Institutional Violence?

Institutional Violence?

by | Dec 30, 2022 | What Does the Bible Say About?

What does the Bible say about institutional violence? Is it right for Jesus followers to carry weapons and use lethal force? It is not unusual these days to see armed security personnel or even police officers guarding houses of worship. How does that square with a belief in an omnipotent, loving God? Should those same sincere believers carry weapons to protect their fellow parishioners or their own family should they be threatened? How about employing lethal weapons in the performance of their occupational duties?  One might logically assert believers ought only to serve in positions where they can honestly carry out the functions of their office without compromising their fidelity to our Lord. The issue at hand is whether engaging in “institutional violence” compromises that fidelity. For this post I have asked my friend, Reed Merino, to offer his opposing view.

“E. Stanley Jones wrote that we search in vain during the early years of church history to find Christian people engaged in warfare. He states that Christians did not become soldiers. If they were in the army when converted, they resigned. Jones describes the early believers as saying, “we will match our power to suffer against your ability to inflict suffering, we will wear you down by our spirit, by soul force against physical force, by going the second mile, by turning the other cheek,” until Rome finally stopped torturing Christians.”1.

According to Jones, believers willingly accepted the treatment they received at the hands of evil people based on their understanding of Matthew 5:39, from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Today’s believers are not always in accord with respect to topics not specifically resolved through Scripture. This discussion is intended for disciples of Jesus whose imperative is to follow Jesus, period. 

“Francis Schaeffer declared that “to refuse to do what I can for those under the power of oppressors is nothing less than a failure of Christian love. It is to refuse to love my neighbor as myself.” He went on to say that was why he was not a pacifist: “Pacifism in this poor world in which we live—this lost world—means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.” Peace at any price is never right, whether it is in the realm of spiritual warfare, church discipline, or government.”2.

As we shall see, institutional violence is apparently approached differently between the Old and New Testaments. What if anything, has changed? Certainly, God has not changed. One can find numerous incidents in the Old Testament where Israel as the people of God was involved in war, enjoyed the blessing of God in victory and experienced defeat when out of favor with God. But a study of the context makes clear God of the Old Testament was meeting the Israelites where they were, demonstrating to people who worshiped their tribal gods that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was and is the true God. This is not to say that the full revelation of the will of Yahweh was then present.3.

In De idololatria, Tertullian wrote decisively against military service by professed Christians.4. Another outspoken critic of military and government service by members of the early church was Origen (c.185-c.254). He argued that Jesus’s message was one of non-violence and posited that Christians supported the emperor in the fight against his nation’s enemies through prayer rather than by military service. Priests and the religious, especially, were prohibited by him from engaging in battle. Furthermore, participation in political matters, even for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion was discouraged because the rule of the Church was seen as far more pertinent and important to the life of a Christian than matters of state.5. And those serving as soldiers were prohibited from killing as late as the third century. Roman bishop, Hippolytus, directed that a, “Soldier is not to kill even when ordered to do so.” He continued with, “A Christian is not to become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood.”6. That view began to change dramatically sometime around the first Council of Nicaea in 325, likely because of state-sponsorship of the church under Constantine.

Canon XII of that council read, “Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned to the Army, shall be excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which they do their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing penance shows himself zealous in its performance, the Bishop shall treat him more leniently than had he been cold and indifferent.”7. It might appear that the Council was continuing to stand against Christians serving in the military service, but according to some commentators that was not the case. They argue that by the time the Canon was adopted much of Constantine’s power base resided in his military force. Consequently, those men at arms who were the focus of it were soldiers who had served in the army of Constantine’s rival, Licinius, who not only fought against Constantine, but waged war on Christianity itself.8.

The most dramatic change in direction came with the development of “just war” doctrine, which has continued into the present. “The need for just war criteria represents the efforts of Western cultures to regulate and restrict violence by establishing rules which specify the situations in which war can be legitimately used as a tool in international statecraft, as well as by setting out rules which govern ethical conduct during combat.”9. In the Summa Theologicae, Thomas Aquinas presented the general outline of what became traditional just war theory. He described the justification for declaring war, Jus ad Bellum, along with actions that are permissible in the conduct of war, Jus in Bello. They are summarized as follows:

Just War10.

  • The war must have a just cause.
  • The war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
  • The war must be fought with a right intention.
  • The war must be a last resort.
  • The expected results of the war must be proportionate.
  • There must be a reasonable hope of military success.

Conduct of War

  • The weapons and acts of fighting must be discriminating: non combatants may never be targeted.
  • The weapons and acts of fighting must be proportionate.
  • All the legal rights of enemy soldiers and civilians must be honoured (sic).

The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination pertains to legitimate targets in war and proportionality concerns morally appropriate force.11. Wars that are permissible within Christian thought are limited to holy war and just war. “Holy war is fought for the goals or ideals of the faith (The Crusades) and is waged by divine or religious authority. In a holy war, Christian participation is a positive duty, whereas, in a just war it is permissible, but restricted. Therefore, a holy war is automatically a just war, but a just war is not necessarily a holy war.”12.

“The Christian consensus is that a war is only just when its cause is to defend the life, liberty, and property of a people who are being assaulted by an aggressor. In defending against the crimes of a belligerent foe, a just war is also the punishment of evildoers and a vindication of justice.”13. According to some scholars, defensive war is supported by Old Testament Scripture. They cite the case law of Exodus 22, which seems to authorize deadly force in self-defense against a dangerous, nighttime intruder, and may, by application, authorize the use of deadly force in national defense against those who invade or attack the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.14. Ambrose (c.339-397) recognized the necessity of war for the sake of a secure peace but denounced needless bloodshed. His student Augustine (354-430), by combining Roman and Judeo-Christian thought, explained the existence of war as one of the unavoidable consequences as well as remedy caused by human sin. He argued, however, the right end of society is peace and justice, even in war.15. This rationale eventually provided legitimacy for the Crusades which synthesized holy war with the just war.16. 

Martin Luther, in apparent agreement with Francis Schaeffer, characterized a just war as an act of charity, by comparing war and soldering to the acts of a good doctor who may be required to amputate a limb to prevent infection. He even advocated coming to the aid of third parties, or neighbors as he says, “although you do not need to have your enemy punished, your afflicted neighbour (sic) does.”17. War was seen as an element of Christian discipleship so long as it is not for “avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbour (sic) and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others.”18. Augustine, on the other hand, maintained a private citizen or cleric, could not kill an attacker, even in self-defense, since this would entail loss of love. Apparently, the non-violence/pacifism of the early Church extended to civilians.19.

