying principle for all of life.
The most vicious, dictatorial, and murderous political regimes in the history of mankind have been non- or anti-Christian: ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other modern secular states. Humanism is and always has been a recipe for political tyranny.
The only hope for the return of political liberty and the freedom it fosters is a return to orthodox, Biblical Christianity. Christianity is not merely a matrix in which political freedom flourishes; it is the only foundation on which to build a free society.
"Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity."
Lord Acton
Western Civilization is running as fast as it can from its Christian heritage, denying the very “mother” that gave it birth. In rejecting its Christian roots it undermines the very foundation that its freedom is built upon. Allow me to very briefly summarize the role that Christianity played in bringing political liberty to the West. This is not the usual “stuff” taught in Western Civilization 101 in most major universities.
The most liberating political force in the history of mankind has been Christianity (Jn. 8:36). Christianity branched from the trunk of godly Old Testament Hebrew religion, and the ancient Hebrew commonwealth (before the era of the kings [1 Sam. 8]) was arguably the most libertarian society in the history of mankind. Christianity inherited from Old Testament faith the bedrock belief in the sovereign, transcendent God Who stands above and judges all humanity, including its systems of civil government. The political order is never ultimate.
Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient, pagan world. The source of that unity was the state, usually identified with society itself, at the head of which was a great political ruler, a king or emperor, thought to be a god or god-like. The unity of the ancient, pagan world consisted of the divinization of the temporal order in the form of the state.
Christianity recognized "another king" (Ac. 17:7). The early Christians recognized that no earthly authority, especially political authority, could be ultimate. God¹s authority is ultimate.
In articulating the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) laid the foundation of Western liberty. Jesus Christ alone is both divine and human, fully God and fully Man, the unique link between heaven and earth. He is the only divine-human Mediator. This decision dramatically repudiated every divinization of the temporal order. No state, no church, no family, no man could be God or God-like. This perspective set the early Christians on a collision course with the politic power of Caesar. Christians were savagely persecuted not because they worshipped Jesus Christ, but because they refused to worship the Roman emperor. Polytheistic societies encourage the worship of deities. What they resist is the exclusion of all deities, particularly the state, except the true Deity, the God of the Bible.
Though at times during the medieval period, the Roman church overstepped its authority and acted in tyrannical ways, it often functioned as a countervailing force against the tyranny of the state. The medieval world, despite its many defects, supported a large measure of political liberty in fostering several human institutions besides the church which claimed the allegiance of man: the family, the guild, the feudal lord, and so forth. This meant that the state had to share its authority with other equally legitimate human institutions. No human institution may exercise ultimate authority.
Constitutional limitations on political power, which gave birth in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century to constitutional democracies, started in Christian England with the Magna Carta. England also delivered the first successful assault against the evil doctrine of the divine right of kings during the Puritan Revolution in the first half of the seventeenth century, and in 1688-89 during the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary it secured political liberty. The founding of the United States was the greatest experiment in political liberty of the age, and it operated self-consciously on certain distinctly Christian premises. The Founding Fathers, for example, recognized the Biblical doctrine of original sin and human depravity, and therefore fashioned a system of civil government that divided decision making among several branches and did not give any single branch of civil government with too much power. Second, they argued that the role of civil government is to secure the rights of "life, liberty, and happiness," with which God as Creator endowed all men. Third, recognizing the Biblical doctrine that civil government should protect minorities (Ex. 23:9), they drafted a constitution to which they attached a Bill of Rights, thus inhibiting tyranny arising from quick political change at the whim of democratic opinion.
Political liberty as reflected in the separation of powers, as well as checks and balances; the role of the state in protecting life, liberty, and property; and the constitutional protection of the rights of minorities all these were the outgrowth of Christianity.
In our day abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, materialism, socialism, and the injustice of racism plague the Western world. These tyrannies are all the direct result of the abandonment of Biblical Christianity. The Western world has increasingly accepted the proposal of that first modern political liberal, Jean Jacque Rousseau: the state will emancipate you from responsibility to all non-coercive human institutions like the family, church, and business, if only you submit yourself to the coercion of the state. Modern man has been willing to trade away responsibility to the family and church and business for subjugation to an increasingly coercive civil government. We are returning to the classical, pagan world in which the coercive state is the unifying principle for all of life.
The most vicious, dictatorial, and murderous political regimes in the history of mankind have been non- or anti-Christian: ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other modern secular states. Humanism is and always has been a recipe for political tyranny.
The only hope for the return of political liberty and the freedom it fosters is a return to orthodox, Biblical Christianity. Christianity is not merely a matrix in which political freedom flourishes; it is the only foundation on which to build a free society.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Bible and Feasting
No, the title is not a misspelling. I am writing about feasting not fasting. I do believe in fasting (though my appearance may be deceiving), but I also believe in feasting. In fact, the Bible has more to say about feasting than it does fasting. I know that that conflicts with our religious, ascetic spirit, but nevertheless it is true. Under the Old Testament Law the Israelites were required to fast one day out of the year (Lev.23:26-32), but God required them to celebrate with feasting 21 days out of the year (Deut. 16:1-17). Three whole weeks out of the year they were to "party." God even told them that if for some reason they could not make it to the place appointed for the feast, take their "tithe" (one of the three Old Testament tithes) and throw a party at home (Deut. 14:24-26). This tithe is sometimes referred to as the "rejoicing tithe." Think about that for a minute, if your income is $40,000 a year that means you would have $4,000 to party with. (I don’t know about you, but I could party pretty good with four grand.) It doesn’t stop there because every 50th year the Israelites were to cease from work and celebrate for the whole year (Lev.25:8ff.). This was the "Year of Jubilee." [As far as Biblical scholars have been able to ascertain, the Israelites never observed the year of Jubilee. There were all sorts of rationalizations given by the rabbis to try and justify their not observing this aspect of the Law.]
I do take note that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding feast, and that He supplied the wine. I might also point out that Jesus was falsely accused of being a "glutton and a drunkard" (Matt.11:19) by the Pharisees due to his appearances at parties. Jesus made reference to feasts frequently in His parables, for instance, the feast that was celebrated when the prodigal returned, or the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. In the first-century church the Lord’s Supper was more than a "cracker and a thimble full of grape juice" (as a friend of mine calls it "a sip and a nip"), it was a true meal known as a "love feast," celebrating the Resurrection. Need I point out that the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:7-10) is a celebratory feast? You know it seems like feasting is throughout the Bible. In fact, I would have to agree with Tony Campolo, not someone I agree with all that frequently, who entitled one of his books: The Kingdom of God is a Party.
Who has a better reason to celebrate than the people of God do? Who has a justification for feasting than those who are living under the blessing of God Almighty? There are better reasons for feasting than the Super Bowl. We ought to be showing the world how to party. (Obviously, within righteous boundaries, not in a decadent way.) We should set the standard for celebration, and show the unbelievers how it ought to be done. We should be provoking the world to jealousy with our rejoicing.
I know that there are battles, struggles, and valleys as we pass through this world. It is at times, as one writer described it, a "vale of tears" that we are passing through. I, like you, have had my share of valleys, and times when the pain of life seems to be overwhelming, but I would agree with Michael Card, "There is joy in the journey." If I focus on Christ rather than the "valley," I find reason for celebrating. Celebration is not just an event it’s an attitude.
I do take note that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding feast, and that He supplied the wine. I might also point out that Jesus was falsely accused of being a "glutton and a drunkard" (Matt.11:19) by the Pharisees due to his appearances at parties. Jesus made reference to feasts frequently in His parables, for instance, the feast that was celebrated when the prodigal returned, or the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. In the first-century church the Lord’s Supper was more than a "cracker and a thimble full of grape juice" (as a friend of mine calls it "a sip and a nip"), it was a true meal known as a "love feast," celebrating the Resurrection. Need I point out that the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:7-10) is a celebratory feast? You know it seems like feasting is throughout the Bible. In fact, I would have to agree with Tony Campolo, not someone I agree with all that frequently, who entitled one of his books: The Kingdom of God is a Party.
Who has a better reason to celebrate than the people of God do? Who has a justification for feasting than those who are living under the blessing of God Almighty? There are better reasons for feasting than the Super Bowl. We ought to be showing the world how to party. (Obviously, within righteous boundaries, not in a decadent way.) We should set the standard for celebration, and show the unbelievers how it ought to be done. We should be provoking the world to jealousy with our rejoicing.
I know that there are battles, struggles, and valleys as we pass through this world. It is at times, as one writer described it, a "vale of tears" that we are passing through. I, like you, have had my share of valleys, and times when the pain of life seems to be overwhelming, but I would agree with Michael Card, "There is joy in the journey." If I focus on Christ rather than the "valley," I find reason for celebrating. Celebration is not just an event it’s an attitude.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Will the Real Literalist, Please Stand Up?
[I originally wrote this in 2002, I'm posting here today and hope you will find it helpful.]
What do we mean when we say, "I take the Bible literally?" Does that mean for instance that when Jesus said: "Out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water, " that we believe that He meant actual "water?" Or do we believe that Jesus was using "symbolic" language to describe the Holy Spirit flowing forth from the believer? Is the Bible to be taken "literally" as some would define it, or is it to interpreted in light of the "symbols" God uses throughout the Scriptures? Both in the Old and New Testaments we find symbols and figures borrowed from history, the surrounding culture, and from creation. On the other hand, we must recognize that not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted "symbolically." For instance, the Ten Commandments are not to be "symbolically interpreted." God was not speaking figuratively when He said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The Bible is literature, divinely inspired and inerrant literature, but nevertheless, it is literature. That means we must read it as literature. Some parts are meant to be literally understood, and they are written accordingly – as history, or theological propositions. But one would not expect to read the Psalms or the Song of Solomon by the same literary approach as the Book of Romans. We cannot understand what the Bible really means unless we appreciate its use of literary styles.
Even the most ardent "hyper-literalist" is forced at times to abandon his so-called "literal" approach. No one for example (at least to my knowledge) believes that the Beast of Revelation 13 is really an animal; or that a pregnant woman will stand on the moon and be clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-2). I seriously doubt that anyone understands Satan to be actually "a great red dragon with seven heads" (Rev. 12:3). I have encountered "literalists" who were convinced that the Bible taught that the earth was flat ("flat-earthers"). They base this ridiculous idea on the fact that the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12; Rev. 7:1, 20:8). It is apparent to most readers of the Scripture that these passages are poetic and symbolic. In a similar vein, the Bible speaks of trees and rivers having hands (Isa. 55:12; Ps.98:8).
To take the Bible literally means that we read and interpret it in respect to the Bible’s own literary structure. All languages use symbols and figures of speech. When we use those figures of speech with those unfamiliar with their meaning it can be quite confusing. If for example, I say to someone, unacquainted with our figures of speech, that the car that I am driving is a "lemon," they could mistakenly believe that I am using citrus fruit for transportation. Likewise, someone unacquainted with the figures of speech used in the Scriptures is likely to misinterpret its meaning. We must learn the "language" of the Bible, meaning we must learn how God consistently uses certain symbols throughout His Word to convey His message. I do not mean by this that there is a "code" that God has written in, nor am I saying that one must have a "special revelation knowledge" in order to understand God’s message. What I am saying is that the Bible interprets the Bible.
The book of the Revelation, which contains a great deal of imagery, can only be interpreted by examining the symbols in light of their use in the other 65 books of the Bible. You do not interpret the book of the Revelation by using the newspaper or Time magazine. Such an approach only ends up in speculation, not scriptural exegesis. The symbols used in the book of the Revelation are found in the language of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophetic literature. In other words, the book of the Revelation, along with the rest of the Bible, is self-interpreting.
Those who claim to interpret the book of the Revelation in a "literal" manner, in fact do not. If it is to be taken "literally," as they propose, there is no need for interpretation. The fact that they are rendering interpretations of the symbols in Revelation (often derived from a vivid imagination) reveals that they are not true "literalists" at all. For instance, the locusts in Revelation 9 are interpreted by the so-called "literalist" Hal Lindsey to be Cobra helicopters. No! It "literally" says they are locusts – Mr. Lindsey! Furthermore, he is interpreting the Bible out of his imagination rather than by the Scriptures themselves. This is why these books on prophecy have to be re-written every few years. Because they are interpreting the Bible by "speculation," their interpretations must change with the advancement of technology. "Cobra helicopters" will be an outdated interpretation in 25 years.
J.L. Martin, writing in 1873, offered his interpretation of Rev. 9:17-19 where it says: "The riders had breastplates of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues; by the fire and smoke and brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horse is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads; and with them they do harm." While today’s "speculative interpreters" view this in terms of lasers and missile launchers, Martin had another interpretation in light of the military technology of his day, the time when Custer and the Seventh Calvary where fighting the Sioux Indians:
"John is pointing to the modern mode of fighting on horseback, with the rider leaning forward, which, to his sight, and to the sight of one looking on at a distance, would appear as the great mane of a lion; the man leaning on his horse’s neck. He would in fighting with firearms, have to lean forward to discharge his piece, lest he might shoot down his own horse that he was riding. In John’s day the posture was very different . . . .Now, I want to ask my friendly hearers if it is not as literally fulfilled before our eyes as anything can be? Are not all nations engaged in this mode of warfare? Do they not all kill men with fire and smoke and brimstone? . . . Do you not know that this is just ignited gunpowder? . . . Could an uninspired man, in the last of the first century, have told of this matter?"
J.L. Martin was speculating out of his own mind, to try and determine what John was saying in Revelation 9:17-19. This is unfortunately what many have done, rather than study the language of symbols in which God has spoken; they put their imagination to work. In order to be to be "faithful workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), we must understand Biblical imagery. Allow me to list several books I have found helpful in this regard:
Images of the Spirit by Meredith G. Kline (ISBN: 1-57910-205-0)
Through New Eyes by James B. Jordan (ISBN: 157910259X)
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery by Leland Ryken (editor) (ISBN: 0830814515)
Paradise Restored by David Chilton (ISBN: 0-930462-52-1)
Typology In Scripture by Richard M. Davidson (ISBN: 1-943872-34-0)
Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry (ISBN: 01310-36831-6)
What do we mean when we say, "I take the Bible literally?" Does that mean for instance that when Jesus said: "Out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water, " that we believe that He meant actual "water?" Or do we believe that Jesus was using "symbolic" language to describe the Holy Spirit flowing forth from the believer? Is the Bible to be taken "literally" as some would define it, or is it to interpreted in light of the "symbols" God uses throughout the Scriptures? Both in the Old and New Testaments we find symbols and figures borrowed from history, the surrounding culture, and from creation. On the other hand, we must recognize that not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted "symbolically." For instance, the Ten Commandments are not to be "symbolically interpreted." God was not speaking figuratively when He said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The Bible is literature, divinely inspired and inerrant literature, but nevertheless, it is literature. That means we must read it as literature. Some parts are meant to be literally understood, and they are written accordingly – as history, or theological propositions. But one would not expect to read the Psalms or the Song of Solomon by the same literary approach as the Book of Romans. We cannot understand what the Bible really means unless we appreciate its use of literary styles.
