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?"

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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."

Sunday, September 12, 2010

The Relationship of the Ekklesia and the Basileia of God

(I wrote this several years ago but I am posting it here at this time for your consideration. It addresses the purpose of the Church in the larger context of the Kingdom of God.)

In the New Testament we find two important words that have, over the course of time, evolved into conceptual ideas that are often far afield from their Biblical and historic meaning. These two words are Church and Kingdom. Often, in the modern evangelical mind, both of these words evoke connotations much different than their original Greek meanings. The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia, whereas, the Greek word translated as “kingdom” is basileia. Neither of these words have their roots in a religious context. Both of these words were in common usage, long before the time of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. Both words were political terms in the ancient Greek world. It is important that we understand how these words fit into Greek political theory. The New Testament was not written in a vacuum. Jesus came in “the fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), when a Greek-based political culture had spread across the Mediterranean world and the Near East. The language of that culture serves a “back drop” to understanding the New Testament. In this study it is our intent to examine these words and their relationship to each other.

The word ekklesia was used by Jesus to ascribe the status of His followers (Matt. 16:19, 18:17). This word was used to denote those “called-out” (Greek ek-kaleo) of the citizenry of the polis. It was an elected assembly with the purpose of ruling. It was the ekklesia who made fundamental political and judicial decisions. When the disciples heard Jesus use this word for what He was building, they undoubtedly were aware of its implications relating to public authority.

Jesus could have used the word “synagogue” (Greek sunagoge), which was a rather nondescript term for “gathering.” It says nothing about the significance of the gathering. In fact, this word has as one possible translation meaning “herd,” as in a herd of cattle; obviously no political implications are attributable to such a gathering. Instead Jesus chose a word rich in political connotations.

Basileia was a word meaning “a supreme sovereign’s rule and reign.” It was a term denoting monarchical rule, which is translated into English as “kingdom.” The significance of this word and Jesus’ choice of the word ekklesia becomes quite interesting, in light of Greek political theory.

In this regard Aristotle’s usage of these words is very informative. Interestingly, the two terms are essentially, mutually exclusive. Basileia meant exclusion from political decision-making, it was viewed as a form of government undesirable for a free people, who made their own decisions. It was considered a desirable government for slaves, who were unable to make responsible decisions, and must be ruled over. The form of government for a free people, Aristotle termed a politeia. Central to a politeia was an ekklesia. The ekklesia was thus symbolic of the status of a free people, a people set free from the yoke of the basileia.

What about Israel under the Old Covenant? What was its form of government? In Ephesians 2:12, Paul states that it was a politeia, a “free government.” That seems in conflict with some views held concerning Israel, but examine the nation’s history. They started out as a confederation of tribes unified by the worship of God, the Ark of the Covenant and the tabernacle. Periodically, judges arose to deal with enemies and internal conflicts. That period came to an end with the establishment of a king, fulfilled in the throne of David. Was this a move away from a politeia? Consider this: Davidic kingship was paired with an increasing focus on a particular city, Jerusalem, which came to embody the prophetic hope of the nation. In addition, we see a further element to this progression: rule over the nations. In Isaiah, we are shown the Davidic king ruling over Jerusalem, the royal city, and exercising dominion over the nations (Isa. 60:1-5, 62:1-12). In Daniel, the image becomes clearer: the citizens of the royal city share in the imperial rule of the king (Dan. 7:27).

This is prophetic of the New Testament period, as we see in the comparison made by the New Testament writers concerning the heavenly rule of the saints and their Old Testament counterparts. With only a few exceptions (Abraham, Moses, David, the Prophets), the Old Testament saints were of the status of slaves. They were left out of the counsel of God and were fearful of Him. Note the status Paul attributes to Old Testament Israel in Galatians 4:22-5:1. The book of Hebrews makes the same point (12:18-24). Mount Sinai evoked fear in the hearts of the Israelites; but the New Testament believer, by contrast, is brought to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the ekklesia of the firstborn.

All of this is political language, describing the New Testament saint’s relationship to the King. The King’s relationship with the ekklesia is one of trust based upon true reconciliation, an intimate relationship, one in which the subject is not a slave but a citizen, a fellow decision–maker. This is made evident by the words of Jesus at the Last Supper (John 15:13-16). He calls His disciples friends, not slaves. “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what the master does.” A slave is the object of decisions by the master, over which the slave has no control. On the other hand, a friend participates in the counsels of the master. Jesus said, “But I have called you friends, for all things I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.” Jesus’ friends are granted the privilege of participation in the heavenly counsels of the Father and the Son, through the Holy Spirit. (I might add that this distinction between friend vs. slave is found in the writings of Aristotle.)