Footnotes:

  1. Myron S. Augsburger, “Christian Pacifism,” http://intervarsity.org/news/christian-pacifism, accessed October 19, 2019.
  2. William D. Barrick, “The Christian and War,” http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11k.pdf, accessed October 11, 2019.
  3. Augsburger.
  4. Edward A. Ryan, J.J. “The Rejection of Military Service by Early Christians,” http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/13/13.1/13.1.1.pdf, accessed October 7, 2019.
  5. Arthur F. Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics: Classical and Contemporary Readings on the Morality of War, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, (2005) 48-50.
  6. Ivar Hellberg, “Religious Perceptions of the Just War and Military Ethics,” http://faithandwar.org/index.php/god-man-and-war/42-god-and-human-nature/67-religious-perceptions-of-the-just-war-and-military-ethics, accessed October 7, 2019.
  7. The Ecumenical Council, Nicaea A.D. 325, http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
  8. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, “Canon XII,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xviii.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
  9. Keith J. Gomes, “An Intellectual Genealogy of the Just War: A Survey of Christian Political Thought on the Justification of Warfare,” http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/80-gomes.pdf, accessed October 5, 2019.
  10. Hellberg.
  11. Alexander Moseley, “Just War Theory,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/, accessed October 9, 2019.
  12. Gomes.
  13. William O. Einweihte, “A Christian Perspective on Just War,” Darish Press, http://darashpress.com/articles/christian-perspective-just-war, accessed October 5, 2019.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Gomes.
  16. Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press (1975), 19, 26-38.
  17. Gomes.
  18. J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition, Downers Grove, IL: Inter VarsityPress (2005), 52.
  19. Gomes.

GUEST’S VIEW

By “institutional violence” I mean the use of legally approved violence, such as being used by the military and police.

As with other questions, this question cannot be answered properly by simply searching out all the Scriptures that deal with warfare, in the hope of finding a simple “yes” or “no,” (such as “Thou shalt [not] be a soldier”). The reason for this is because the Scriptures are the product of the single mind and heart of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, every passage is yoked to every other passage, sort of like the way that every part of a symphony is connected to every other part of it: all the parts are the product of the composer’s mind and genius.  This means that if you want to know what God means by one passage (for example on this subject of warfare), you need to draw together all the other passages that deal directly and indirectly with this subject: the sum of all the passages describes what the revelation of God actually is. There are some New Testament passages that deal directly with this issue, but there are also teachings that, while not dealing directly with the issue of institutional violence, describe heart attitudes that powerfully impact the conclusion.

So, the answer to the question about things like military violence is linked to the new way of life and attitudes that Jesus created, the way of heaven that is appropriate to one being transformed into the character and personality of God Himself. The effect of the presence of God’s Spirit includes a heart that is saturated with His “love,” “kindness” and “gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23).

Jesus created a way that is indeed impossible for humans to live out, (i.e., on their own; Matthew 19:26).  But He also declared that this impossible way is possible with God (through the Spirit-created heart of God entering into us and motivating us).

What Jesus said about violence is only one of numerous “impossibles” He laid upon those He would accept as disciples:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.” (Matthew 5:38‑41)

“You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” (James 5:6)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mis­treat you.” (Luke 6:27‑28; also, Romans 12:14)

“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all res­pect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are un­reasonable.  For this finds favor, if for the sake of con­sci­ence toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering un­just­ly.” (1 Peter 2:18‑19)

These are not idealistic goals by a God who is willing to accept behavior that is more “realistic”: they are commands that the Son of God demands of us if we want to be His “friends” (“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” – John 15:14).  These commands are indeed the source of great frustration to our flesh’s desire for continued existence and for revenge — so much so, that most of those who are called Chris­tians refuse to accept them in their grammatically natural, literal and true sense.  But we must accept them with­out compro­mise lest we prove our­selves false disciples. After all, Jesus warned us from the very begin­ning, “He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal” (John 12:25).  Anyone who has not let go of this world in a true way, and anyone who yearns to stay on in this world will of course have to resist the force of His teach­ing.  But if we have no strong desire to escape from this world, how can we dare con­sider ourselves Chris­tians?

Being non‑defensive in imitation of Jesus does not leave you defenseless — hardly!  It only makes you refuse to resort to human defenses and forces you to trust instead in God’s defenses. You can en­trust to the Lord the defense of you and of those you love and experience these threat­ening moments as occasions of ministry. You may fail the test­ing in­volved before growing into Christ’s non-violence (think of Peter cutting off Malchus’s ear in the garden: John 18:10), but God will bring us to anointed maturity over time (a much shorter time than is comfortable to rebellious and lazy flesh).

Refusing to defend oneself, in the radical way that Jesus teaches us is not at all a passive thing and does not create passive peo­ple — just the opposite.  Over­coming evil with good is an active, creative deed — far more so than yielding to fear or anger.  One can also be quite aggressive on God’s behalf while governed by this principle — just as ag­gressive as Jesus Himself was at certain times in dealing with the ungodly (e.g., Matthew 23).

This teaching makes warfare and most police work, as necessary as they may be in the world, impossible for dis­ci­ples of Jesus, and in confirmation of that, the early Church con­sis­tent­ly refused to practice or tolerate these forms of violence. Evidence of this is so numerous that it is one of the reasons why Christianity spends so little time teaching you about the first three centuries of the church’s existence!

The consistent Christian attitude toward taking part in the institutional violence of this world can be described by the description written by Origen (c. 185‑254 A.D.) who wrote his work “Against Celsus” in the last years of his life.  He had been born and raised in Alexandria and had spent the latter part of his life in Caesarea (of Palestine); but he had also tra­veled extensively through­out Asia Minor and Greece.  He was known by all around to be a very truthful and humble person, as well as an ex­cellent scholar; his descriptions of contemporary Christian practices can be believed.  When he des­cribes the pacifistic attitude as being the at­titude of Chris­tians in general, we know, by virtue of his travels, his character and his in­telligence, that he is a witness to be taken seriously.  In addition, he is responding to the criticism of the pagan Celsus, who also bore witness to what was understood as the Christian way of life.

[Celsus, the pagan critic, says] “‘..you [Christians] surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect duties to gods and men and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his…’  We say that … if they all unite in prayer with one ac­cord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to the Lord…  But if all the Romans, according to the position of Celsus, embrace the Chris­tian faith, they will, when they pray, over­come their enemies, or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.

“In the next place, Celsus urges us, ‘to help the king with all our might, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.’  To this our answer is, that we do when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, putting on the whole armor of God.  And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, ‘I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplica­tions, pray­ers, interces­sions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;’ and the more one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can …  And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, lead us to the violation of oaths, and who disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them…  We do not indeed fight under him, although he requires it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special ar­my ‑‑ an army of piety ‑‑ by offering our prayers to God.

“Celsus also urges us to ‘take office in the govern­ment of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religions.’  But we recognize in each state the existence of another national organization, founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are migh­ty in word and of blame­less life to rule over Churches…  And it is not for the pur­pose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God -‑ for the sal­vation of men.”1.