Even the most ardent "hyper-literalist" is forced at times to abandon his so-called "literal" approach. No one for example (at least to my knowledge) believes that the Beast of Revelation 13 is really an animal; or that a pregnant woman will stand on the moon and be clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-2). I seriously doubt that anyone understands Satan to be actually "a great red dragon with seven heads" (Rev. 12:3). I have encountered "literalists" who were convinced that the Bible taught that the earth was flat ("flat-earthers"). They base this ridiculous idea on the fact that the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12; Rev. 7:1, 20:8). It is apparent to most readers of the Scripture that these passages are poetic and symbolic. In a similar vein, the Bible speaks of trees and rivers having hands (Isa. 55:12; Ps.98:8).
To take the Bible literally means that we read and interpret it in respect to the Bible’s own literary structure. All languages use symbols and figures of speech. When we use those figures of speech with those unfamiliar with their meaning it can be quite confusing. If for example, I say to someone, unacquainted with our figures of speech, that the car that I am driving is a "lemon," they could mistakenly believe that I am using citrus fruit for transportation. Likewise, someone unacquainted with the figures of speech used in the Scriptures is likely to misinterpret its meaning. We must learn the "language" of the Bible, meaning we must learn how God consistently uses certain symbols throughout His Word to convey His message. I do not mean by this that there is a "code" that God has written in, nor am I saying that one must have a "special revelation knowledge" in order to understand God’s message. What I am saying is that the Bible interprets the Bible.
The book of the Revelation, which contains a great deal of imagery, can only be interpreted by examining the symbols in light of their use in the other 65 books of the Bible. You do not interpret the book of the Revelation by using the newspaper or Time magazine. Such an approach only ends up in speculation, not scriptural exegesis. The symbols used in the book of the Revelation are found in the language of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophetic literature. In other words, the book of the Revelation, along with the rest of the Bible, is self-interpreting.
Those who claim to interpret the book of the Revelation in a "literal" manner, in fact do not. If it is to be taken "literally," as they propose, there is no need for interpretation. The fact that they are rendering interpretations of the symbols in Revelation (often derived from a vivid imagination) reveals that they are not true "literalists" at all. For instance, the locusts in Revelation 9 are interpreted by the so-called "literalist" Hal Lindsey to be Cobra helicopters. No! It "literally" says they are locusts – Mr. Lindsey! Furthermore, he is interpreting the Bible out of his imagination rather than by the Scriptures themselves. This is why these books on prophecy have to be re-written every few years. Because they are interpreting the Bible by "speculation," their interpretations must change with the advancement of technology. "Cobra helicopters" will be an outdated interpretation in 25 years.
J.L. Martin, writing in 1873, offered his interpretation of Rev. 9:17-19 where it says: "The riders had breastplates of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues; by the fire and smoke and brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horse is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads; and with them they do harm." While today’s "speculative interpreters" view this in terms of lasers and missile launchers, Martin had another interpretation in light of the military technology of his day, the time when Custer and the Seventh Calvary where fighting the Sioux Indians:
"John is pointing to the modern mode of fighting on horseback, with the rider leaning forward, which, to his sight, and to the sight of one looking on at a distance, would appear as the great mane of a lion; the man leaning on his horse’s neck. He would in fighting with firearms, have to lean forward to discharge his piece, lest he might shoot down his own horse that he was riding. In John’s day the posture was very different . . . .Now, I want to ask my friendly hearers if it is not as literally fulfilled before our eyes as anything can be? Are not all nations engaged in this mode of warfare? Do they not all kill men with fire and smoke and brimstone? . . . Do you not know that this is just ignited gunpowder? . . . Could an uninspired man, in the last of the first century, have told of this matter?"
J.L. Martin was speculating out of his own mind, to try and determine what John was saying in Revelation 9:17-19. This is unfortunately what many have done, rather than study the language of symbols in which God has spoken; they put their imagination to work. In order to be to be "faithful workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), we must understand Biblical imagery. Allow me to list several books I have found helpful in this regard:
Images of the Spirit by Meredith G. Kline (ISBN: 1-57910-205-0)
Through New Eyes by James B. Jordan (ISBN: 157910259X)
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery by Leland Ryken (editor) (ISBN: 0830814515)
Paradise Restored by David Chilton (ISBN: 0-930462-52-1)
Typology In Scripture by Richard M. Davidson (ISBN: 1-943872-34-0)
Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry (ISBN: 01310-36831-6)
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A Tribute to Ern Baxter
I never had the opportunity to know Ern Baxter, though I did speak with him once very briefly. But his influence on my life has been profound. I saw him speak a number of times, read the articles he wrote for New Wine magazine, and I have heard hundreds of hours of his teaching on tape. He helped shape my theological perspective and inspired me as a student of the Word of God.
For those of you not familiar with Ern allow me to give you a brief biographical introduction to the man. Ern Baxter was born in Saskatchewan, Canada in the year 1914. He was baptised into a Presbyterian family. His mother was involved with a holiness church and following his father’s conversion they went into classical Pentecostalism. Their city was visited by a Scandinavian itinerate minister with a "signs and wonders" approach to Christianity. While in the Baxter’s home city, he taught on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Ern Baxter’s mother was the first in those meetings to receive the "baptism of power." Later in his teenage years, Ern went through a period where he lost his faith in reaction to the legalism of religion and became seriously ill from pneumonia. Two events brought him back to Christianity – a miracle of healing and the words of a friend: "Ern, being a Christian isn’t about what you do for God, it’s about what God in Christ Jesus has done and will continue to do for you".
In 1932, he entered full time ministry as a musician travelling across Canada. While travelling, Ern came to a conference held in Trossachs in Canada. There Ern Baxter received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Trossachs was an unusual conference as the delegates were not Pentecostal in the classic sense – they were seeking the experience of the Holy Spirit. This was Ern’s first exposure to what was to become a central passion in his life and ministry – Word and Spirit or Reformed doctrine and charismatic life and power. The morning after he had been baptised in the Holy Spirit he said God spoke to him and called him to the ministry saying, "I want you to preach My Word".
In 1947, Ern and his church began to hear about an unusual travelling evangelist named William Branham who was filling the largest arenas in America for his services. William Branham approached Ern and told him that he had been praying and had met the angel of the Lord who had appeared to him and told him to invite Ern Baxter to become his companion and manager.They worked together for seven years. While Ern saw some of the greatest miracles, signs and wonders during his time he began to become concerned at the error that was coming out from the Healing Movement. In 1957, Ern found it necessary to withdraw from ministry with Branham. Baxter said he separated from the evangelist because of doctrinal differences.
In the early 1960's, Ern emerged as a major leader in the beginning days of the charismatic movement. in the 1970's he joined his ministry with those connected with the "Shepherding movement" (Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Bob Mumford, and Don Basham). He traveled widely and frequently contributed article to New Wine magazine. He went to be with the Lord on July 10, 1993.
Ern's command of the English language, and his colorful expressions made his teachings live in the minds of his listeners. He was a "classical preacher" in the mold of men like Spurgeon or G. Campbell Morgan. He was a self-taught scholar. His library numbered over 9,000 books. He was Reformed in theological persuasion, Pentecostal in gifts and worship, and thoroughly Kingdom-oriented in his eschatology.
Many hours of Ern's teaching is now available through the internet. Check out the website: http://www.brokenbreadteaching.org/.
For those of you not familiar with Ern allow me to give you a brief biographical introduction to the man. Ern Baxter was born in Saskatchewan, Canada in the year 1914. He was baptised into a Presbyterian family. His mother was involved with a holiness church and following his father’s conversion they went into classical Pentecostalism. Their city was visited by a Scandinavian itinerate minister with a "signs and wonders" approach to Christianity. While in the Baxter’s home city, he taught on the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Ern Baxter’s mother was the first in those meetings to receive the "baptism of power." Later in his teenage years, Ern went through a period where he lost his faith in reaction to the legalism of religion and became seriously ill from pneumonia. Two events brought him back to Christianity – a miracle of healing and the words of a friend: "Ern, being a Christian isn’t about what you do for God, it’s about what God in Christ Jesus has done and will continue to do for you".
In 1932, he entered full time ministry as a musician travelling across Canada. While travelling, Ern came to a conference held in Trossachs in Canada. There Ern Baxter received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Trossachs was an unusual conference as the delegates were not Pentecostal in the classic sense – they were seeking the experience of the Holy Spirit. This was Ern’s first exposure to what was to become a central passion in his life and ministry – Word and Spirit or Reformed doctrine and charismatic life and power. The morning after he had been baptised in the Holy Spirit he said God spoke to him and called him to the ministry saying, "I want you to preach My Word".
In 1947, Ern and his church began to hear about an unusual travelling evangelist named William Branham who was filling the largest arenas in America for his services. William Branham approached Ern and told him that he had been praying and had met the angel of the Lord who had appeared to him and told him to invite Ern Baxter to become his companion and manager.They worked together for seven years. While Ern saw some of the greatest miracles, signs and wonders during his time he began to become concerned at the error that was coming out from the Healing Movement. In 1957, Ern found it necessary to withdraw from ministry with Branham. Baxter said he separated from the evangelist because of doctrinal differences.
In the early 1960's, Ern emerged as a major leader in the beginning days of the charismatic movement. in the 1970's he joined his ministry with those connected with the "Shepherding movement" (Charles Simpson, Derek Prince, Bob Mumford, and Don Basham). He traveled widely and frequently contributed article to New Wine magazine. He went to be with the Lord on July 10, 1993.
Ern's command of the English language, and his colorful expressions made his teachings live in the minds of his listeners. He was a "classical preacher" in the mold of men like Spurgeon or G. Campbell Morgan. He was a self-taught scholar. His library numbered over 9,000 books. He was Reformed in theological persuasion, Pentecostal in gifts and worship, and thoroughly Kingdom-oriented in his eschatology.
Many hours of Ern's teaching is now available through the internet. Check out the website: http://www.brokenbreadteaching.org/.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Theology Has Consequences (Part II)
A society’s theological base has huge implications in terms of its governmental structures. Post-Reformation Christianity has generally produced democratic republics, while Islam has repeated given birth to dictatorships. This is a result of the fact that theology has consequences.
I want to further elaborate on this theme because of the importance of this concept. Once again, I will be contrasting Islam with Christianity as we examine the cultures both theologies have produced. The Western world, in spite of its continual shift toward secular humanism, has been built upon a foundation of Christianity. Western democracies, in their ignorance of the importance of theology, seem to believe that they can export their ideals to Muslim nations and have them readily adopted.
Islam does not recognize the purpose of God in His dealings with Man to be bringing him from external obedience to internal obedience, and from “imposed” government to self-government. As has been pointed out by others, Islam in many ways trains people not to govern themselves but to be governed by dictates. Muhammad said that, “He is a Muslim who is one outwardly.” Contrast that statement to the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:29 where he says, “But he is a Jew [Covenant member] who is one inwardly.” The issue in Islam comes to be one of outward submission to Allah without an internal transformation. There is no true concept of the law being written on their heart (Jer. 31:33). They cannot envision a system of civil government rooted in personal responsibility and self-government, where each man holds himself accountable to the ethics of God’s government. They can only understand a civil government where religious leaders enforce the law. In such a system there is no distinction between sin and crime, contrasted to what we find in the Law handed down at Mount Sinai and within Western jurisprudence.
Some would equate Islamic law with the Mosaic Law, but to the contrary they are distinctly different at several points. One example of this contrast is in regards to dealing with the issue of theft. Under Islamic law, the right hand of a thief is cut off at the wrist. Even if the thief makes restitution and pledges never to steal again, he still loses his hand. But in the Bible a thief is required to make restitution (the amount depending on what he stole) for his crime. It would be my observation that the Qur’an is ”punitive-oriented,” while the Bible is “justice-oriented.”
It has been said, ”Christianity is the religion of the second chance.” Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, after He shamed those who were her accusers, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). One hadith (sayings of Muhammad) records the story of a woman pregnant from adultery coming to Muhammad, who saw to it that she was treated decently until she gave birth, and then he ordered her stoned. Islam states that Allah loves the righteous, whereas Christianity teaches that, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
There is not an understanding of grace within the Islamic religion. Salvation is a result of good works in submission to Allah. Islamic scholars have compiled a great list of “do’s and don’ts” for those seeking to follow the faith. An ardent follower strives to eat, sleep, drink, and dress as Muhammad did. They even try to pray the same prayers that he prayed when going to bed, or arising in the morning. There are prayers for entering and exiting the bathroom. While most Muslims do not attempt to live in this kind of strict obedience to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings, there are those who do. In their zeal for obedient submission to Allah, and no concept of forgiveness when they fail, these followers are left in a terrible dilemma. They are confronted with the question asked by Job, “How can a man be right with God?” (Job 9:2). For some the answer is found in the martyrdom of Jihad, assuring them entrance into paradise.
What we witnessed take place in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 was the result of a theology that places its followers in the position of earning their salvation through “religious” actions. As Jesus said “They will kill you and think that they are doing God a favor” (John 16:2). Allow me to point out that Islam is not alone in having produced a theology, which has left victims in its wake. Christianity has at times in its history, through erroneous, misguided theological systems, produced its share of casualties. Christians have slaughtered Christians in the name of the Lord.
What one believes does matter. Action follows faith. If we have a distorted view of God, it will inevitably lead to actions that reflect that distortion. This is true for individuals and societies. The outworking of theology is all around us, we see it every evening on the news, and read about it every morning in the papers. It is reflected in a nation’s laws, and evidenced by its economic policy. Until we awaken to this fact, we are like men trying to find answers without first having heard the questions. The truth that modern man must face is that: theology has consequences.
I want to further elaborate on this theme because of the importance of this concept. Once again, I will be contrasting Islam with Christianity as we examine the cultures both theologies have produced. The Western world, in spite of its continual shift toward secular humanism, has been built upon a foundation of Christianity. Western democracies, in their ignorance of the importance of theology, seem to believe that they can export their ideals to Muslim nations and have them readily adopted.