In Ephesians 2:6 we are told that as believers, “we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We are invited to sit down in the place where heavenly decisions are made. Through Christ, the Gentile saints are now “fellow polites” (Ephes. 2:19), participants in the life of the politeia of God, along with the Jewish saints. They are citizens of the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city which reigns over the kings of the earth, the seat of royal messianic dominion.

Jesus Christ is now King of kings and Lord of lords, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev.1:5). His ekklesia reigns with Him: “To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father (Rev.1:6).

This King does not rule apart from His ekklesia. This is the reconciliation of Aristotle’s basileia and ekklesia. Jesus Christ rules as King (Greek basileus), but shares authority with His ekklesia, in fact rules through it. When the ekklesia assembles it is a gathering of His elected rulers. When the ekklesia worships it is the assembly making way for the King, to come and meet with it, to seek advice and counsel, to deliberate, to hold court.

This King first deals with His ministers, the ekklesia, holding court to hear disputes, to admonish, to encourage, to instruct, to forgive. He declares His will and His ekklesia submits, declaring their eternal devotion. Attention is then turned to public affairs, how to deal with the kosmos, the realm over which the ekklesia rules. Upon dismissal, the ekklesia, by His grace, empowered by the King, partners with Him, go out and bring His dominion to the earth.

Dare I say that this is much different than the average evangelical view of the “church?”

This brief study should make one thing clear: the New Testament’s adoption of the political language of its day, to describe the nature and ministry of the Church, demonstrates that His purpose for the Church is greater than just “preparing people to go to heaven.”

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Worship and the Threshing Floor

“Then the Angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up and build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite” (I Chron. 21:18)

In the Old Testament we find an interesting relationship between worship and the “threshing floor”. As we begin to explore this relationship we find some interesing things, which God has to say to us through this analogy.

The first mention of a threshing floor is found in Genesis 50:10-11, “the threshing floor of Atad”, where Joseph and his brothers mourned the death of their father, Israel. It seemed appropriate for them to mourn at what we might consider an “unusual” place. Why mourn for Israel at a “threshing floor”? I believe the reason becomes more apparent as we see it’s significance in Old Testament typology.

The next reference we have to the threshing floor is in regards to the “heave offering” in Numbers 15:20. It speaks of the “offering of the the threshing floor”. We see a similiar reference in Numbers 18:27.

It was at the “threshing floor of Nacon”, that Uzzah was struck dead for taking hold of the Ark of the Covenant (II Sam. 6:6-7).

Where was the Temple built? It was built at the threshing floor David had purchased from Ornan the Jebusite (I Chron. 22:1).

Let us consider what the threshing floor represents in the Scriptures. Its meaning goes beyond merely “the place where grain was threshed”. It is symbolic of the relationship between the Bride and the Bridegroom. It is not insigificant that Ruth came to Boaz at the “threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6-14). Boaz represents Christ (our kinsman redeemer) and Ruth, the Bride of Christ.

At the center of the threshing floor, one finds two large flat stones, one resting on the top of the other. They were “fitted and joined” together. The top stone was known as the “female” and the bottom stone the “male”. The “grinding of grain” was a depiction of the act of marriage (Job 31:10).

The act of marriage is a physical depiction of the “spiritual communion” God desires between Himself and Man. When God’s covenant people stray from Him and worship other gods, God calls it “adultery” or “playing the harlot” (Ezek. 23:37, Hosea 4:12). Notice what God says to Israel in Hosea 9:1, “You have loved harlots earnings on every threshing floor”.

It should be quite clear to you by now, that the “threshing floor” speaks to us about a place of worship. But what meaning has this for us under the New Covenant. Is there a message in the “threshing floor” for us?

I believe that worship for us is to be a time of “threshing”, when God separates the “wheat’ from the “chaff” in our lives. When we enter into worship, we are stepping on to God’s “threshing floor” where He deals with those things which need to be “winnowed” out of our lives.

Worship is the Bride and the Bridegroom coming together to “consummate” their marital relationship, out of which “life” is produced.

I pray that we begin to see worship from the perspective of the “threshing floor”.