There is additional significance in the fact that Celsus wrote his attack upon Chris­tianity some seventy years earlier than Origen’s reply, and either from Rome or Alexandria.  This tells us that the pagan of Rome (or Alexandria) in 180 A.D. knew what the Christians of the eastern Medi­terranean still upheld in 250 A.D. ‑‑ that Christians refused to hold of­fice and to par­ticipate in warfare.  In his reasoning, there is no hint of say­ing “if only you freed us from the obligation to worship your gods we would be glad to rule over you and fight your wars.”  Idolatry was not the foun­dation of the reason for their refusal, although it of course added convic­tion to their refu­sal. The Christian tradi­tion of nonviolence and refusal to assume posi­tions of judgment over others was rooted in the con­viction that each Chris­tian must necessarily im­itate the way of Christ, who turned the other cheek and refused to act as a worldly judge or king.

It is quite impossible to act lovingly (as Jesus defines “love”) and self-sacrificially toward your ene­mies and kill them at the same time.  Christian involvement in secular violence is one of the effects of the wedding of Church and state that has carried over into most of modern Christendom.  Those who never committed themselves to the “impossibles” of Jesus were never converted to Jesus (at least, not to the real Jesus).  In the original churches, if you were not converted to His “impossibles” you were not allowed to be baptized.  This was because you were not yet a Christian in their faithful eyes.

In this fallen world, institutional violence is both necessary and authorized by God: “Therefore, subordinate yourselves to every human institution because of the Lord, whether to a king, as being in authority, or to governors, as being sent by him, both for punishment of evildoers and for praise of good-doers. Because such is the will of God …” (1 Peter 2:13-15).  This teaches quite clearly that institutional violence is indeed necessary for the king to carry out that mandate. “Punishing evil doers” back then was never limited to imposing jail terms.  Executions of those who attacked or rebelled against their lawful government was a part of that “punishment.”

Furthermore, there is not a single passage in the New Testament (let alone the Old) that would make people who had been policemen or soldiers feel sinful, in the way practitioners of theft, murder or adultery were judged.  Rather, the greatest praise that Jesus ever laid upon anyone was given to a soldier (Matthew 8:10).  Military service might attract some who were brutal, but it also was a wonderful training ground to learn to live your life for a higher goal than personal comfort, to learn the meaning of deeper obedience than most people know, and to be willing to die for your comrades.  It is just that such callings must be abandoned to live all of those things out at an even higher and eternal level, and to achieve even higher goals.

There are some things that are truly necessary among the unconverted citizens of this  world – people and systems that are ruled by the “God of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:31, 1 John 5:19).  But some of those things work against the character that God works to create in those who have accepted Christ’s call to leave and “overcome” this world (1 John 5:4), people whose new goal is to enter into His version of the love, kindness and gentleness mentioned above in Galatians 5. Consequently, both the specific passages and the Kingdom of God attitudes described in the New Testament mitigate against the participation in such violence by those who hope for His salvation.  The attitude of post-Constantinian and modern Christianity is a man-made addition to the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus created, and that the ancient churches continued. That attitude grows out of the disastrous departure from the spirit and letter of the mind and heart of the Son of God, the judge of all the earth.

To fruitfully “believe in Jesus” requires that you also “believe Jesus,” including believing what He actually taught.  To give yourself the right to reinterpret what He actually said into what you want Him to have said, is to demonstrate the absence of the “fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1) and the “terror of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:1), and demonstrates that you do not really “know God,” and that you run the risk of fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 1:8 (“…in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”).

Footnote:

  1. “Against Celsus,” ch.73, 75. The Ante‑Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 667-668.

SHAWN’S VIEW

My friend and I are both proceeding from a basic agreement that the Bible means what it meant and there is no ambiguity in Jesus’s choice of words. Although we both cite Old Testament references, I am not certain that we both view them as equally relevant to those of the New Testament. Certainly, we are not the first people of good will to disagree on this matter. History records that Christians have been divided on the topic practically from the time of Christ’s resurrection—particularly on the issue of what has come to be known as “just war.” Some have willingly donned the uniform of their nation state to face its enemies in armed conflict while others have chosen to reject service on moral grounds and remain pacifists. For the most part it has been a matter of conscience rather than courage. 

The apostle Paul told a young pastor, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Consequently, the entire Bible must be considered in a conscientious analysis of this issue. Evil and violence are coded into human DNA and God’s judgment, sometimes by human hands, is sanctioned. God used the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, to accomplish his will. If he would use a bad person to punish using violence, it stands to reason he would use a good guy with a gun to protect the innocent. He often accomplishes his sovereign will using flawed humans. 

Institutional violence or “Just War” may have begun as early as Abraham. Resulting from war involving Chedorlaomer’s coalition of kings (Genesis 14), Lot, Abraham’s nephew was captured. He may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when war broke out, but Abraham went after him and rescued him by force. Rather than being rebuked by God, Abraham was blessed. If Sodom and Gomorrah are any indication, God did not need Abraham or any other human, for that matter, to punish wrong doers. He permitted, even rewarded violence when Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon and David were used to accomplish his will. Hebrews 11 praises Abraham, Moses and Gideon as men of faith. If war is always sinful, how could a holy God direct that it be carried out, often in a most ruthless fashion by those faithful to him? The Apostle John and King David both recorded that Jesus, himself, will return as a warrior king. If Christians accept God’s immutability, one is left to ask what changed between Joshua and the eventual return of Jesus? The counterpoint essay argues that Jesus’s teaching changed everything. My position, however, is the difference may be contextual rather than substantive.

Jesus entered a world controlled by Rome. No earthly power would be able to challenge her militarily for over 300 years. During Christ’s ministry, a sort of guerrilla force, the Zealots, also known as Sicarii (dagger men) attacked those seen to be friendly to Rome. They were seen as more of an annoyance than a threat. Jewish resistance was destined to fail, culminating in the fall of Masada in 73 AD. Advising Christians to obey those in authority was a practical matter of survival. Neither the Jewish majority nor the fledgling members of the Way posed a genuine threat to Rome. Christians also lacked the wherewithal to stand against Jewish authorities. Both the Jewish majority and Rome would eventually persecute them for their faith. There was no point in calling down fire on their own position through armed opposition. That, however, was not the rationale for Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39. 

At the time God gave his judicial rules to Moses, government as we have come to accept it did not exist, retribution was a way to obtain rational, balanced justice. God’s directive was intended to be a system of proportional punishment known as lex talionis. The purpose of God’s law was to prevent vengefulness blinded by rage—hitting back harder than one had been hit. It was intended as an official regulation for the judiciary, not freedom for the individual to take the law into his or her own hands. It also served to control excesses by the judiciary in response to public opinion or pressure. Because of the restraint it introduced, lex talionis stood as a humane, moderating influence that curbed vendettas and blood feuds resulting in unlimited retaliation.