Islam does not recognize the purpose of God in His dealings with Man to be bringing him from external obedience to internal obedience, and from “imposed” government to self-government. As has been pointed out by others, Islam in many ways trains people not to govern themselves but to be governed by dictates. Muhammad said that, “He is a Muslim who is one outwardly.” Contrast that statement to the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:29 where he says, “But he is a Jew [Covenant member] who is one inwardly.” The issue in Islam comes to be one of outward submission to Allah without an internal transformation. There is no true concept of the law being written on their heart (Jer. 31:33). They cannot envision a system of civil government rooted in personal responsibility and self-government, where each man holds himself accountable to the ethics of God’s government. They can only understand a civil government where religious leaders enforce the law. In such a system there is no distinction between sin and crime, contrasted to what we find in the Law handed down at Mount Sinai and within Western jurisprudence.
Some would equate Islamic law with the Mosaic Law, but to the contrary they are distinctly different at several points. One example of this contrast is in regards to dealing with the issue of theft. Under Islamic law, the right hand of a thief is cut off at the wrist. Even if the thief makes restitution and pledges never to steal again, he still loses his hand. But in the Bible a thief is required to make restitution (the amount depending on what he stole) for his crime. It would be my observation that the Qur’an is ”punitive-oriented,” while the Bible is “justice-oriented.”
It has been said, ”Christianity is the religion of the second chance.” Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, after He shamed those who were her accusers, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). One hadith (sayings of Muhammad) records the story of a woman pregnant from adultery coming to Muhammad, who saw to it that she was treated decently until she gave birth, and then he ordered her stoned. Islam states that Allah loves the righteous, whereas Christianity teaches that, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
There is not an understanding of grace within the Islamic religion. Salvation is a result of good works in submission to Allah. Islamic scholars have compiled a great list of “do’s and don’ts” for those seeking to follow the faith. An ardent follower strives to eat, sleep, drink, and dress as Muhammad did. They even try to pray the same prayers that he prayed when going to bed, or arising in the morning. There are prayers for entering and exiting the bathroom. While most Muslims do not attempt to live in this kind of strict obedience to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings, there are those who do. In their zeal for obedient submission to Allah, and no concept of forgiveness when they fail, these followers are left in a terrible dilemma. They are confronted with the question asked by Job, “How can a man be right with God?” (Job 9:2). For some the answer is found in the martyrdom of Jihad, assuring them entrance into paradise.
What we witnessed take place in New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001 was the result of a theology that places its followers in the position of earning their salvation through “religious” actions. As Jesus said “They will kill you and think that they are doing God a favor” (John 16:2). Allow me to point out that Islam is not alone in having produced a theology, which has left victims in its wake. Christianity has at times in its history, through erroneous, misguided theological systems, produced its share of casualties. Christians have slaughtered Christians in the name of the Lord.
What one believes does matter. Action follows faith. If we have a distorted view of God, it will inevitably lead to actions that reflect that distortion. This is true for individuals and societies. The outworking of theology is all around us, we see it every evening on the news, and read about it every morning in the papers. It is reflected in a nation’s laws, and evidenced by its economic policy. Until we awaken to this fact, we are like men trying to find answers without first having heard the questions. The truth that modern man must face is that: theology has consequences.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Theology Has Consequences
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as "truth." This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called "sacred" writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, "ideas have consequences," this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word "culture" is derived from the word "cultus," which is a Latin term signifying "worship." What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood "God is a sweet society within Himself." Within the Trinity we have an "economic (functional) subordination," at the same time we have an "ontological equality." Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his "being" to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist "smoke screen" to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called "Lex Rex" (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of "Rex Lex" (King is Law). You have heard the phrase "No one is above the law," meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a "mystery" revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected "The One and the Many," they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a "oneness" without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, "It’s not safe to think in this part of the world." (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood "God is a sweet society within Himself." Within the Trinity we have an "economic (functional) subordination," at the same time we have an "ontological equality." Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his "being" to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist "smoke screen" to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called "Lex Rex" (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of "Rex Lex" (King is Law). You have heard the phrase "No one is above the law," meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a "mystery" revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected "The One and the Many," they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a "oneness" without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, "It’s not safe to think in this part of the world." (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Kingdom and Politics
[Even though I wrote this back in 2004, I believe the message is as relevant today as it was then.]
In Acts 4:12, Peter declares: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Certainly that verse is familiar to virtually every evangelical Christian. What may surprise you is that Peter was not only making a theological statement about Jesus as the only way to be saved from the wrath of God, but he was making a political statement as well. What, you may ask, does his statement have to do with politics? To the mind of most believers today, the answer is absolutely nothing. But to those believers living in the first century, it was overwhelming in its political implications. The statement was a bold declaration of war against the Roman Empire. Because at the time of Peter’s declaration, the Roman emperor was hailed as the "divine savior of the world." Mark Antony said that the sole work of the Roman emperor was, "to save where anyone needed to be saved." The inscriptions on the Roman coins proclaimed the concept of the emperor as a "divine savior."
In other words, the declaration of Jesus as Savior had tremendous implications in the political sphere. I do not mean by that the message of the gospel is merely, or even primarily, political. It is universal, addressing not only individuals but nations as well. The message of the Kingdom is not only for the salvation of our souls, but for the redemption of the created order. It challenges and threatens the humanistic political systems. This is what brought about the persecution of Christians within the Roman Empire. The charge leveled against them was, "They all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:7). In short, the reason Rome persecuted the Church was political, not religious. They were not killed because they merely worshipped Jesus, in the religious sense of that word. But because they disrupted the unity of the state, by refusing to make the confession that "Caesar is lord." Instead, their confession was that "Jesus is Lord." Undoubtedly, the Roman civil authorities understood, better than most Christians do today, the political implications of Christ’s Lordship. I might add that most totalitarian governments today are aware of it as well.
Elsewhere the Apostle Paul unequivocally declared that civil governmental authorities are "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:4), responsible before God to protect the righteous and to be "an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Paul boldly proclaims that at Christ’s ascension He was installed as Supreme Lord above all earthly authorities (Ephes. 1:20-22). All men, and that includes civil authorities, are obligated to acknowledge Christ’s Lordship. Read Psalm 2:1-12. This psalm is specifically addressed to the civil governmental authorities – kings and judges (vs. 10). While the Bible does teach the separation of Church and State, it does not teach the separation of State and God. Civil authorities are just as responsible to God and His Word, as the elders of the church are responsible to God.
The theologian Carl F. Henry said: "If while evangelizing we abandon the sociopolitical realm to its own devices, we shall fortify the misimpression that the public order falls wholly outside the command and will of God, that Christianity deals with private concerns only; and we shall conceal the fact that government exists by God’s will as His servant for the sake of justice and order."
Jesus Christ claimed that all authority in heaven and in the earth belonged to Him (Matt.28:18), and to affirm His lordship over the sphere of civil government is simply to acknowledge His dominion over a part of the whole. If our concept of Christ’s kingdom involves anything less than this, we are allotting to Him a very small kingdom indeed, and one with which any Roman emperor would have been happy to coexist.
As a word of warning, I think it is important that we be aware of the danger of becoming the "lap dog" of any political party or faction. The Church must not yield its role of being a prophet to the nations. It must always stand outside of the worldly systems and challenge them with the Word of God.
This is definitely not a day for the Church to be asleep. While Christians should avoid being politicized, this does not mean that pastors or individuals should not address the pressing social and moral issues of the day. Just the opposite is true. Christians need to be clear in what they say and stand by it. The wishy-washy political correctness that characterizes many churches will simply not meet the challenges of the day.
We must seek to avoid as much as possible, the polarization that characterizes much of the current political scene. Likewise, I believe that we should avoid "labeling" ourselves (conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, etc.) that allows people to put us in a "box" and dismiss what we have to say. Though I may agree with some of the positions held by some of these political or ideological groups, my true philosophical allegiance is with Christ and His kingdom.
Finally, there is a dire need for a compassionate Christianity. Like the early church, the modern church needs to cut across all lines and reach out to every segment of society. If not, as Martin Luther King once said, the church will eventually become irrelevant.
In Acts 4:12, Peter declares: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Certainly that verse is familiar to virtually every evangelical Christian. What may surprise you is that Peter was not only making a theological statement about Jesus as the only way to be saved from the wrath of God, but he was making a political statement as well. What, you may ask, does his statement have to do with politics? To the mind of most believers today, the answer is absolutely nothing. But to those believers living in the first century, it was overwhelming in its political implications. The statement was a bold declaration of war against the Roman Empire. Because at the time of Peter’s declaration, the Roman emperor was hailed as the "divine savior of the world." Mark Antony said that the sole work of the Roman emperor was, "to save where anyone needed to be saved." The inscriptions on the Roman coins proclaimed the concept of the emperor as a "divine savior."
In other words, the declaration of Jesus as Savior had tremendous implications in the political sphere. I do not mean by that the message of the gospel is merely, or even primarily, political. It is universal, addressing not only individuals but nations as well. The message of the Kingdom is not only for the salvation of our souls, but for the redemption of the created order. It challenges and threatens the humanistic political systems. This is what brought about the persecution of Christians within the Roman Empire. The charge leveled against them was, "They all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus" (Acts 17:7). In short, the reason Rome persecuted the Church was political, not religious. They were not killed because they merely worshipped Jesus, in the religious sense of that word. But because they disrupted the unity of the state, by refusing to make the confession that "Caesar is lord." Instead, their confession was that "Jesus is Lord." Undoubtedly, the Roman civil authorities understood, better than most Christians do today, the political implications of Christ’s Lordship. I might add that most totalitarian governments today are aware of it as well.
Elsewhere the Apostle Paul unequivocally declared that civil governmental authorities are "ministers of God" (Rom. 13:4), responsible before God to protect the righteous and to be "an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Paul boldly proclaims that at Christ’s ascension He was installed as Supreme Lord above all earthly authorities (Ephes. 1:20-22). All men, and that includes civil authorities, are obligated to acknowledge Christ’s Lordship. Read Psalm 2:1-12. This psalm is specifically addressed to the civil governmental authorities – kings and judges (vs. 10). While the Bible does teach the separation of Church and State, it does not teach the separation of State and God. Civil authorities are just as responsible to God and His Word, as the elders of the church are responsible to God.
The theologian Carl F. Henry said: "If while evangelizing we abandon the sociopolitical realm to its own devices, we shall fortify the misimpression that the public order falls wholly outside the command and will of God, that Christianity deals with private concerns only; and we shall conceal the fact that government exists by God’s will as His servant for the sake of justice and order."
Jesus Christ claimed that all authority in heaven and in the earth belonged to Him (Matt.28:18), and to affirm His lordship over the sphere of civil government is simply to acknowledge His dominion over a part of the whole. If our concept of Christ’s kingdom involves anything less than this, we are allotting to Him a very small kingdom indeed, and one with which any Roman emperor would have been happy to coexist.
As a word of warning, I think it is important that we be aware of the danger of becoming the "lap dog" of any political party or faction. The Church must not yield its role of being a prophet to the nations. It must always stand outside of the worldly systems and challenge them with the Word of God.
This is definitely not a day for the Church to be asleep. While Christians should avoid being politicized, this does not mean that pastors or individuals should not address the pressing social and moral issues of the day. Just the opposite is true. Christians need to be clear in what they say and stand by it. The wishy-washy political correctness that characterizes many churches will simply not meet the challenges of the day.
We must seek to avoid as much as possible, the polarization that characterizes much of the current political scene. Likewise, I believe that we should avoid "labeling" ourselves (conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, etc.) that allows people to put us in a "box" and dismiss what we have to say. Though I may agree with some of the positions held by some of these political or ideological groups, my true philosophical allegiance is with Christ and His kingdom.
Finally, there is a dire need for a compassionate Christianity. Like the early church, the modern church needs to cut across all lines and reach out to every segment of society. If not, as Martin Luther King once said, the church will eventually become irrelevant.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Law in the New Testament
One Scottish divine long ago observed: "He who can bring together the real connection between the law and the gospel, will be a good theologian." Paul told Timothy to take special care in making distinctions and handling the "word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15). This is always applicable, but comes into particular focus as we examine the issue of the law in the New Testament. A loss of the proper distinction between law and gospel results in antinomianism and a "freedom to sin" attitude on one hand, or moralism and a "salvation by works" on the other. Likewise, law applied when the gospel is called for is the theological equivalent of prescribing high blood pressure medication when the patient has low blood pressure.
Before we go much further in our study it is important that we eliminate the misconception that God saved people in the Old Testament by the Law, and now under the New Covenant people are saved by grace. This is simply not true. No one was ever saved by the keeping of the law. In fact, the law was never meant to save anyone. Old Testament Israel was not "under law" regarding salvation. God had chosen Israel by grace, not according to performance. Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel. God chose them solely on the basis of His grace. Those who have created a theology that has the Old and New Covenants in adversarial relationship with each other have failed to recognize the fact that all covenants since the fall of Adam have been covenants of grace. It is only after this error is cleared out of the way that we can have a true discussion of this matter.
The law was given that men would know what God declared to be sin. It is God’s standard for righteousness (Rom. 7:7-12). Paul tells us that the law also has the purpose of convicting men of their guilt and revealing their need for a Savior. In Galatians 3:24 we are told: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." Augustine stated it this way, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace." In addition, the law has the purpose of restraining evil (I Tim. 1:9). The law, in and of itself, lacks the power to change human hearts. But it can serve as a deterrent to evildoers.
Jesus clearly stated, in the Sermon on the Mount, that He did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-19). Unfortunately, some of Jesus’ modern day followers are deceived into believing that He did abolish the law. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is God Himself (in the Person of Christ) restating and reapplying the Law of God to his disciples. I do take note of the fact that in the Old Testament God descended onto a mountain and delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel, through Moses. In the New Testament, God (in the Person of Christ) ascended onto a mountain and delivered the "renewed" version of the Ten Commandments to "spiritual" Israel, which is the Church. In reality, the Law of God is not only not abolished, but rather strengthened in the New Testament. Jesus extends the commandment against murder to include thoughts of hatred towards one’s brother (Matt. 5:21-22). Likewise, He extends the sin of adultery beyond the act to include thoughts of lust (Matt. 5:27-28). Christ not only affirms the validity of the Old Testament commandments it elevates them to include the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I believe that John Wesley stated it quite well when he wrote: "We lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings, it is done unto us according to our faith and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, Christ did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law, which never can be broken, which stands fast as a faithful witness in heaven. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which was only designed for temporary restraint upon a stiff-necked or disobedient people: whereas this was from the beginning of the world being written not on the tables of stone, but on the hearts of all men."