Lex talionis characterized by the phrase “eye for eye and tooth for tooth appears three times in the Old Testament: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and was intended for literal application. God gave that instruction to avoid unreasonable or excessive punishment, not to urge humankind to insist upon it in every situation. The goal was to ensure the punishment fit the crime.

The scribes and Pharisees had distorted God’s original intent of lex talionis. We are all born with a strong desire for revenge and as the Jewish leaders sought to ingratiate themselves with the people rather than to please God by pandering to the people’s darker nature. What was supposed to be a judicial principle was turned into something bordering on individual lawlessness. Ironically, in many cases, by the time of Jesus, monetary restitution had largely replaced physical mutilation. Consequently, one is left to surmise that not only had the law been subverted, but it was being unequally applied by the religious authorities. 

In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that retribution, even proportional retribution, has no place in the life of a disciple. He wasn’t commenting on the appropriateness of God’s judicial rules. His intent was to teach his disciples to reject the base, animal instinct that makes us want to respond in kind to an actual or perceived offense. Retribution, not self defense or the defense of innocents, was behind his direction to turn the other cheek. During his arrest, one of Jesus’s disciples cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant and Jesus responded with, “Put your sword back in its place. . . .for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”(Matthew 26:52) He did not rebuke the disciple who had likely used a sword Jesus had instructed followers to obtain in order for him to be “numbered with the transgressors” ( Luke 22:36-37). He did not want the disciple to stand in the way of God’s plan for the salvation of humankind, nor did he wish to give the impression his message was one of rebellion or resistance.

Jesus opposes retribution and retaliation in any form. His intention is to establish a “greater righteousness,” a different understanding of how we should live as the people of God. His is an alternative set of values and his instructions are intended solely for us, not our unbelieving neighbors. Matthew 5:39 is all about how we should respond when something is done to us as individuals. It involves an essentially non-self-centered approach to ethics under the Holy Spirit’s leading, which puts the interests of others before our personal rights or possessions. Unfortunately, this passage has been used as a basis for pacifism and even prompted calls for the elimination of law enforcement. I thank that is an incorrect conclusion. It is a nation’s and an individual’s responsibility, believer or non-believer alike, to stand against evil and protect the vulnerable. As citizens we may have a role to play in that response. Until Jesus returns to establish his earthly reign, the military and the criminal justice systems are both necessary to prevent chaos and keep people safe. If our country calls us to duty, we are expected to answer.

Returning to the exhortation to turn the other cheek, we must keep in mind there is a difference between a personal slight and threat of serious injury or death. A blow to the right cheek was considered a serious insult, but certainly was not life-threatening. Slapping with the right hand was often a back-handed blow to the right cheek, which was considered insulting and retribution or reciprocation was a matter of honor. Jesus tells his disciples to forgo any benefit to which he or she may be legally entitled—to accept the insult without responding. In fact, we are told to go even further. He tells us to offer the left cheek, opening the door to a further, if more painful, insult. 

It is not an injunction against self defense, police or military service. While it is never a good idea to make an argument from silence, I believe if the Lord intended for his followers to avoid all possibilities of violence, he or Peter would have instructed the soldiers to whom they ministered to leave the army. When given the opportunity, even John the Baptist when asked specifically by soldiers what God required, failed to condemn violence in the performance of duty (Luke 3:14). Admittedly, the question was posed prior to Jesus’s ministry, but one could not ask for a more perfect scenario to introduce pacifism. Furthermore, if Jesus meant to instruct his followers to be pacifists, he probably would not have used a societal rebuke to make his case. In fact, in the passage cited from Matthew 26, above, Jesus said he could call on twelve legions of angels to fight for him if what was happening did not conform to the will of the Father.

Choosing to employ violent means is a personal decision. I cannot condone my use of violence for self-defense but would not hesitate to use it to protect others, especially those I am charge with protecting. When I was a law enforcement chaplain, during ride-alongs I would often tell the deputy that I was a good shot and if they needed me, they could count on me using their rifle to protect them, but I would not use it to protect myself. My position has not changed. On October 25, 2019 the United States Concealed Carry website ran a blog written by Rick Sapp (http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/a-personal-decision/) describing how a man of faith, Jim Ott, responded during a home invasion that included a severe, concussive blow to his head resulting in hospitalization, stitches and staples. Throughout the encounter his assailant, a known violent offender, taunted Ott to shoot him. Certainly Ott could have done so with the 9mm handgun he was carrying, but he chose not to because his tormentor eventually backed away. When asked why he did not fire, Ott responded with, “I’m a man of faith. I will not kill someone if I don’t have to.” In my mind, that is exactly what Jesus expects of his disciples.

Jesus Revisited

Jesus Revisited

by | Dec 27, 2022 | Book Reviews

Jesus Revisited, “Never Accept a Counterfeit Jesus.” If Pastor Al Stewart and I lived in the same city, I would hope we could regularly meet for coffee. Based on this work alone, it would seem we share a common theological perspective and Christian worldview. When I first saw his short book on the Amazon Kindle store website, I could not wait to read it and am glad that I did (three times).

Admittedly, at first blush, I was tempted to discount it out of hand because of the writing style and his penchant for non-traditional capitalization. But, because of the fact he had worked as a chaplain, I decided to read it to see if he approached the topic from a pluralistic perspective. I was elated to discover that was not the case. Although I might disagree with how he said it, I have no disagreement with what he said.

The book reads like a discipleship conversation over coffee with your pastor. And it works well if you keep that in mind. He uses a collection of proof texts to counter misconceptions about Jesus and to demonstrate what the Bible has to say about him. The stage is set in the forward. Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Stewart initially responds using accepted Christian, Trinitarian theology, by asserting Jesus is an eternal, non-created being who appears in the Old Testament as a theophany.

Using Scripture, the author devoted much of several chapters to demonstrate the mischaracterization of Jesus by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Muslims. He also touched on Universalism and Christian Nationalism. I felt like standing and cheering when he delivered a harsh rebuke of the prosperity gospel and those who profit from it.

I was especially impressed by how he addressed Christians’ interactions with those who identify with the LGTPQ+ community. He called out the unloving words and actions perpetrated against them by some pastors for what it is, anti-Christian behavior. He reminded readers that we are all sinners who have no right to selectively focus on the sins of others when we are standing knee deep in our own. To summarize, he echoed a trite, but still true statement. “Hate the sin and love the sinner.” If allowed to add anything I would say that it is God’s job to judge, our job to share the gospel, and the Holy Spirit’s job to change lives.

The book ends with an easy-to-understand discussion of who Jesus is. He is fully man and fully God, God’s agent of creation, possessor of all authority, immutable (unchangeable), and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity––co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. The theological points the author made can and have been made in works exhibiting superior scholarship. But, if I were sitting across the table from a cult member or Muslim, I would be thankful that I had Pastor Al’s book on my smartphone.

Jesus Revisited: Never Accept a Counterfeit Jesus by Pastor Al Stewart
Reflections on the Existence of God

Reflections on the Existence of God

by | Dec 23, 2022 | Book Reviews

Reflections on the Existence of God: A Series of Essays, by Richard E. Simmons III, is an excellent resource for small group study, to facilitate spiritual conversations with non-believers or, as in my case, to engage with a middle-schooler. I have a precocious granddaughter who is in the sixth grade but reads and reasons at the high school level. Recently she informed her mother that she no longer believed in God. As I spoke with her, it became apparent to me that she had not based her position on diligent study. Instead, hers might have been what the author called “irresponsible unbelief.” (Maybe. But I suspect she was just being contrary to irritate her mother because that is what kids her age do.)

The author asserts, “The question of God’s existence, in my opinion, is the most significant issue in all of life. As renowned French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal said, you’re betting your eternal destiny that you are right.” (pp. 12-13). The core of the author’s rationale is belief in either theism or atheism depends on which view is in harmony with reality. From that position, he challenges the reader to “believe responsibly.” According to him. “We stubbornly hold on to our beliefs because they generally reflect how we want life to be rather than how life actually is. For this reason, evidence does not seem to matter.” (p. 19).

While I am certain God exists, that he made us and loves us so much he was willing to die for us, I found this work helpful in synthesizing what I already knew about God while providing solid arguments against disbelief. Two of the most surprising bits of information about atheists I gleaned from my reading had to do with their thinking as they neared death and the fact they knew next to nothing about the faith they rejected throughout their lives. He concluded, “The evidence for God is really of little use if a person does not want Him in his or her life.” (p. 22)

The author logically addressed the existence of evil in the world, the source of a moral standard along with truth, love, happiness and beauty. He recounted the efforts of Einstein to discredit a transcendental source of morality and the irony that his General Relativity theory demonstrated the universe was not eternal. He proved it had a beginning. One is left to wonder if it extends back to a “Big Bang” who or what spoke that “Big Bang” into existence? Since Einstein’s theory might have pointed to a creator, he introduced a fudge factor, which was later discovered and discounted by other scientists.

According to Simmons, Darwinism is, likewise, proving to be “a philosophical bias more than a coherent science.” (p.174) Some scientists find it easier to introduce aliens into the creation process than to acknowledge the existence of God. The author points to Dr. Paul Vitz who concluded “atheists often develop their beliefs because of non-rational psychological reasons, not because of investigation of the evidence and coming to a sound rational conclusion.” (p. 114) I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in adding logic to your faith.

Reflections on the Existence of God: A Series of Essays, by Richard E. Simmons III (Union Hill Publishing, 2019)

 

Jesus Revisited a discipleship resource recommends Richard Simmons' book Reflections on the Existence of God

My Church Dropped Jesus for Christmas

My Church Dropped Jesus for Christmas

by | Dec 22, 2022 | Just Sayin'

My church dropped Jesus for Christmas. That’s right. My church chose Santa over Jesus. The lights will be off on Christmas morning and I am left to wonder why. Worshipping on Christmas Day is implied in the very name–Christ’s mass or Cristes Maesse as it was first called in 1038. Christmas, of all days, should remind us Jesus is Lord. It isn’t so much a celebration of his birth as it is why he came. Too many self-professed Christians are good with letting Jesus be their Savior, but Lord, well, not so much. 

I pastor a senior congregation in an independent living facility. Normally I would be able to preach and worship with them on Christmas Day. But this year the residents, who couldn’t wait for a Christmas service, were placed in COVID-19 lockdown. Their proactive, facility administration would not allow us to meet for corporate worship. So, I decided to go to my home church. It is where I often worship, before heading over to the facility to preach.

Imagine my surprise to learn its doors would be locked that day. The reason given was, wait for it, because Christmas Day fell on, of all days, a Sunday. Christmas on Sunday has happened six times since 1983. In a brief video my pastor told the congregation his decision was made to allow staff to enjoy the day with their families. I have attended this church for many years. Such a decision must be a recent change. I recall attending the Saturday night candlelight service and returning for the one on Christmas Sunday morning.

We burn with self-righteous indignation when we hear “Happy Holidays,” instead of “Merry Christmas,” and silently simmer because Starbucks adopted a generic cup design for the season. Yet, if we attend many, especially independent, larger, churches, the organs, drums, and guitars will be silent this Christmas morning. It has happened before. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 2016.

In a Federalist article published that Christmas season, G. Shane Morris, citing a Christianity Today finding, praised Mars Hill and Willow Creek for bucking the trend by holding services on Christmas Day. Obviously, doors open on Christmas do not cover a multitude of sin. In those instances, the pastors knew to do right, but didn’t always do it. That’s a story for another day. Regardless, at least that year, their door were open on Christmas.

Morris also cited a Chicago Tribune article about a mega church pastor who gave this reason for cancelling Christmas Day services.

We don’t see it as not having church on Christmas. We see it as decentralizing the church on Christmas—hundreds of thousands of experiences going on around Christmas trees. The best way to honor the birth of Jesus is for families to have a more personal experience on that day.

Experience (smoke machines, laser lights and rock and roll worship music) is a staple of many consumer-driven mega churches. Those are the churches people attend to be entertained, but not sanctified. 

Church is not about an experience, but a relationship; vertically with God through Jesus and horizontally with brothers and sisters in Christ. We demonstrate that through our actions. It isn’t about how full the church is, but how full of Jesus the worshippers are. What good is it to have a sanctuary full of people if many of them are going to miss the cut at the final judgement because they were members, but not disciples? They know all about Jesus, but do not know him. And the pastors who pandered to their “worldliness” by “rockin’ around the Christmas tree “will have to give account to the one whose birthday they skipped to celebrate with Santa.

I just have to say I will never hear, “Keep Christ in Christmas” the same way again. Without actually admitting it, the decision of my pastors and others like them have demonstrated they have tacitly approved replacing Jesus with Santa Claus. The same folks who shake their heads 51 weeks of the year over church absenteeism for “frivolous reasons” bagged the second most holy day on the Christian calendar so families could open gifts together.

In an Op-Ed in The Christian Post, David Ruzicka, put his finger on what is really going on. “Christmas is about family, and presents, and eggnog and Santa Claus! That’s what the atheist argue. And by action (which speak louder than words) so does the church when it cancels the exact thing it does every other week of the year.” He went on to say, “We’ve bought into the secularization of Christmas and the idol of family over Jesus just like everyone else but talk a good game!”

Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26 | NIV) That one is pretty hard to hide from. But the next verse clearly explains where some draw the line. “And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:27 | NIV) Apparently, they draw their “cross-carrying” line at celebrating the birth of Jesus on the one day of the year set aside for that purpose. 