Paul insisted that his message regarding justification by faith did not overthrow the law, but upheld it (Rom. 3:31). He taught that through justification by faith the requirement of the law was fulfilled by those walking in God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Even Paul’s statement about Christ being the "end of the law" is specifically interpreted by him as meaning the end of the law as a means of being justified before God (Rom. 10:4). Paul’s assertion is that the Ten Commandments will continue to stand also for the believer, observing, however, that their intention can be fulfilled only by agape love which loves one’s neighbor as oneself (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). If this is the case, then the way of love is inextricably tied to the revelation of God’s Law. This seems to have escaped the notice of most Christians today. I am afraid that we have wandered from a Biblical definition of love into a worldly, humanistic, sentimental concept of "love." Love for God and love for one’s neighbor must be measured by God’s law: "If you love Me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
The law and the gospel, properly understood and applied bring together true morality and true spirituality. Romans 8:3-4 tells us: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." When one is in Christ (the fulfiller of the law), having received the Holy Spirit, the law is internalized. This heart change is what both Jeremiah and Ezekiel foresaw (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). It is Christ, who is the Grace of God (Titus 2:11), that enables us by the indwelling of His Spirit to keep the law.
Allow me to summarize with these concluding thoughts:
Christ’s life is the moral standard by which all men everywhere shall be judged (Acts 10:42). The scepter of righteousness and of justice has been placed in His hand (Ps. 45:6).
1) We need to see Him as the LAW-GIVER.
2) We need to see Him as the LAW-INTERPRETER.
3) He is the LAW-KEEPER.
4) He also PAID THE PENALTY for the broken law.
5) He gives us the POWER TO KEEP His law.
Before we go much further in our study it is important that we eliminate the misconception that God saved people in the Old Testament by the Law, and now under the New Covenant people are saved by grace. This is simply not true. No one was ever saved by the keeping of the law. In fact, the law was never meant to save anyone. Old Testament Israel was not "under law" regarding salvation. God had chosen Israel by grace, not according to performance. Israel did not choose God, God chose Israel. God chose them solely on the basis of His grace. Those who have created a theology that has the Old and New Covenants in adversarial relationship with each other have failed to recognize the fact that all covenants since the fall of Adam have been covenants of grace. It is only after this error is cleared out of the way that we can have a true discussion of this matter.
The law was given that men would know what God declared to be sin. It is God’s standard for righteousness (Rom. 7:7-12). Paul tells us that the law also has the purpose of convicting men of their guilt and revealing their need for a Savior. In Galatians 3:24 we are told: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." Augustine stated it this way, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace." In addition, the law has the purpose of restraining evil (I Tim. 1:9). The law, in and of itself, lacks the power to change human hearts. But it can serve as a deterrent to evildoers.
Jesus clearly stated, in the Sermon on the Mount, that He did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-19). Unfortunately, some of Jesus’ modern day followers are deceived into believing that He did abolish the law. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is God Himself (in the Person of Christ) restating and reapplying the Law of God to his disciples. I do take note of the fact that in the Old Testament God descended onto a mountain and delivered the Ten Commandments to Israel, through Moses. In the New Testament, God (in the Person of Christ) ascended onto a mountain and delivered the "renewed" version of the Ten Commandments to "spiritual" Israel, which is the Church. In reality, the Law of God is not only not abolished, but rather strengthened in the New Testament. Jesus extends the commandment against murder to include thoughts of hatred towards one’s brother (Matt. 5:21-22). Likewise, He extends the sin of adultery beyond the act to include thoughts of lust (Matt. 5:27-28). Christ not only affirms the validity of the Old Testament commandments it elevates them to include the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I believe that John Wesley stated it quite well when he wrote: "We lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings, it is done unto us according to our faith and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, Christ did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law, which never can be broken, which stands fast as a faithful witness in heaven. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which was only designed for temporary restraint upon a stiff-necked or disobedient people: whereas this was from the beginning of the world being written not on the tables of stone, but on the hearts of all men."
Paul insisted that his message regarding justification by faith did not overthrow the law, but upheld it (Rom. 3:31). He taught that through justification by faith the requirement of the law was fulfilled by those walking in God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:4). Even Paul’s statement about Christ being the "end of the law" is specifically interpreted by him as meaning the end of the law as a means of being justified before God (Rom. 10:4). Paul’s assertion is that the Ten Commandments will continue to stand also for the believer, observing, however, that their intention can be fulfilled only by agape love which loves one’s neighbor as oneself (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). If this is the case, then the way of love is inextricably tied to the revelation of God’s Law. This seems to have escaped the notice of most Christians today. I am afraid that we have wandered from a Biblical definition of love into a worldly, humanistic, sentimental concept of "love." Love for God and love for one’s neighbor must be measured by God’s law: "If you love Me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
The law and the gospel, properly understood and applied bring together true morality and true spirituality. Romans 8:3-4 tells us: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." When one is in Christ (the fulfiller of the law), having received the Holy Spirit, the law is internalized. This heart change is what both Jeremiah and Ezekiel foresaw (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). It is Christ, who is the Grace of God (Titus 2:11), that enables us by the indwelling of His Spirit to keep the law.
Allow me to summarize with these concluding thoughts:
Christ’s life is the moral standard by which all men everywhere shall be judged (Acts 10:42). The scepter of righteousness and of justice has been placed in His hand (Ps. 45:6).
1) We need to see Him as the LAW-GIVER.
2) We need to see Him as the LAW-INTERPRETER.
3) He is the LAW-KEEPER.
4) He also PAID THE PENALTY for the broken law.
5) He gives us the POWER TO KEEP His law.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Full of Grace and Truth
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth. And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1:14, 16-17
It is important for us as believers to understand this dynamic relationship that exists between grace and truth. The first chapter of John reveals to us that the Law (Truth) came through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John contrasts the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that of all those before Him. Moses had truth, but Jesus was full of grace and truth. (Please take note of the fact that “grace” comes first in order). John goes on to say that that we (believers) have received His fullness and grace upon grace. Beloved, we can’t achieve true spiritual growth by merely knowing more truth. In fact, Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:43-48 that maturity is measured by love (agape).
Each new revelation of truth requires an accompanying revelation of grace. The failure to understand this and to pursue truth without grace is spiritually suicidal. Exhibit A being the Pharisees, they knew the truth, but they lacked grace toward others. They applied the Word of Truth without the Grace of the Word. Many years ago, I heard Bob Mumford say, “Many times where the most Bible is preached, there is the least amount of love.” Sadly, I understand what he meant; though it most certainly should not be that way. Even more sadly is the fact that I have at times found myself exhibiting this phenomenon. I found that the more truth I learned caused me to develop a certain demeanor. (The more I learned “de meaner” I got.)
I am not advocating that we abandon the pursuit of truth, only that we not let “truth” outpace our “grace.” When this happens, our joy evaporates and our relationships are strained. I have yet to meet a brother who sees himself as the “Sheriff of God’s Kingdom” exhibiting the joy of the Lord. They are too busy straightening out everybody whom they think is in error. They may be right doctrinally, but their attitude is wrong. As they grow in more knowledge their isolation increases, because they see how “wrong” other brothers are. What they fail to realize is how long it took them to see what they now see, and how little they may see. For we all see “through a glass darkly.” If we think that we have the “handle” on all truth, we are truly deceived. There are many brothers with whom I find myself in disagreement with on certain doctrinal issues (predestination, baptism, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, etc.) that I have nevertheless learned a great deal from. I read books written by Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Arminians, Calvinists, Orthodox, Baptists, Neo-Orthodox, Fundamentalists, Anglicans and Charismatics. (The biggest shock of all is that I have actually learned from “women preachers”.) Yes, I am rather eclectic, but I believe that I have learned to “eat the meat and spit out the bones.” I hope that my readers do the same with what I write. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and Christian philosopher, is credited with saying: “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” (By the way, he was a Roman Catholic who believed in predestination and election.)
Lest I be misunderstood, let me clearly state that I believe in upholding the standard of truth. Jesus never lowered the standard and in fact called for a “higher standard” than the Pharisees, one that was “inward” not merely “outward.” At the same time Jesus extended grace to those who failed to keep the standard. I for one am glad He did, or I’d be in big trouble. We likewise are to represent our Master by reaching out and restoring those who have fallen on their journey. Paul said that doing so was a mark of true spirituality (Gal. 6:1).
May we as God’s people learn to hold on to truth and grace simultaneously. We must never abandon either. This is wisdom: Every revelation of truth must be accompanied by a revelation of God’s grace.
It is important for us as believers to understand this dynamic relationship that exists between grace and truth. The first chapter of John reveals to us that the Law (Truth) came through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John contrasts the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that of all those before Him. Moses had truth, but Jesus was full of grace and truth. (Please take note of the fact that “grace” comes first in order). John goes on to say that that we (believers) have received His fullness and grace upon grace. Beloved, we can’t achieve true spiritual growth by merely knowing more truth. In fact, Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:43-48 that maturity is measured by love (agape).
Each new revelation of truth requires an accompanying revelation of grace. The failure to understand this and to pursue truth without grace is spiritually suicidal. Exhibit A being the Pharisees, they knew the truth, but they lacked grace toward others. They applied the Word of Truth without the Grace of the Word. Many years ago, I heard Bob Mumford say, “Many times where the most Bible is preached, there is the least amount of love.” Sadly, I understand what he meant; though it most certainly should not be that way. Even more sadly is the fact that I have at times found myself exhibiting this phenomenon. I found that the more truth I learned caused me to develop a certain demeanor. (The more I learned “de meaner” I got.)
I am not advocating that we abandon the pursuit of truth, only that we not let “truth” outpace our “grace.” When this happens, our joy evaporates and our relationships are strained. I have yet to meet a brother who sees himself as the “Sheriff of God’s Kingdom” exhibiting the joy of the Lord. They are too busy straightening out everybody whom they think is in error. They may be right doctrinally, but their attitude is wrong. As they grow in more knowledge their isolation increases, because they see how “wrong” other brothers are. What they fail to realize is how long it took them to see what they now see, and how little they may see. For we all see “through a glass darkly.” If we think that we have the “handle” on all truth, we are truly deceived. There are many brothers with whom I find myself in disagreement with on certain doctrinal issues (predestination, baptism, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, etc.) that I have nevertheless learned a great deal from. I read books written by Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Arminians, Calvinists, Orthodox, Baptists, Neo-Orthodox, Fundamentalists, Anglicans and Charismatics. (The biggest shock of all is that I have actually learned from “women preachers”.) Yes, I am rather eclectic, but I believe that I have learned to “eat the meat and spit out the bones.” I hope that my readers do the same with what I write. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and Christian philosopher, is credited with saying: “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” (By the way, he was a Roman Catholic who believed in predestination and election.)
Lest I be misunderstood, let me clearly state that I believe in upholding the standard of truth. Jesus never lowered the standard and in fact called for a “higher standard” than the Pharisees, one that was “inward” not merely “outward.” At the same time Jesus extended grace to those who failed to keep the standard. I for one am glad He did, or I’d be in big trouble. We likewise are to represent our Master by reaching out and restoring those who have fallen on their journey. Paul said that doing so was a mark of true spirituality (Gal. 6:1).
May we as God’s people learn to hold on to truth and grace simultaneously. We must never abandon either. This is wisdom: Every revelation of truth must be accompanied by a revelation of God’s grace.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Refiner's Fire
"The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests hearts" (Prov. 17:3).
"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the son’s of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness" (Mal. 3:2-3).
God is as serious about "refining" us as the silversmith is about purging all the dross out of his silver. He will keep working until the result is pure. Note that God says He "will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver"; in other words, God has all the time in the world. He is in no hurry. He will wait patiently until the job is done.
If gold or silver had feelings it would feel that it was being abused, being subjected to unbearable and pointless suffering. But silver and gold are not competent to judge their own condition or the ultimate result of their sufferings; that is solely the prerogative of the refiner. Likewise, we must bear in mind that the "divine refiner" alone knows "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10). We need to view suffering as part of God’s loving ministry to His own peculiar treasure (I Peter 4:12-19). God afflicts us in order to refine and purify us to be fit vessels for His Kingdom. G.K. Chesterton made this observation: "The mystery of suffering may be a strange honor and not a vulgar punishment; that the King may be conferring a decoration when He pins the man on the cross as much as when pins the cross on the man."
But how does the Refiner know when His job is "done?" The ancient refiner had a foolproof method of ensuring the purity of his product. He would gaze into the molten silver until he could see his own reflection. When the silver took upon itself that "mirror–like quality" it was properly refined. Romans 8:29 states that God’s purpose, as He works in our lives, is that we "become conformed to the image of His Son," a reflection of Christ. In II Corinthians 3:18, Paul reverses the illustration when he says: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." Our Lord will continue His purifying work until He sees His reflected image.
How does this take place? If God’s foreordained plan is for us to become as an "exact" image of Christ (as is possible for a creature to be), how does He accomplish it? It is through the refiner’s fire that He must take us. John Flavel, a 17th century Puritan, wrote: "Let a Christian be but two or three years without an affliction, and he is almost good for nothing: he cannot pray, nor meditate, nor discourse as he was wont to do; but when a new affliction comes, now he can find his tongue, and comes to his knees again, and lives at another rate." Paul relates, in his second letter to the church at Corinth, the manner of afflictions and sufferings he experienced on his spiritual journey. He recounts his numerous beatings, shipwrecks, imprisonments, and distresses. He speaks of being "always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake" (II Cor. 4:11). But how does Paul view all this?
He sees it this way: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Cor. 4:17-18).
Paul Billheimer, in his book Don’t Waste Your Sorrows remarks, "In order to grow in character it is necessary to understand that nothing that God permits to come to his child, whether "good" or "ill," is accidental or without design. Everything is intended to drive him out of himself into God." The Biblical approach to suffering is not fatalistic -- it is purposeful for the believer. It therefore, though not sought for, should be embraced when it comes. In Romans 5:3-5 we are told:" … we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
Charles Spurgeon told the story of Betty, a poor old woman who had been tirelessly active in the Lord’s service. She visited the sick; out of her own poverty she gave to those who were still poorer; she collected a little money from others when she could give none of her own, and told many of the love of Christ. At last she caught a cold and rheumatism and lay in bed month after month, racked with pain and helpless. A minister went to see her and asked if after her abundant activity she did not find the change hard to endure.
" No sir, not at all. When I was well, I used to hear the Lord say day by day, ‘Betty, go here. Betty, go there. Betty, do this. Betty, do that, and I used to do it as well as I could. And now I hear Him say every day, ‘Betty, lie still and cough.’"
As difficult as it is for our flesh, I pray that we would embrace the "refiner’s fire." May the "Heavenly Refiner" be able to look into our lives and see the reflection of Himself.
"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap. He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the son’s of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness" (Mal. 3:2-3).
God is as serious about "refining" us as the silversmith is about purging all the dross out of his silver. He will keep working until the result is pure. Note that God says He "will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver"; in other words, God has all the time in the world. He is in no hurry. He will wait patiently until the job is done.
If gold or silver had feelings it would feel that it was being abused, being subjected to unbearable and pointless suffering. But silver and gold are not competent to judge their own condition or the ultimate result of their sufferings; that is solely the prerogative of the refiner. Likewise, we must bear in mind that the "divine refiner" alone knows "the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:10). We need to view suffering as part of God’s loving ministry to His own peculiar treasure (I Peter 4:12-19). God afflicts us in order to refine and purify us to be fit vessels for His Kingdom. G.K. Chesterton made this observation: "The mystery of suffering may be a strange honor and not a vulgar punishment; that the King may be conferring a decoration when He pins the man on the cross as much as when pins the cross on the man."
But how does the Refiner know when His job is "done?" The ancient refiner had a foolproof method of ensuring the purity of his product. He would gaze into the molten silver until he could see his own reflection. When the silver took upon itself that "mirror–like quality" it was properly refined. Romans 8:29 states that God’s purpose, as He works in our lives, is that we "become conformed to the image of His Son," a reflection of Christ. In II Corinthians 3:18, Paul reverses the illustration when he says: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." Our Lord will continue His purifying work until He sees His reflected image.
How does this take place? If God’s foreordained plan is for us to become as an "exact" image of Christ (as is possible for a creature to be), how does He accomplish it? It is through the refiner’s fire that He must take us. John Flavel, a 17th century Puritan, wrote: "Let a Christian be but two or three years without an affliction, and he is almost good for nothing: he cannot pray, nor meditate, nor discourse as he was wont to do; but when a new affliction comes, now he can find his tongue, and comes to his knees again, and lives at another rate." Paul relates, in his second letter to the church at Corinth, the manner of afflictions and sufferings he experienced on his spiritual journey. He recounts his numerous beatings, shipwrecks, imprisonments, and distresses. He speaks of being "always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake" (II Cor. 4:11). But how does Paul view all this?
He sees it this way: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (II Cor. 4:17-18).
Paul Billheimer, in his book Don’t Waste Your Sorrows remarks, "In order to grow in character it is necessary to understand that nothing that God permits to come to his child, whether "good" or "ill," is accidental or without design. Everything is intended to drive him out of himself into God." The Biblical approach to suffering is not fatalistic -- it is purposeful for the believer. It therefore, though not sought for, should be embraced when it comes. In Romans 5:3-5 we are told:" … we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
Charles Spurgeon told the story of Betty, a poor old woman who had been tirelessly active in the Lord’s service. She visited the sick; out of her own poverty she gave to those who were still poorer; she collected a little money from others when she could give none of her own, and told many of the love of Christ. At last she caught a cold and rheumatism and lay in bed month after month, racked with pain and helpless. A minister went to see her and asked if after her abundant activity she did not find the change hard to endure.
" No sir, not at all. When I was well, I used to hear the Lord say day by day, ‘Betty, go here. Betty, go there. Betty, do this. Betty, do that, and I used to do it as well as I could. And now I hear Him say every day, ‘Betty, lie still and cough.’"
As difficult as it is for our flesh, I pray that we would embrace the "refiner’s fire." May the "Heavenly Refiner" be able to look into our lives and see the reflection of Himself.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Let Us Be Bereans
Now these [Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
One of Charles Schulz’s Peanuts cartoons shows the Linus lying on the floor with an open Bible. He says to his sister Lucy, “Don’t bother me I’m looking for a verse of Scripture to back up one of my pre-conceived notions.” While we may laugh at this, does this sentiment not reflect our approach to Scripture on many occasions?
If the Bereans were distinguished by this action of searching the Scriptures, in contrast to those in Thessalonica, how much more should Christians be characterized by a desire to search the Scriptures daily? Yet, sadly, we have the propensity to assume the Bible teaches something; to assume that what “Dr. So-and-so” teaches is correct; or to assume that our “system” is basically closed to further adjustment from the Word. It is easy to feel secure in a tightly knit system. But if we are secure in Christ, then we will not be afraid to constantly evaluate our beliefs in light of the Word of God.
We have the privilege as Christians of searching the Scriptures. But, as the Bible commentator R.C.H. Lenski pointed out, “....your right and my right is to see and to find the one divine truth which the Spirit placed into the Scriptures. This and this alone is in them .... The Scriptures are clear, perfectly adequate to present this one truth to every man. Those who deviate from that one truth, no matter how, can do so only by making the Word mean what it never meant, and they, they alone are to blame for such deviation.”
Thus we must in Bible study covet more than anything else the mind of the Spirit. This involves serious prayer from a sincere heart. Every deviation from the objective Word results from the intrusion of a subjective preference — a preference to accommodate the Scripture to human philosophy; a preference to try and validate from Scripture a private prejudice; a preference to defend a theological system in which one trusts; a preference to explain away texts that do not fit our “system,” etc.
What are we to “search” for in our Bible study? The Bereans were searching the Old Testament to see if the Apostle Paul’s claims about Christ were true (Acts 17:2-3). Jesus clearly stated that the Old Testament was a unified witness on His behalf (John 5:39,46). The New Testament obviously focuses on the person, work, and words of Christ. A truly edifying approach to Scripture, then, involves seeking the Lord Jesus in the Bible.
If the Scriptures are searched with reference to vain speculations, endless genealogies, sinful curiosity, etc., then there can be no profit from the Word (1 Tim.1:4). The Spirit in this age is going to take the things of Christ and disclose them to sinners (John 16:8-15). We must, like the Bereans, be diligent in finding Christ in all the Scriptures (cf. Luke 24:27,44).
While there is nothing wrong with expressing what we believe the Bible teaches in an organized way, we must avoid closing our minds to the possibility that the Lord may give us more light in the future from the Word. Time after time the Lord has come along, when I thought I had it all “systematized” and dismantled my system. Thus, our organization of God’s truth must never be regarded as “finished,” nor may we regard any past era of church history as having “said all that can be said.”
To put it bluntly, there is a real danger in “systems,” for they have — as history shows — tended to gain the upper hand. Men have strained to defend the system instead of evaluating and adjusting the system to the Scripture. Henry Mahan touches on this danger by saying:
“It is not easy to preach the gospel of free grace because by nature we are prone to get bound by a system. It is very easy to get bound to a creed or a system or denominational guidelines, and then try to make God’s Word fit that system, fit that creed, or fit those guidelines. We begin to hunt what we already believe in the Bible, and that is dangerous.
"I’ve heard many Arminian preachers tremble lest they go an inch beyond John Wesley, or an inch beyond Arminius, or an inch beyond some other famous free-will preacher. Then I’ve heard some Calvinists, some sovereign grace preachers, who speak as if John Calvin were the final authority. Well, these men are not the final authority.... It is time that the Scripture becomes our final authority."
"We are to seek to preach the Word of God — not what Baptists believe; the Word of God, not what Calvinists believe..... I really don’t know any difference in what they call high doctrine and low doctrine. I read these statements, ‘That’s high doctrine — that’s low doctrine.’ Well, if God’s Word teaches it that’s enough; and if God’s Word doesn’t teach it, let’s do away with it.” (“Balance of Truth,” Sword & Trowel, Dec. 1975).
The question that we must ask ourselves is"Am I willing to adjust my thinking, as God presents me with more light?"
One of Charles Schulz’s Peanuts cartoons shows the Linus lying on the floor with an open Bible. He says to his sister Lucy, “Don’t bother me I’m looking for a verse of Scripture to back up one of my pre-conceived notions.” While we may laugh at this, does this sentiment not reflect our approach to Scripture on many occasions?
If the Bereans were distinguished by this action of searching the Scriptures, in contrast to those in Thessalonica, how much more should Christians be characterized by a desire to search the Scriptures daily? Yet, sadly, we have the propensity to assume the Bible teaches something; to assume that what “Dr. So-and-so” teaches is correct; or to assume that our “system” is basically closed to further adjustment from the Word. It is easy to feel secure in a tightly knit system. But if we are secure in Christ, then we will not be afraid to constantly evaluate our beliefs in light of the Word of God.
We have the privilege as Christians of searching the Scriptures. But, as the Bible commentator R.C.H. Lenski pointed out, “....your right and my right is to see and to find the one divine truth which the Spirit placed into the Scriptures. This and this alone is in them .... The Scriptures are clear, perfectly adequate to present this one truth to every man. Those who deviate from that one truth, no matter how, can do so only by making the Word mean what it never meant, and they, they alone are to blame for such deviation.”
Thus we must in Bible study covet more than anything else the mind of the Spirit. This involves serious prayer from a sincere heart. Every deviation from the objective Word results from the intrusion of a subjective preference — a preference to accommodate the Scripture to human philosophy; a preference to try and validate from Scripture a private prejudice; a preference to defend a theological system in which one trusts; a preference to explain away texts that do not fit our “system,” etc.
What are we to “search” for in our Bible study? The Bereans were searching the Old Testament to see if the Apostle Paul’s claims about Christ were true (Acts 17:2-3). Jesus clearly stated that the Old Testament was a unified witness on His behalf (John 5:39,46). The New Testament obviously focuses on the person, work, and words of Christ. A truly edifying approach to Scripture, then, involves seeking the Lord Jesus in the Bible.
If the Scriptures are searched with reference to vain speculations, endless genealogies, sinful curiosity, etc., then there can be no profit from the Word (1 Tim.1:4). The Spirit in this age is going to take the things of Christ and disclose them to sinners (John 16:8-15). We must, like the Bereans, be diligent in finding Christ in all the Scriptures (cf. Luke 24:27,44).
While there is nothing wrong with expressing what we believe the Bible teaches in an organized way, we must avoid closing our minds to the possibility that the Lord may give us more light in the future from the Word. Time after time the Lord has come along, when I thought I had it all “systematized” and dismantled my system. Thus, our organization of God’s truth must never be regarded as “finished,” nor may we regard any past era of church history as having “said all that can be said.”
To put it bluntly, there is a real danger in “systems,” for they have — as history shows — tended to gain the upper hand. Men have strained to defend the system instead of evaluating and adjusting the system to the Scripture. Henry Mahan touches on this danger by saying:
“It is not easy to preach the gospel of free grace because by nature we are prone to get bound by a system. It is very easy to get bound to a creed or a system or denominational guidelines, and then try to make God’s Word fit that system, fit that creed, or fit those guidelines. We begin to hunt what we already believe in the Bible, and that is dangerous.
"I’ve heard many Arminian preachers tremble lest they go an inch beyond John Wesley, or an inch beyond Arminius, or an inch beyond some other famous free-will preacher. Then I’ve heard some Calvinists, some sovereign grace preachers, who speak as if John Calvin were the final authority. Well, these men are not the final authority.... It is time that the Scripture becomes our final authority."
"We are to seek to preach the Word of God — not what Baptists believe; the Word of God, not what Calvinists believe..... I really don’t know any difference in what they call high doctrine and low doctrine. I read these statements, ‘That’s high doctrine — that’s low doctrine.’ Well, if God’s Word teaches it that’s enough; and if God’s Word doesn’t teach it, let’s do away with it.” (“Balance of Truth,” Sword & Trowel, Dec. 1975).
The question that we must ask ourselves is"Am I willing to adjust my thinking, as God presents me with more light?"
Monday, September 27, 2010
Is Homosexuality a Choice?
In the last presidential debate the candidates were asked the question: "Are people born homosexual or is homosexuality a choice?" Without expounding on the answers each candidate gave, allow me to address the question itself, because it is one that is often asked and one that we should have an answer for.
The answer to this question lies in what is meant by homosexuality. Homosexuality is the behavior of one who engages in sexual relations with some one of the same sex. We would say that he, or she, is engaged in homosexuality. The point is that it is a behavior. One can have a sexual attraction for others of the same sex, yet not respond to that attraction. It is not homosexuality until it becomes an act. Of course, in our secularized society today one apparently is expected to respond to their desires. To fail to do so is "repressive," and a refusal to be "what they really are."
We must differentiate between orientation and behavior. You and I both have a "sin-orientation," we were born with it, it is often referred to as a "fallen nature." We are born with a propensity toward disobedience to God. But until I act on that propensity toward disobedience, it is not sin. My orientation toward sin is the consequence of Adam’s rebellion. Sinful behavior is my rebellion. We choose our behavior; we do not choose our orientation. Let me state this plainly: Only those who commit homosexual acts are homosexual. In the same way that only those who commit adultery are adulterers. Only those who rob banks are bank robbers. There are those who have a predisposition toward alcoholism – who must make the decision not to drink in order to stay free from the bondage they would find themselves in. Are they alcoholics? No – because they don’t drink alcohol.
Jay E. Adams has written: "One is not a homosexual constitutionally any more than one is an adulterer constitutionally. Homosexuality is not considered [in the Bible] to be a condition but an act. It is viewed as a sinful practice which can become a way of life. The homosexual act, like the act of adultery, is the reason for calling one a homosexual. (Of course, one may commit homosexual acts of the heart, just as one may commit adultery in his heart. He may lust after a man as another may lust after a woman.) But precisely because homosexuality, like adultery, is learned behavior into which men with sinful natures are prone to wander, homosexuality can be forgiven in Christ, and the pattern can be abandoned and in its place proper patterns can be reestablished by the Holy Spirit."
Some people have a "homosexual orientation," in that they find themselves sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Why this is so is a mystery. Sexual attraction is not something I will attempt to explain. I am certain that there are a variety of factors that determine what we each find attractive. Nevertheless, regardless of my attraction, I must stay within the boundaries that God has established. Sex, homosexual or heterosexual, outside of the boundaries is sin.
Henri Nouwen, Christian author and conference speaker, acknowledged that from his earliest conscious memories, he was attracted to men. He had no explanation for this, but he did recognize that to act on that attraction would be sin. He also recognized that sinful, lustful thoughts would eventually lead to action (Matt. 5:27-30). He therefore chose to be celibate, rather than yield to behavior that was in disobedience to the commands of God. Was this easy? I’m certain it wasn’t. But he chose to "cut of his right hand" rather than to sin against God. (I might add that he was frequently the target of verbal attacks by those who believed he should have acted upon his orientation.) Was he a homosexual? No – because he did not engage in homosexual behavior.
The question that most certainly must be raised is: "Can God change one’s sexual orientation?" The answer is of course – yes. With God all things are possible. He, who can heal the sick, give sight to the blind and raise the dead, can certainly change a person’s sexual orientation from men to women (or women to men). I know of many examples of His doing this very thing. God is in the transformation business. We recognize that some of the changes God brings in our lives are instantaneous, others are progressive or gradual. However God sovereignly chooses to act, we must exercise faith and patience (Heb. 6:12). But until that transformation of one’s orientation occurs, he must look to the power of the Holy Spirit to enable him to walk in obedience to God. He does not have to follow his "orientation." Ephesians 4:22-23 tells us, "You were taught , with regard to your former manner of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in righteousness and holiness."