Churches forgoing Sunday worship will still pass the plate during the services held the week prior to Christmas. The message sent and received is that it’s all about the bottom line in the First Church of Contemporary Culture. Perhaps that is why the pastors skipping Christmas church don’t take a public stand against Christian Nationalism or a stand for Christmas Day worship. It seems pastors of such attractional churches will do whatever it takes to keep butts in pews. If they think they must compromise principles to keep the lights on, how are they any different from other small business?

Another phrase I have heard in churches that are closed on Christmas is, “The church is a hospital for sinners.” Baloney! My daughter is an emergency room physician in a trauma hospital. How likely do you think it is that her administration would lock their doors to give her and her coworkers Christmas off so they can open presents with their families? Even as a hospital chaplain, I worked Christmas Day. Of all days, Christmas is the one on which many people feel most alone. It is the day they welcome the company of strangers.  

It is possible that I am overreacting, but I believe such churches had the opportunity to stand for something, but, instead, demonstrated they have sold out to the culture. They have abdicated responsibility for being hospitals for the lost to become temples to the idol of family and consumerism. Some people have given up the habit of meeting for worship, but we must not do that. We should keep on encouraging each other, especially since you know that the day of the Lord’s coming is getting closer. (Hebrews 19:25 | CEV)

The author of that passage was writing to people who risked everything by going to church. Are we such weak Christians we cannot even arrange our schedule around an hour or so on a Christmas Sunday morning? If so, haven’t we lost the true meaning of Christmas?

Holy Spirit?

Holy Spirit?

by | Dec 19, 2022 | What Does the Bible Say About?

Receipt of the Holy Spirit is a gift of God’s grace to the disciples of Jesus. Basic trinitarian doctrine holds there is one God represented by three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A theology that does not recognize each person of the trinity as being co-equal departs from accepted Western Christian orthodoxy. The deity of the Holy Spirit, (Advocate, Comforter, Helper, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, etc.) has been a core Christian belief from the beginning. Duffield and Van Cleve opine, “all three persons of the trinity work together for the accomplishing of the divine will.”1. There is little disagreement among most Christians regarding the Holy Spirit. He is considered the third person of the godhead. Being third does not make him less important than either God, the Father or God, the Son, although he proceeds eternally from both. He first appears in Scripture in Genesis 1:2 | ESV. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And we last encounter him in Revelation 22:17 | ESV. The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

Cummings2. lists eighty-six references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, OT. However, “The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit.”3. Instead he is a source of God’s prophetic inspiration, creation and life. The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:4 | ESV. The OT prophets anticipated a time when God would pour out his spirit on humankind. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servant in those days I will pour out my Spirit.” Joel 2:28-29 | ESV

Although he enjoys varying degrees of acceptance in today’s churches, the Holy Spirit permeates the gospels. The New Testament, NT, word for him, pneuma, appears in 261 passages. John the Baptist prophesied Jesus would baptize believers with the Holy Spirit. “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matthew 3:11 | NIV The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove at his baptism (Like 3:22) and he faced Satan’s wilderness temptation full of the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1 and 14).“Christ’s humanity was sustained and His actions empowered by the Holy Spirit.”4.

The public ministry of Jesus began with a reading from Isaiah 61. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Luke 4:18-19 | ESV Jesus, himself, prophesied the Spirit would be made available after his ascension. On the last day, the climax of the holidays, Jesus shouted to the crowds, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. For the Scriptures declare that rivers of living water shall flow from the inmost being of anyone who believes in me.” (He was speaking of the Holy Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him; but the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet returned to his glory in heaven.) John 7:37-39 | TLB

The promise was fulfilled on Pentecost, but we saw evidence of how he would work with the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus promised “. . . no one who drinks the water I give will ever be thirsty again. The water I give will become in that person a flowing fountain that gives eternal life.” John 4:14 | CEV She was given faith with power in a testimony that drew many of her friends and neighbors to Jesus. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to indwell his followers. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:15-17 | ESV  Perhaps evidence of the Spirit is lacking in many congregations today because Jesus is accepted as savior, but not lord. Belief makes Jesus savior. Obedience makes him lord.

Jesus told his listeners God would fill them with his Spirit if they asked him. “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Luke 11:13 | ESV We have access to God through the Holy Spirit. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Ephesians 2:18 ESV And the Spirit even prays for us when we can’t find the words to pray according to God’s will. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27 | ESV

The power of the Holy Spirit was made available to believers. He is God living inside the believer. Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16 | ESV According to Erickson,“The Holy Spirit is the point at which the Trinity becomes personal to the believer.”5. The last instruction Jesus gave his disciples before returning to his father was to share the gospel. And he promised to empower them to do it. “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5 | NIV The promise of Jesus and the prophets was realized on the Day of Pentecost following Jesus’s ascension. When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:1-4 | ESV

They went out into the streets preaching the “mighty works of God” in the native language of the foreign Jews visiting Jerusalem for the holiday. As the crowd grew, Peter, who not too long ago cowered in fear, boldly stood to preach the crowd’s culpability in the death of Jesus. He went on to tell them Jesus was alive and sitting at the right hand of God. God had given his Son the Holy Spirit, which he poured out on his followers. The Spirit produced what the people were witnessing. It was proof, Peter said, God had made Jesus both lord and savior. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:37-38 The church began with and continues through the work of the Holy Spirit. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. Ephesians 2:22 | ESV

Hope is evidence of God’s love and the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Romans 5:5 | ESV He is the source of resurrection hope. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you. Romans 8:11 | NIV Finally, the Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance as Jesus-followers. The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him. Ephesians 1:14 | NLT

“The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.”6. Without his influence and conviction we would not recognize our need for a savior, and miss out on God’s gracious forgiveness. Jesus said, “But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. John 16:7-11 | NIV Unbelief is the unforgivable sin. Those who do not avail themselves of God’s grace are destined to spend eternity separated from God in a place prepared for Satan and his angels.

Some believe that the initial evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. There is no Scripture that asserts that is the rule, but that seems to have been the pattern in the 1st century church. Practically every time we read about people receiving the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. (Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6) The apostle Paul considered it important, “ I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” 1 Corinthians 14:18 | ESV 

It is, however, possible that we are filled with the Holy Spirit the instant we place our faith in Jesus. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit . . . Ephesians 1:13 | NIV If it is the case, it would make speaking in tongues an option available that can remain untapped in the life of a believer. But that is an argument for a future post. One certain evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is by exhibiting the Fruit of the Spirit. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23 | ESV

The misunderstandings surrounding the Holy Spirit today have to do with the gifts of the Spirit; how, or even if, they are available to the contemporary Church. There are two views on that: cessationism and continuationism. Cessationism holds that the “miracle gifts” have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles. In the late fourth century John Chrysostom could speak of the spiritual gifts as belonging to an age in the past.”7. Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs. Continuationism is the belief that all the spiritual gifts, including prophesy, healings, tongues, and miracles, are still in operation today, just as they were in the days of the early church.