The answer to this question lies in what is meant by homosexuality. Homosexuality is the behavior of one who engages in sexual relations with some one of the same sex. We would say that he, or she, is engaged in homosexuality. The point is that it is a behavior. One can have a sexual attraction for others of the same sex, yet not respond to that attraction. It is not homosexuality until it becomes an act. Of course, in our secularized society today one apparently is expected to respond to their desires. To fail to do so is "repressive," and a refusal to be "what they really are."
We must differentiate between orientation and behavior. You and I both have a "sin-orientation," we were born with it, it is often referred to as a "fallen nature." We are born with a propensity toward disobedience to God. But until I act on that propensity toward disobedience, it is not sin. My orientation toward sin is the consequence of Adam’s rebellion. Sinful behavior is my rebellion. We choose our behavior; we do not choose our orientation. Let me state this plainly: Only those who commit homosexual acts are homosexual. In the same way that only those who commit adultery are adulterers. Only those who rob banks are bank robbers. There are those who have a predisposition toward alcoholism – who must make the decision not to drink in order to stay free from the bondage they would find themselves in. Are they alcoholics? No – because they don’t drink alcohol.
Jay E. Adams has written: "One is not a homosexual constitutionally any more than one is an adulterer constitutionally. Homosexuality is not considered [in the Bible] to be a condition but an act. It is viewed as a sinful practice which can become a way of life. The homosexual act, like the act of adultery, is the reason for calling one a homosexual. (Of course, one may commit homosexual acts of the heart, just as one may commit adultery in his heart. He may lust after a man as another may lust after a woman.) But precisely because homosexuality, like adultery, is learned behavior into which men with sinful natures are prone to wander, homosexuality can be forgiven in Christ, and the pattern can be abandoned and in its place proper patterns can be reestablished by the Holy Spirit."
Some people have a "homosexual orientation," in that they find themselves sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Why this is so is a mystery. Sexual attraction is not something I will attempt to explain. I am certain that there are a variety of factors that determine what we each find attractive. Nevertheless, regardless of my attraction, I must stay within the boundaries that God has established. Sex, homosexual or heterosexual, outside of the boundaries is sin.
Henri Nouwen, Christian author and conference speaker, acknowledged that from his earliest conscious memories, he was attracted to men. He had no explanation for this, but he did recognize that to act on that attraction would be sin. He also recognized that sinful, lustful thoughts would eventually lead to action (Matt. 5:27-30). He therefore chose to be celibate, rather than yield to behavior that was in disobedience to the commands of God. Was this easy? I’m certain it wasn’t. But he chose to "cut of his right hand" rather than to sin against God. (I might add that he was frequently the target of verbal attacks by those who believed he should have acted upon his orientation.) Was he a homosexual? No – because he did not engage in homosexual behavior.
The question that most certainly must be raised is: "Can God change one’s sexual orientation?" The answer is of course – yes. With God all things are possible. He, who can heal the sick, give sight to the blind and raise the dead, can certainly change a person’s sexual orientation from men to women (or women to men). I know of many examples of His doing this very thing. God is in the transformation business. We recognize that some of the changes God brings in our lives are instantaneous, others are progressive or gradual. However God sovereignly chooses to act, we must exercise faith and patience (Heb. 6:12). But until that transformation of one’s orientation occurs, he must look to the power of the Holy Spirit to enable him to walk in obedience to God. He does not have to follow his "orientation." Ephesians 4:22-23 tells us, "You were taught , with regard to your former manner of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in righteousness and holiness."
Did Jesus Ever Meet a Homosexual?
Did Jesus ever meet a homosexual? This is a question that has been raised while discussing the Biblical view of homosexuality. The Gospels cover many areas of sin which were confronted by Jesus. Adulterers, dishonest tax collectors, prostitutes, and hypocrites are only a few of the people Jesus dealt with on the streets of the cities He traveled.
All types of sexual immorality are well-covered in the law of Moses, so the question arises that if homosexuality, bestiality, and incest are also presented as capital offenses by Moses (Lev. 18:6- 22, 20:11-20), why did Jesus not mention these or teach on them during His earthly ministry as well? I have heard it said in this manner, “Surely these sins were present in Jesus' day, as they were in Moses' day and as they are in ours, but the writers of the Gospels were apparently not led by the Holy Spirit to mention them in our Lord's daily life. In fact, we are never even told that Jesus met a homosexual.” Did Jesus ever meet a homosexual? I believe that this is a question worthy of your examination.
Before we look at the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, we need to establish that the New Testament clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Paul presents the downward progression of sin in those who reject the gospel in Romans, chapter one, where the full ramifications of heathenism are described.
Homosexuality is the result of a decision to reject God and His Word:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Rom. 1:26 - 27).
A key word in the New Testament vocabulary is the word "uncleanness" or “impurity.” Uncleanness is attached to sins of moral or sexual impurity in the New Testament.
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity (KJV – “uncleanness’), sensuality, . . . (Galatians 5:19).
But immorality or any impurity (KJV – “uncleanness”) or greed must not be named among you, as is proper among saints; . . . For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure (KJV – “unclean”) person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Ephes. 5:3,5).
Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity (KJV – “uncleanness”), passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry (Col. 3: 5).
The Greek word for "uncleanness" is akathartos. It means "impure in thought and action." We find in each of the Scriptures just quoted that the word is attached to sins of sexual perversion. This would include homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, child molestation, rape, bestiality, and sadomasochism. This list could go on, but I believe you see the ramifications and far-reaching extent of "uncleanness."
The problem with lesbianism, homosexuality, or other types of sexual perversion is not just the actions, but the thoughts which guide the actions. Sexual and moral impurity begins in our thoughts long before it ever manifests as evil deeds. If Satan can gain the thoughts, he can possess the life (Prov. 23:7).
The sinner or carnal Christian who is taken by sins of uncleanness has allowed the morals and lusts of this world to control their thinking. Through magazines, movies, and television, the god of this world has put out his “gospel” of sexual perversion.
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord... (Isa. 55:7). The New Testament gives titles of many types of demons: evil spirits (Luke 7:21, Acts 19:12), foul spirits (Mark 9:25, Rev.18:2), wicked spirits (Ephes. 6:12), dumb spirits (Mark 9:17), spirits of infirmity (Luke 13:11), spirits of divination (Acts 16:16), and seducing spirits (I Tim. 4:1). But the most common demon Jesus encountered was the unclean spirit (Mark 1:27, 3:11, Luke 4:3, 6:18, 9:42, etc.). These were spirits of homosexuality, lesbianism, and other types of sexual perversion. Did Jesus ever meet a homosexual? Of course He did! He also met lesbians, transvestites, those committing incest, and those who sexually abused children.
The time in which Jesus lived was no different than that of Moses' time or ours today. There are no new sins. The problems never change—but neither does the answer. Jesus has always been mankind's Deliverer, and deliverance from sexual sins has been at the top of the list in every generation.
All types of sexual immorality are well-covered in the law of Moses, so the question arises that if homosexuality, bestiality, and incest are also presented as capital offenses by Moses (Lev. 18:6- 22, 20:11-20), why did Jesus not mention these or teach on them during His earthly ministry as well? I have heard it said in this manner, “Surely these sins were present in Jesus' day, as they were in Moses' day and as they are in ours, but the writers of the Gospels were apparently not led by the Holy Spirit to mention them in our Lord's daily life. In fact, we are never even told that Jesus met a homosexual.” Did Jesus ever meet a homosexual? I believe that this is a question worthy of your examination.
Before we look at the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, we need to establish that the New Testament clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Paul presents the downward progression of sin in those who reject the gospel in Romans, chapter one, where the full ramifications of heathenism are described.
Homosexuality is the result of a decision to reject God and His Word:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Rom. 1:26 - 27).
A key word in the New Testament vocabulary is the word "uncleanness" or “impurity.” Uncleanness is attached to sins of moral or sexual impurity in the New Testament.
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity (KJV – “uncleanness’), sensuality, . . . (Galatians 5:19).
But immorality or any impurity (KJV – “uncleanness”) or greed must not be named among you, as is proper among saints; . . . For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure (KJV – “unclean”) person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Ephes. 5:3,5).
Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity (KJV – “uncleanness”), passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry (Col. 3: 5).
The Greek word for "uncleanness" is akathartos. It means "impure in thought and action." We find in each of the Scriptures just quoted that the word is attached to sins of sexual perversion. This would include homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, child molestation, rape, bestiality, and sadomasochism. This list could go on, but I believe you see the ramifications and far-reaching extent of "uncleanness."
The problem with lesbianism, homosexuality, or other types of sexual perversion is not just the actions, but the thoughts which guide the actions. Sexual and moral impurity begins in our thoughts long before it ever manifests as evil deeds. If Satan can gain the thoughts, he can possess the life (Prov. 23:7).
The sinner or carnal Christian who is taken by sins of uncleanness has allowed the morals and lusts of this world to control their thinking. Through magazines, movies, and television, the god of this world has put out his “gospel” of sexual perversion.
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord... (Isa. 55:7). The New Testament gives titles of many types of demons: evil spirits (Luke 7:21, Acts 19:12), foul spirits (Mark 9:25, Rev.18:2), wicked spirits (Ephes. 6:12), dumb spirits (Mark 9:17), spirits of infirmity (Luke 13:11), spirits of divination (Acts 16:16), and seducing spirits (I Tim. 4:1). But the most common demon Jesus encountered was the unclean spirit (Mark 1:27, 3:11, Luke 4:3, 6:18, 9:42, etc.). These were spirits of homosexuality, lesbianism, and other types of sexual perversion. Did Jesus ever meet a homosexual? Of course He did! He also met lesbians, transvestites, those committing incest, and those who sexually abused children.
The time in which Jesus lived was no different than that of Moses' time or ours today. There are no new sins. The problems never change—but neither does the answer. Jesus has always been mankind's Deliverer, and deliverance from sexual sins has been at the top of the list in every generation.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Tenth Generation: God's Law and God's Promise
In Genesis 49:10 we find one of the most significant Biblical promises, where it is declared: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes [or, “until he comes to whose right it is” - See Ezek. 21:27]; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” This is further elaborated and confirmed by Samuel’s prophecy to David – “Your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne will be established forever” (II Samuel 7:16). This is ultimately a promise concerning Jesus, finding its fulfillment in His universal reign (I Cor. 15:24-28) when “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” prevails (Rev. 5:5).
This prophetic word from Jacob to Judah is tinged with a certain irony, in the fact that Judah had already disqualified his descendants from the place of ruling. Genesis 38:29 tells that had fathered an illegitimate child named Perez (meaning “Breakthrough”) through his daughter-in-law Tamar. Only decades later did the consequences of this act reveal themselves when the law seemed to cut off all hopes of Judah’s heirs from holding royal office. Deuteronomy 23:2 stated that, “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” To be refused the right to “enter the assembly” was essentially a denial of citizenship, and of course, the prohibition from holding office in the commonwealth of Israel. This meant separation from the covenant in its official and legal aspects. Think of what this means in personal terms: if your ancestor in the time of George Washington fathered an illegitimate child, from whom you are descended, you would still be prevented from holding legal citizenship today! Judah’s heritage was disqualified because of his sin, but they had been promised the royal line. By God’s infallible decree, Judah’s heirs were legally prevented from holding royal office. It appears that God’s law and God’s promise are in conflict here.
Interestingly, that brings us to the Book of Ruth. Why is this little “love story” between a Moabite widow and a wealthy bachelor in the Bible? It’s there because it is much more than a romance novel. Ruth shows us how God fulfilled his promise to Judah. Remember that Judah’s descendants were because of the promise the only ones who were eligible to hold royal office, yet they were disqualified because of Judah’s sin – until the tenth generation – approximately 400 years. The Book of Ruth provides the critical link between God’s law and God’s promise. Ruth provides us with a crucial part of redemptive history, this book supplies information about Christ’s genealogy that is unknown anywhere else. In fact, the book can seem to be somewhat irrelevant to those ignorant of Biblical legal history. (At least they miss the “punch line.”) It recounts the “genealogy of Perez” (Ruth 4:18-22), the illegitimate child of Judah, who through no fault of his own was prevented along with his descendants, from claiming their rightful inheritance of the throne of Israel.
Let us examine the genealogy of Perez: Perez (#1) begot Herzon, Herzon (#2) begot Ram, Ram (#3) begot Amminadab, Amminadab (#4) begot Nabshon, Nabshon (#5) begot Salmon, Salmon (#6) begot Boaz, Boaz (#7) begot Obed, Obed (#8) begot Jesse, Jesse (#9) begot David (#10). David was Judah’s tenth generation. In God’s providence, the first descendant in Judah’s line to become King was also the first descendant who was legally eligible.
What is the lesson in this for us? First Corinthians 1:20 declares, “For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.” It may appear that God’s promise and your circumstances are in conflict – in the same way that God’s law and God’s promises were seemingly opposed in the case of Judah’s ancestors. Yet, “the promises of God in Him are yes.” It is here where we must trust the providential hand of God to bring about what He has promised. In spite of Judah’s failure, God still fulfilled what He had spoken. Even as God brought about the fulfillment of His prophetic word to Judah, God will fulfill all that He has spoken concerning us.
There is what we could call the mystery of God’s providence. This revolves around what is referred to as “concurrence.” Concurrence involves the coterminous actions of God and human beings. This is where the free will of man and the sovereign will of God converge. We, as human beings, do have a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the power of choice we exercise is only secondary. God’s sovereign providential power stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills. Probably the best example of this is found in the story of Joseph (Gen. 37-50). Though Joseph’s brothers were acting treacherously toward him, the providence of God was working even through their deliberate sinful actions. This is why Joseph was able to say to his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).
Let us not forget that the lesson of the “tenth generation” ultimately points to Jesus. As the angel Gabriel told Mary about her Son, Jesus, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and God will give Him the throne of His Father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).
This prophetic word from Jacob to Judah is tinged with a certain irony, in the fact that Judah had already disqualified his descendants from the place of ruling. Genesis 38:29 tells that had fathered an illegitimate child named Perez (meaning “Breakthrough”) through his daughter-in-law Tamar. Only decades later did the consequences of this act reveal themselves when the law seemed to cut off all hopes of Judah’s heirs from holding royal office. Deuteronomy 23:2 stated that, “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” To be refused the right to “enter the assembly” was essentially a denial of citizenship, and of course, the prohibition from holding office in the commonwealth of Israel. This meant separation from the covenant in its official and legal aspects. Think of what this means in personal terms: if your ancestor in the time of George Washington fathered an illegitimate child, from whom you are descended, you would still be prevented from holding legal citizenship today! Judah’s heritage was disqualified because of his sin, but they had been promised the royal line. By God’s infallible decree, Judah’s heirs were legally prevented from holding royal office. It appears that God’s law and God’s promise are in conflict here.