The reason we don’t hear much about spiritual gifts in many contemporary churches today is when it happens, God, not man, is in control. Consequently belief that they are no longer available results more from lack of experience, rather that solid exegesis. There is no biblical evidence that they ceased with the apostles or that they have even ceased at all. The apostle Paul took great pains to explain the importance of spiritual gifts to the Church in 1 Corinthians 12. In 1 Corinthians 14:1 | ESV, He encouraged believers to “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” There is so much more to be said about this topic, but that will have to wait. For now, I will end with this final blessing. May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope. Romans 15:13 | ESV

Footnotes:

1. Guy P. Duffield and Nathan M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles:Foursquare Medis, 2008), 272.

2. James E. Cummings, Through the Eternal Spirit (Stirling, Scotland:Stirling Tract Enterprises, 1937), 50.

3. Thomas S. Caulley, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2001), 568.

4. John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids:Zondervan Academic), 27, Kindle edition.

5. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 1998), 862.

6. Duffield and Van Cleave, 273.

7. Caulley, 570.

 

Why Are People Leaving Church?

Why Are People Leaving Church?

by | Dec 7, 2022 | Just Sayin'

The author of Hebrews warned against missing corporate worship and yet, people are not only missing church, they are leaving for good in fairly large numbers. And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near. Hebrews 10:25 | NLT Those leaving are losing out spiritually and relationally and churches are hurting financially. What’s going on? What causes a person who has been taught the importance of Christian fellowship to walk out the back door? I would argue that there are many reasons people offer for leaving, but only one underlying cause.

The most recent reason suggested is that folks simply got out of the habit of attending church during the pandemic. Perhaps they discovered the world doesn’t end if they miss a Sunday service. Or it may be that they found it is more convenient to watch from home in their pajamas. After all, when they stay home, there is no implicit obligation to say anything to those seated around them and no one passes an offering plate. Still the doors of the church remain open. And the heat and light bills haven’t stopped. Many churches are hemorrhaging people and we, those of us who remain, must do our part to stop the bleeding. And that involves more than simply giving more money.

Even before COVID, people were leaving churches for a myriad of reasons. But the virus introduced a new one—politics. People began leaving over wearing masks, vaccinations or the fact people were too “woke,” whatever that now means. Long-standing church relationships were sacrificed on the altar of partisan politics. In his blog, N.T. Wright summed it up like this:

“Lifetime friends have divided over the past year or so with no plausible pathway to reconcile. And, of course, pastors in congregations are in the middle of the rancor and nastiness trying to hold their people together with a focus that is beyond the campaigns and election. But I know how much of a toll that takes on shepherds of the flock. In the U.S., it is not very hard to find a congregation and a pastor who is ‘on the same page’ politically. Thus, it is not unusual for people to leave their congregations because of political loyalties.

Most of those who left for political reasons did not abandon church altogether. Many left their former churches for those where most people share similar political views. They left but landed in another community of faith. I call them “sortas.” They “sorta” follow Jesus, but their actions indicate that they view politics as being more effective in achieving God’s will than prayer. And the person in the White House is more trustworthy than a prayer-answering God. We’ll come back to the “sortas” later. What about those who have left church for good? They will be the primary focus of this article.

A November 29, 2022 bulletin issued by the Office for National Statistics United Kingdom, indicating a census finding that England and Wales were no longer Christian majority countries. On December 1, 2022, the Catholic News Agency highlighted the dramatic decline in those two countries from 71.7% in 2001 to 46.2% today. Shortly thereafter, the December 2022 edition of Christianity Today included a book review by Arthur E. Farnsley II, of Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America by Stephen Bullivant, an author who lives and works in Britain.

The same thing is happening in the United States. According to Pew Research Center only 65% of Americans identified as Christians in 2019, down from 77% in 2009. The situation is even worse than it might appear when considering practicing Christians. According to the Barna Group, practicing Christians are characterized by “calling oneself a Christian, strongly prioritizing faith and regular church attendance.” That number has fallen from 45% in 2000 to 25% just twenty years later. And there is little doubt that number has dropped even more in the ensuing twenty-two years.

According to Farnsley, in the first part of his two-part book, Bullivant describes the experiences of “nones,” those who had left Christianity and now consider themselves as having no religious affiliation. This is a very different group from those he calls “cradle nones,” people who have never had a church affiliation. The second part of the book describes why and how the church exodus occurred. He noted many of those who have left organized religion did so for strong, often emotional or painful reasons.

I want to focus on a statement Farnsley makes. “If you pay attention to much religious journalism, you can correctly guess what soured ex-Mormons, ex mainliners, exvangelicals, and ex Catholics on the religion of their youth.” What I have read fairly coincides with my experience. But we should keep in mind that not everybody who leaves church, leaves Jesus behind. As a chaplain I have heard many reasons folks have left the church of their youth, but they generally fall into four categories: the Bible, the money, the people, and/or the message.

For some it was the incongruence between science and biblical accounts. This typically occurs when literal meaning is the test for inerrancy. Essentially, those who leave for this reason are saying, “If I can’t believe in Jonah, I can’t believe in Jesus.” They fail to recognize that the Bible was not written to be a science textbook. It is an ancient text written to an ancient people containing many literary genres.

Must we accept, literally, a passage such as this? You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.Isaiah 55:12 | NIV Obviously, mountains don’t have voices and trees lack arms and hands. We, as Bible teachers, have an obligation to identify and explain the hyperbole and genre contained in the passages we are teaching and allow, when appropriate, for alternative interpretations.

Another frequently cited reason people leave is money. Whether it is the consistent pleas for people to give or the lack of transparency regarding how contributions are distributed, money is often a friction point. And it has been throughout the history of the Church. And the larger the church the more of a problem it is.

The rationale for giving should be included in the discipleship process, but not part of the evangelistic outreach. That presents a problem in seeker-sensitive churches that lack an effective discipleship process. Giving is a family matter best left to a venue that includes members and regular attenders, not first or second-time visitors. And when it comes to money, absolute transparency is key. Jesus, not the light bill, is the message. Fixing this disconnect is the responsibility of church leadership (e.g., deacons, elders, session, etc.).

Finally, the most frequently cited reason for leaving church for good is the people, or rather, the “hypocrites” who warm the pews of every church. And, brothers and sisters, those hypocrites are us. By far, the greatest disincentive to Christian affiliation is the behavior of other Christians. Is our church defined by what we are for, rather than what we are against?

How encouraging have we been to one another? Instead of befriending and lifting people up as they enter the front door, are are pushing them out the back door? Apparently that is the case, especially with younger prople. Why can’t we see that we are the reason they left? We are all sinners and pharisees in recovery. Can’t we just take off our masks and allow others to see the person God sees?