Interestingly, that brings us to the Book of Ruth. Why is this little “love story” between a Moabite widow and a wealthy bachelor in the Bible? It’s there because it is much more than a romance novel. Ruth shows us how God fulfilled his promise to Judah. Remember that Judah’s descendants were because of the promise the only ones who were eligible to hold royal office, yet they were disqualified because of Judah’s sin – until the tenth generation – approximately 400 years. The Book of Ruth provides the critical link between God’s law and God’s promise. Ruth provides us with a crucial part of redemptive history, this book supplies information about Christ’s genealogy that is unknown anywhere else. In fact, the book can seem to be somewhat irrelevant to those ignorant of Biblical legal history. (At least they miss the “punch line.”) It recounts the “genealogy of Perez” (Ruth 4:18-22), the illegitimate child of Judah, who through no fault of his own was prevented along with his descendants, from claiming their rightful inheritance of the throne of Israel.
Let us examine the genealogy of Perez: Perez (#1) begot Herzon, Herzon (#2) begot Ram, Ram (#3) begot Amminadab, Amminadab (#4) begot Nabshon, Nabshon (#5) begot Salmon, Salmon (#6) begot Boaz, Boaz (#7) begot Obed, Obed (#8) begot Jesse, Jesse (#9) begot David (#10). David was Judah’s tenth generation. In God’s providence, the first descendant in Judah’s line to become King was also the first descendant who was legally eligible.
What is the lesson in this for us? First Corinthians 1:20 declares, “For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.” It may appear that God’s promise and your circumstances are in conflict – in the same way that God’s law and God’s promises were seemingly opposed in the case of Judah’s ancestors. Yet, “the promises of God in Him are yes.” It is here where we must trust the providential hand of God to bring about what He has promised. In spite of Judah’s failure, God still fulfilled what He had spoken. Even as God brought about the fulfillment of His prophetic word to Judah, God will fulfill all that He has spoken concerning us.
There is what we could call the mystery of God’s providence. This revolves around what is referred to as “concurrence.” Concurrence involves the coterminous actions of God and human beings. This is where the free will of man and the sovereign will of God converge. We, as human beings, do have a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the power of choice we exercise is only secondary. God’s sovereign providential power stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills. Probably the best example of this is found in the story of Joseph (Gen. 37-50). Though Joseph’s brothers were acting treacherously toward him, the providence of God was working even through their deliberate sinful actions. This is why Joseph was able to say to his brothers, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).
Let us not forget that the lesson of the “tenth generation” ultimately points to Jesus. As the angel Gabriel told Mary about her Son, Jesus, “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and God will give Him the throne of His Father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).
Friday, September 17, 2010
The House Church Movement
The house church movement continues to attract attention. The Barna Group estimates that between 6 and 12 million people now attend a house church in America. The reliable Pew Forum discovered that 9 percent of American Protestants attend house church exclusively. Any movement that attracts 10 percent of the total of Protestant worshipers is likely to have a growing and considerable impact on the church at-large. While I do not think traditional churches will just go away anytime soon I expect the house church movement will grow in the years ahead.
This is not a matter of mere academic interest to me. I have lead a house church for the past four years. In many ways it fits the pattern of most house churches, if there is a pattern. We generally eat together, worship, pray, share, study the Scripture, and celebrate the Lord's Supper. I believe that we are seeking to meet in much the same way the Church did in its first couple of centuries. I do not feel elitist about this, nor do I feel that those in what could be termed "traditional" churches are in some way "missing it." I do feel like we are pioneering something, and that we are following the Lord's direction for us.
Having pastored a traditional church with a building, programs, and all the other things that accompany such a church, I am thankful for the simplicity that I find in the house church. Ed Stetzer, the president of Lifeway Research and a specialist in missiology, notes that the appeal of the house church is to a “simpler expression of the church.” He adds, “For many, church has become too much (like a) business while they just want to live like the Bible.” I believe people are genuinely tired of seeing the church become a business that seems totally removed from what they read about the ministry and fellowship enjoyed by people in New Testament churches.
I have read the various critiques of the "movement" (and it is questionable as to whether it qualifies as a movement), in addition I have heard from pastors of traditional churches that have real, and in some cases valid concerns, relating to the direction that some house churches are taking. I am concerned about an anti-authoritarian attitude that draws some to house churches. I am not supportive of a "leaderless gathering," if in reality there is any such thing. I recognize the danger of those teaching, who in ignorance of sound theology, can introduce dangerous and deceptive doctrines. I am also concerned about groups that isolate themselves from the larger Body of Christ.
Having said all that, allow me to say that I believe that what God is doing through this movement is a restoration of Biblical orthopraxy. Orthopraxy refers to "correct practice," whereas, orthodoxy means "correct doctrine." There are those that are Biblically orthodox, but in terms of practices and methods, do not look to the Bible as to the basis for what they do. Traditions, culture, and pragmatism often dictates why churches do what they do. They cannot find support for much of what they do in the pages of Holy Writ. That is one of the big challenges that confronts most traditional churches. In the 1800's, the Plymouth Brethren confronted the Church with the same challenge, to show from the Scriptures the basis for their practices and ecclesiastical structures.
Here are key questions that I believe must be addressed:
(1) Is the Church in the New Testament embryonic or a model for future generations?
(2) Was the New Testament Church meant to mainly furnish us with the authoritative apostolic teachings or was it meant to have some particular instructions for us in structure?
(3) Does the New Testament give us form as well as content?
All three of these questions address how we view the Church in the New Testament and how we view the developement of structures and methods down through Church history.
Here is what I propose:
(1) The New Testament furnishes us with principles for a pattern church that can and should be followed today.
(2) As the epistles are normative to the doctrine of the Church (orthodoxy), the principles of the book of Acts are normative for the life, experiences, and practices (orthopraxy) of the Church.
I see these questions and these proposals as the essence of the issues raised by the house church movement to the Church as a whole.
Your comments are welcome.
This is not a matter of mere academic interest to me. I have lead a house church for the past four years. In many ways it fits the pattern of most house churches, if there is a pattern. We generally eat together, worship, pray, share, study the Scripture, and celebrate the Lord's Supper. I believe that we are seeking to meet in much the same way the Church did in its first couple of centuries. I do not feel elitist about this, nor do I feel that those in what could be termed "traditional" churches are in some way "missing it." I do feel like we are pioneering something, and that we are following the Lord's direction for us.
Having pastored a traditional church with a building, programs, and all the other things that accompany such a church, I am thankful for the simplicity that I find in the house church. Ed Stetzer, the president of Lifeway Research and a specialist in missiology, notes that the appeal of the house church is to a “simpler expression of the church.” He adds, “For many, church has become too much (like a) business while they just want to live like the Bible.” I believe people are genuinely tired of seeing the church become a business that seems totally removed from what they read about the ministry and fellowship enjoyed by people in New Testament churches.
I have read the various critiques of the "movement" (and it is questionable as to whether it qualifies as a movement), in addition I have heard from pastors of traditional churches that have real, and in some cases valid concerns, relating to the direction that some house churches are taking. I am concerned about an anti-authoritarian attitude that draws some to house churches. I am not supportive of a "leaderless gathering," if in reality there is any such thing. I recognize the danger of those teaching, who in ignorance of sound theology, can introduce dangerous and deceptive doctrines. I am also concerned about groups that isolate themselves from the larger Body of Christ.
Having said all that, allow me to say that I believe that what God is doing through this movement is a restoration of Biblical orthopraxy. Orthopraxy refers to "correct practice," whereas, orthodoxy means "correct doctrine." There are those that are Biblically orthodox, but in terms of practices and methods, do not look to the Bible as to the basis for what they do. Traditions, culture, and pragmatism often dictates why churches do what they do. They cannot find support for much of what they do in the pages of Holy Writ. That is one of the big challenges that confronts most traditional churches. In the 1800's, the Plymouth Brethren confronted the Church with the same challenge, to show from the Scriptures the basis for their practices and ecclesiastical structures.
Here are key questions that I believe must be addressed:
(1) Is the Church in the New Testament embryonic or a model for future generations?
(2) Was the New Testament Church meant to mainly furnish us with the authoritative apostolic teachings or was it meant to have some particular instructions for us in structure?
(3) Does the New Testament give us form as well as content?
All three of these questions address how we view the Church in the New Testament and how we view the developement of structures and methods down through Church history.
Here is what I propose:
(1) The New Testament furnishes us with principles for a pattern church that can and should be followed today.
(2) As the epistles are normative to the doctrine of the Church (orthodoxy), the principles of the book of Acts are normative for the life, experiences, and practices (orthopraxy) of the Church.
I see these questions and these proposals as the essence of the issues raised by the house church movement to the Church as a whole.
Your comments are welcome.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
What is "Love?"
There are probably fewer words in the modern English language that have been more distorted, misused, abused, and overused than the word “love.” We have a tendency to take this word and then "stuff" it with our own meaning. We define it as we choose for the moment. We use this word to express our affectionate feelings for the family pet, our wife, or our favorite food.
But what does God mean by "love?" When I am told to "love my enemies" or to "love my neighbor" what does that mean? What does that look like? If we take the Bible seriously it is important to align our definition with God's. Love is Biblically depicted, as the greatest of Christian virtues. Paul, in his introduction to his treatise on the subject in I Corinthians 13, refers to love as “the most excellent way.” He concludes with the statement: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Jesus says that love is the distinguishing mark of all of His disciples (John 13:35). In addition, we are commanded to love one another as He has loved us. John tells us that the possession of true love is a means of determining if we are actually in the faith. He says, “Anyone who does not love remains in death” (I John 3:14).
Unfortunately, the English language is less definitive and distinct, in its use of words than "Koine" Greek, the language in which the New Testament is written in. The Greeks had four different words, each denoting a different type of "love." These four words, Eros, Storgos, Phileo, and Agape have different meanings. (For a significant study of this I would recommend The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis). But the word used most often by Jesus, and the other New Testament writers, is the word Agape. It is this word that is used by Jesus when He says to "love your neighbor." We cannot understand what Jesus meant by this without examining that word.
Agape love is the very nature of God Himself (See I John 4:8). It is not something He possesses, it is who He is. God cannot be anything other than agape. Everything that God does is an act of His agape. He never acts contrary to agape, because to do so would be contrary to His very being. This love is depicted to us as covenantly faithful, unconditional, and self -giving. It is self-motivated, in that it is not motivated by us. God does not love because there is something lovely in us. He loves because that is who He is.
The agape of God, the Father, is revealed in the death of Christ. Some people have the mistaken notion that Christ “rescued” us from God the Father. God the Father is viewed as vengeful and full of wrath, but Jesus stepped in with love and mercy, to “save” us from the Father. Nothing could be further from the Biblical truth. The Scripture tells us that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Cor. 5:19). John 3:16 declares the Father’s agape for the world by His giving of the Son.
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson has said,"When we think of Christ dying on the cross we are shown the lengths to which God’s love goes in order to win us back to Himself. We would almost think that God loved us more than He loves His Son! We cannot measure such love by any other standard. He is saying to us: I love you this much. The cross is the heart of the gospel. It makes the gospel good news: Christ died for us. He has stood in our place before God’s judgment seat. He has borne our sins. God has done something on the cross we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us as well as for us through the cross. He persuades us that He loves us.”
Now if we understand that the cross is central to Paul’s gospel, we also find that the message of God’s agape love is central to Paul’s preaching. But it would be a great error to conclude that Paul saw these as two separate and distinct messages. Rather, Paul saw these as one. For Paul, God’s Agape and the theology of the cross were one and the same. (I was greatly helped at seeing this by Anders Nygren’s classic work, Agape and Eros.) The cross is the demonstration of God’s love for a fallen world.
Take note of Paul’s words in Romans 5:6-10:
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person – though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die – but God shows His love (agape) for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved from the wrath of God. For while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.”
Paul says several things I want to call to your attention. First, he says that, “God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” If we were to ask what Agape is, Paul would point to the cross of Christ. This is exactly what John tells us in I John 3:16; “By this we know love (agape), that He laid down His life for us.”
Secondly, the Agape of God, the Father, is revealed in the death of Christ. Some people have the mistaken notion that Christ “rescued” us from God the Father. God the Father is viewed as vengeful and full of wrath, but Jesus stepped in with love and mercy, to “save” us from the Father. Nothing could be further from the Biblical truth. The Scripture tells us that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Cor. 5:19). John 3:16 declares the Father’s Agape for the world by His giving of the Son.
Thirdly, the Father’s love is unmotivated by anything in us. It is self-motivated by the nature of who He is. In other words, God did not love us because we were lovely. He loves us because of the fact that He is love (I John 4:16). Paul uses four expressions to describe who Christ died for: the weak, the ungodly, sinners, and enemies.
God has revealed Himself through the Scriptures as a God of both mercy and justice. Apart from the revelation of the cross, we would never be able to understand how these seemingly opposite attributes could be reconciled. But it is at the cross of Christ that justice and mercy meet. For it is there at the cross that justice was fulfilled by the Son of God. The penalty for Man’s rebellion was paid by Man’s creator and the way was made for Man’s reconciliation. The climax of the crucifixion account occurs when Jesus cries out from the cross His declaration of victory, "It is finished." (The Greek here is more emphatic. The Greek word being tetelestai. A word that was used in the marketplace when the final payment had been made. It in essence means "paid in full.") Christ had satisfied the demands of divine justice and the price was completely paid for our redemption.
Matthew records that the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death. The symbolism of that event speaks of the reality that Man’s access to the throne of God has been made available. Under the Old Covenant, Man could only come to God by means of sacrifice. But under the New Covenant, sacrifice is no longer Man’s way to God, but God’s way to Man. For it is God’s sacrifice that enables us to come confidently before the throne of grace. The cross stands as the triumphal declaration of God’s agape love for a lost and sinful world.
But what does God mean by "love?" When I am told to "love my enemies" or to "love my neighbor" what does that mean? What does that look like? If we take the Bible seriously it is important to align our definition with God's. Love is Biblically depicted, as the greatest of Christian virtues. Paul, in his introduction to his treatise on the subject in I Corinthians 13, refers to love as “the most excellent way.” He concludes with the statement: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Jesus says that love is the distinguishing mark of all of His disciples (John 13:35). In addition, we are commanded to love one another as He has loved us. John tells us that the possession of true love is a means of determining if we are actually in the faith. He says, “Anyone who does not love remains in death” (I John 3:14).
Unfortunately, the English language is less definitive and distinct, in its use of words than "Koine" Greek, the language in which the New Testament is written in. The Greeks had four different words, each denoting a different type of "love." These four words, Eros, Storgos, Phileo, and Agape have different meanings. (For a significant study of this I would recommend The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis). But the word used most often by Jesus, and the other New Testament writers, is the word Agape. It is this word that is used by Jesus when He says to "love your neighbor." We cannot understand what Jesus meant by this without examining that word.
Agape love is the very nature of God Himself (See I John 4:8). It is not something He possesses, it is who He is. God cannot be anything other than agape. Everything that God does is an act of His agape. He never acts contrary to agape, because to do so would be contrary to His very being. This love is depicted to us as covenantly faithful, unconditional, and self -giving. It is self-motivated, in that it is not motivated by us. God does not love because there is something lovely in us. He loves because that is who He is.
The agape of God, the Father, is revealed in the death of Christ. Some people have the mistaken notion that Christ “rescued” us from God the Father. God the Father is viewed as vengeful and full of wrath, but Jesus stepped in with love and mercy, to “save” us from the Father. Nothing could be further from the Biblical truth. The Scripture tells us that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Cor. 5:19). John 3:16 declares the Father’s agape for the world by His giving of the Son.
Dr. Sinclair Ferguson has said,"When we think of Christ dying on the cross we are shown the lengths to which God’s love goes in order to win us back to Himself. We would almost think that God loved us more than He loves His Son! We cannot measure such love by any other standard. He is saying to us: I love you this much. The cross is the heart of the gospel. It makes the gospel good news: Christ died for us. He has stood in our place before God’s judgment seat. He has borne our sins. God has done something on the cross we could never do for ourselves. But God does something to us as well as for us through the cross. He persuades us that He loves us.”
Now if we understand that the cross is central to Paul’s gospel, we also find that the message of God’s agape love is central to Paul’s preaching. But it would be a great error to conclude that Paul saw these as two separate and distinct messages. Rather, Paul saw these as one. For Paul, God’s Agape and the theology of the cross were one and the same. (I was greatly helped at seeing this by Anders Nygren’s classic work, Agape and Eros.) The cross is the demonstration of God’s love for a fallen world.
Take note of Paul’s words in Romans 5:6-10:
"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person – though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die – but God shows His love (agape) for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved from the wrath of God. For while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.”
Paul says several things I want to call to your attention. First, he says that, “God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” If we were to ask what Agape is, Paul would point to the cross of Christ. This is exactly what John tells us in I John 3:16; “By this we know love (agape), that He laid down His life for us.”
Secondly, the Agape of God, the Father, is revealed in the death of Christ. Some people have the mistaken notion that Christ “rescued” us from God the Father. God the Father is viewed as vengeful and full of wrath, but Jesus stepped in with love and mercy, to “save” us from the Father. Nothing could be further from the Biblical truth. The Scripture tells us that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Cor. 5:19). John 3:16 declares the Father’s Agape for the world by His giving of the Son.
Thirdly, the Father’s love is unmotivated by anything in us. It is self-motivated by the nature of who He is. In other words, God did not love us because we were lovely. He loves us because of the fact that He is love (I John 4:16). Paul uses four expressions to describe who Christ died for: the weak, the ungodly, sinners, and enemies.
God has revealed Himself through the Scriptures as a God of both mercy and justice. Apart from the revelation of the cross, we would never be able to understand how these seemingly opposite attributes could be reconciled. But it is at the cross of Christ that justice and mercy meet. For it is there at the cross that justice was fulfilled by the Son of God. The penalty for Man’s rebellion was paid by Man’s creator and the way was made for Man’s reconciliation. The climax of the crucifixion account occurs when Jesus cries out from the cross His declaration of victory, "It is finished." (The Greek here is more emphatic. The Greek word being tetelestai. A word that was used in the marketplace when the final payment had been made. It in essence means "paid in full.") Christ had satisfied the demands of divine justice and the price was completely paid for our redemption.
Matthew records that the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death. The symbolism of that event speaks of the reality that Man’s access to the throne of God has been made available. Under the Old Covenant, Man could only come to God by means of sacrifice. But under the New Covenant, sacrifice is no longer Man’s way to God, but God’s way to Man. For it is God’s sacrifice that enables us to come confidently before the throne of grace. The cross stands as the triumphal declaration of God’s agape love for a lost and sinful world.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Darwinism and Race
Most people are unaware of the full title of Charles Darwin’s book that launched a revolution in Western civilization. Most textbooks record the title merely as The Origin of the Species. The "dirty little secret" is that the full title of the book is The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. (They loved long titles in those days.) The truth is that Darwin’s evolutionary theory was an argument to support the idea of white racial superiority. His book was a treatise to explain and justify the domination of the "white race" over the "non-white races" of the world.
Supporters of Darwin claim that his use of "races" was intended to refer to subspecies of animals. Is that so? It appears that Darwin concept of "subspecies " was somewhat broader than that, and included "non-white homo sapiens." But don’t take my word for it, let Darwin speak for himself. In his book, The Descent of Man (sequel to The Origin of the Species…) Darwin states:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin believed that the various races were at different levels of evolutionary development, with Blacks at the bottom and Caucasians at the top. Thomas H. Huxley, nicknamed "Darwin’s Bulldog," because of his ardent defense of Darwin said that "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal still less the superior, of the white man." Huxley described whites as "bigger-brained and smaller jawed."
The biology textbook used at the so-called "Scope’s Monkey Trial" (1925) was entitled Civic Biology (1914). The author of this book was George William Hunter, who espoused the "scientific racism" of that day. He believed that humans appeared as a progressive result of the evolutionary process, with the Caucasian race being "finally, the highest type of all."
Nazism built upon the foundation of Darwinism. Otto Ammon, a racial anthropologist, writing prior to the Second World War wrote: "Darwin must become the new religion of Germany…the racial struggle is necessary for mankind." Hitler merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set forth in Mein Kampf. Likewise, Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also of follower of Darwin. In her book the Pivot of Civilization (1922), she made it quite clear what her goal was: racial purity.
Not only must Darwinian evolution be confronted regarding its lack of scientific facts, it must also be addressed on the basis of the philosophy under girding it. Darwin developed his theory out of a racial presuppositionalism, which was prevalent in that day. Darwin reasoning out of that presuppositional framework sought to lay a scientific basis for the superiority of the white Europeans over the other peoples of the earth.
In order to understand why Darwin’s theory was so readily accepted one must be aware of the philosophy that predated it. Before evolution became popular, creation was the accepted scientific model of the universe and of humans. However, this was not a creationism rooted in the Bible. Rather, it was rooted in the Platonic concept known as the "Great Chain of Being." This was the idea that God had created a "great chain" or "ladder" of living things, each a bit more complex than the one below it. Though this may sound like evolutionary progression, each organism was "static" in its particular slot, and did not evolve upward. Nevertheless, this concept was the "setup" for Darwin’s theory. All one had to do was change the static chain to a dynamic one, with the life forms gradually evolving upward from one to another, and you had the basic premise of evolution.
It was this concept of the "Great Chain of Being" which allowed for the endorsement of racial superiority. When the nations of Africa and the East were discovered, Europe learned of the many "savage" tribes that inhabited large portion of the earth. To the chauvinistic Europeans these people were viewed as inferior. The "savages" were fitted into the "Great Chain of Being" above the apes, but below the Europeans. There was no evolutionary significance in this; it was simply believed that God had created them inferior. Some went so far as to say that God had created them without souls, to be used by the superior races like domestic animals. This of course was used to justify slavery.
This was the worldview into which Charles Darwin was born. His racism was the racism of the 19th century. Like all men, Darwin was a "presuppositionalist." His presuppositions lead to the conclusions he drew from his scientific investigation. As a result, Darwin’s theory caused a revolution. Most people know nothing about the racism that helped fuel that revolution in its beginning.
Supporters of Darwin claim that his use of "races" was intended to refer to subspecies of animals. Is that so? It appears that Darwin concept of "subspecies " was somewhat broader than that, and included "non-white homo sapiens." But don’t take my word for it, let Darwin speak for himself. In his book, The Descent of Man (sequel to The Origin of the Species…) Darwin states:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin believed that the various races were at different levels of evolutionary development, with Blacks at the bottom and Caucasians at the top. Thomas H. Huxley, nicknamed "Darwin’s Bulldog," because of his ardent defense of Darwin said that "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal still less the superior, of the white man." Huxley described whites as "bigger-brained and smaller jawed."
The biology textbook used at the so-called "Scope’s Monkey Trial" (1925) was entitled Civic Biology (1914). The author of this book was George William Hunter, who espoused the "scientific racism" of that day. He believed that humans appeared as a progressive result of the evolutionary process, with the Caucasian race being "finally, the highest type of all."
Nazism built upon the foundation of Darwinism. Otto Ammon, a racial anthropologist, writing prior to the Second World War wrote: "Darwin must become the new religion of Germany…the racial struggle is necessary for mankind." Hitler merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set forth in Mein Kampf. Likewise, Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also of follower of Darwin. In her book the Pivot of Civilization (1922), she made it quite clear what her goal was: racial purity.
Not only must Darwinian evolution be confronted regarding its lack of scientific facts, it must also be addressed on the basis of the philosophy under girding it. Darwin developed his theory out of a racial presuppositionalism, which was prevalent in that day. Darwin reasoning out of that presuppositional framework sought to lay a scientific basis for the superiority of the white Europeans over the other peoples of the earth.
In order to understand why Darwin’s theory was so readily accepted one must be aware of the philosophy that predated it. Before evolution became popular, creation was the accepted scientific model of the universe and of humans. However, this was not a creationism rooted in the Bible. Rather, it was rooted in the Platonic concept known as the "Great Chain of Being." This was the idea that God had created a "great chain" or "ladder" of living things, each a bit more complex than the one below it. Though this may sound like evolutionary progression, each organism was "static" in its particular slot, and did not evolve upward. Nevertheless, this concept was the "setup" for Darwin’s theory. All one had to do was change the static chain to a dynamic one, with the life forms gradually evolving upward from one to another, and you had the basic premise of evolution.
It was this concept of the "Great Chain of Being" which allowed for the endorsement of racial superiority. When the nations of Africa and the East were discovered, Europe learned of the many "savage" tribes that inhabited large portion of the earth. To the chauvinistic Europeans these people were viewed as inferior. The "savages" were fitted into the "Great Chain of Being" above the apes, but below the Europeans. There was no evolutionary significance in this; it was simply believed that God had created them inferior. Some went so far as to say that God had created them without souls, to be used by the superior races like domestic animals. This of course was used to justify slavery.
This was the worldview into which Charles Darwin was born. His racism was the racism of the 19th century. Like all men, Darwin was a "presuppositionalist." His presuppositions lead to the conclusions he drew from his scientific investigation. As a result, Darwin’s theory caused a revolution. Most people know nothing about the racism that helped fuel that revolution in its beginning.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Distorting Science
Eight years ago, while my wife and I were involved in homeschooling our children, I came across a book entitled, Icons of Evolution. This book is of particularly benefit to those engaging the public educational system, where the theory of evolution is major tenet. The author is Jonathan Wells, who holds doctorate degrees from both Yale and the University of California at Berkley. This is not a "Christian" book designed to uphold Biblical creationism, rather it is an expose’ of "scientific literature" used to support Darwinian evolution that is purposely false.
Dr. Wells reveals that there are exaggerated claims and blatant deceptions that have appeared in biological textbooks for decades. These distortions of scientific facts are used to "prop up" the weak foundation on which the evolution theory is built. I believe that this quote from the fly-leaf of the book says it quite well: "Apparently, dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution fear that without these icons public faith in their claims will disappear, so they knowingly misinform our children and suppress scientific evidence."
Jonathan Wells points out in his book for instance:
*How scientists have known for a long time that the drawings supposedly showing similarities between fish and human embryos were faked, yet continue to use them as evidence for evolution.
*How Darwin’s theory of natural selection is illustrated with staged photographs showing moths on tree trunks, where they don’t actually rest.
*How the alleged role of mutations in evolution is illustrated with artificially engineered fruit flies that show the opposite of what evolutionary theory requires.
*How the textbook version of the origin of life assumes the exact opposite of what scientists now believe about the environment on the early Earth.
*How some biological textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as a "transitional link between reptiles and birds," while most biologists acknowledge this theory has been discarded.
These are but a few examples of how those promoting an "anti–creation" agenda have knowingly presented fraudulent information. Interestingly, these scientists believe that the overall effect is not misleading because they are teaching "a deeper truth." Science then becomes not a seeking of facts, but a vehicle for promoting a philosophical agenda, while distorting the facts. As the old saying goes "Statistics don’t lie, but liars do statistics."
In conclusion allow me once again to quote from the fly-leaf of this book: "Icons of Evolution is both an eye-opening tour of discoveries in contemporary biology and a stirring call for professional and educational honesty. It reveals that Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis that distorts the truth to maintain its influence over science education."
Dr. Wells reveals that there are exaggerated claims and blatant deceptions that have appeared in biological textbooks for decades. These distortions of scientific facts are used to "prop up" the weak foundation on which the evolution theory is built. I believe that this quote from the fly-leaf of the book says it quite well: "Apparently, dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution fear that without these icons public faith in their claims will disappear, so they knowingly misinform our children and suppress scientific evidence."
Jonathan Wells points out in his book for instance:
*How scientists have known for a long time that the drawings supposedly showing similarities between fish and human embryos were faked, yet continue to use them as evidence for evolution.
*How Darwin’s theory of natural selection is illustrated with staged photographs showing moths on tree trunks, where they don’t actually rest.
*How the alleged role of mutations in evolution is illustrated with artificially engineered fruit flies that show the opposite of what evolutionary theory requires.
*How the textbook version of the origin of life assumes the exact opposite of what scientists now believe about the environment on the early Earth.
*How some biological textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as a "transitional link between reptiles and birds," while most biologists acknowledge this theory has been discarded.
These are but a few examples of how those promoting an "anti–creation" agenda have knowingly presented fraudulent information. Interestingly, these scientists believe that the overall effect is not misleading because they are teaching "a deeper truth." Science then becomes not a seeking of facts, but a vehicle for promoting a philosophical agenda, while distorting the facts. As the old saying goes "Statistics don’t lie, but liars do statistics."
In conclusion allow me once again to quote from the fly-leaf of this book: "Icons of Evolution is both an eye-opening tour of discoveries in contemporary biology and a stirring call for professional and educational honesty. It reveals that Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis that distorts the truth to maintain its influence over science education."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