Those who leave because of our phoniness know they are not the perfect people many of us are pretending to be. They must be let in on our dirty, little secret. And that secret is we are all on the same journey. We all stumble. We all fall. But as members of one body, we rely on others to reach down and help us back on our feet. It is our failure to acknowledge our own weakness that comes across as hypocrisy. And it is our reluctance to extend a hand to help that makes them feel unwelcome and alone.

It is time we Jesus-followers become vulnerable and make our churches feel more like a hospital for sinners, rather than a sanctuary for saints. People hungering for something to believe in don’t come to church to feel isolated, inferior, or to play yet another role in life. They just want to be seen, heard, and understood. This can only be corrected when we keep our eyes on Jesus and follow the leading of his Spirit in our interactions with others both inside and outside the church.

Finally, and I believe this is the underlying reason people, including the “sortas” leave the church, regardless of any other rationale they might offer. They leave because they have never had a genuine, personal encounter with Jesus. They have never recognized and admitted they are sinners, repented and accepted God’s offer of grace and reconciliation. They have no relationship with a living, loving God. Their god is religion. Religion is what remains when we take our eyes off Jesus and go through the motions of church. It points to never having fully surrendered to him by making him both lord and savior.

When the focus is on flawed people and flawed institutions rather than Jesus, disillusionment is inevitable. Jesus must be our sole focus. We must be all in, completely surrendered, to him. Anyone or anything else is an idol that erects a wall between us and God.

If we hold anything back, if we allow ourselves to worry or be afraid about anything, we are not followers. We are still “sortas,” worshipping idols. When totally surrendered, it doesn’t matter who sits next to us, how the church money is raised and spent or whether we believe the world was created in seven, 24-hour days. All that matters is our unshakable faith in Jesus and our desire to be more like him.

The only time we should leave a community of faith is unbiblical teaching or the leading of the Spirit to service elsewhere. It is time started walking our talk and we changed our focus, not our church.

God’s Love?

God’s Love?

by | Nov 23, 2022 | What Does the Bible Say About?

God will never love you more than he does right now and he will never love you any less. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10 | NIV) 

In the New Testament four Greek words are used for love: eros (romantic), storge (family), philia (brotherly) and agape (God’s divine). The focus of this article is agape. For many, God’s love is a difficult concept. Unless they are acquainted with the back story, the God of the Old Testament appears harsh and angry. And when we refer to him as father, those with a difficult childhood may find it hard to equate father and love. Yet, here is the unvarnished truth, God loves you simply because he does. It has nothing to do with who you are or what you do.

Nothing can ever cause God to stop loving you.  And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. (Romans 8:38 | NLT) He will lovingly give you what you want even if you decide to live your life apart from him.

It has been said Christianity is the greatest story ever told. If that is the case, it is also history’s greatest love story. And it began with creation. God’s Word spoke us into existence and in his image. Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness . . . Genesis 1:26a Apparently Jesus is the pattern he used. Jesus, God’s son, took on human form to walk in this world to show us the character of our creator.  The Son is the image of the invisible God, (Colossians 1:15a | NIV)

Jesus is actually the one who made us. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16 | NIV) Although we bear a strong family resemblance, Jesus did what no human has ever done or will ever do. He lived a perfect, sinless life. His obedience glorified God. It was his sinlessness that made him what John the Baptist called “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29.)

You were created to be in relationship with him. God loves his creation unconditionally. But we pridefully chose a different god, ourselves. Sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, recorded in Genesis 3, began a separation from God that continues to this day. When they realized they were naked, they fashioned clothes from leaves. They could hide their bodies, but they could not hide from God.

Their disobedience set into motion the promise of a savior, a Messiah. God punished the couple and cursed the serpent who enticed them to sin and promised there would be a day of reckoning. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15 | NIV). After God received the couple’s confession of disobedience, he clothed them in animal skins. From then on animals were sacrificed.

The Jewish practice of regular animal sacrifice in response to sinful disobedience was not observed until Moses received God’s Law, the Ten Commandments. Every year on the Day of Atonement, which Jews call Yom Kipper, the high priest sacrificed a perfect goat to atone for the sins of the people. Animal sacrifice for sin continued until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. Jesus fulfilled the Law by becoming the perfect sacrifice that takes away sin once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)

God’s love and desire to call his family to himself (reconciliation) was made complete in the birth of Jesus. Christ’s birth (incarnation) was described by Jesus like this, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16 | NIV) The Apostle John said it like this, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2, 14 | NIV)

This is an aside, but an important one, nonetheless. On August 30, 2020, the Christian Post reported 30% of evangelicals did not believe Jesus is God. And on December 8, 2021, Christianity Today reported a Lifeway survey that found only 63% of professed Christians believed Jesus existed before his birth in Bethlehem. Apparently, it has been a while since nearly a third of us read the Book of John.

Because of his great love for his creation, God offers life in abundance here and eternal life when our time on earth has come to an end. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:4-5 | NIV)

As difficult as it may be for us to wrap our minds around it, the torture and brutal, barbaric death Jesus endured in obedience to his father’s will is a manifestation of his love for us. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 | NIV)

When we accept Jesus as both lord and savior, his Spirit lives in us and leads us to glorify God in all we do. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 | NIV) 

We cannot live God-honoring lives unless we have received his Holy Spirit. And, like salvation and forgiveness, God’s Spirit is an act of grace. It is free for the asking. If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13 | NIV)

When our faith is in Jesus, we become part of the family of God. See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! 1John 3:1a  Faith in Jesus involves believing you are lovable simply because you are breathing in and out. You are his creation and if your eternal faith is in him, you are God’s child. And if you are his child, there is no force stronger than his love for you.

As part of God’s family our behavior should reflect the love for others that God has for us. When asked which was the greatest commandment, He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind;’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”(Luke 10:27 | NIV). He wasn’t just speaking of those neighbors we like. He directed us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, that we may be children of our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:44-45a). We haven’t been tasked with liking them, but we are to love them.

As disciples of Jesus, God’s love not only saves us, it defines us. “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35 | NIV) That brings to the heart of God’s love. Scripture tells us not only that God loves, but that he is the very definition of love. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. (1 John 4:16 | NIV)

Finally, because of God’s love for us, love is the litmus test for Jesus’s disciples. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8 | NIV)

Homosexuality?

Homosexuality?

by | Oct 11, 2022 | What Does the Bible Say About?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? If you have been watching television lately, like me, you may have noticed the profusion of gay and lesbian characters. It feels like there is a not-so-subtle movement toward societal acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle as natural. Yet, nature, biology and physiology all tell a different story. Even communities of faith are being affected, resulting in very contentious discussions in churches and entire denominations over, not simply welcoming LGBTQ people into the community of faith, but placing them in leadership roles as well. This article looks at two basic questions. Is homosexuality sinful? If so, is it the action or the attraction that constitutes sin?

My intention is to look at what the Bible has to say about homosexual acts and examine some of the arguments made in support of the compatibility of homosexuality with Christianity. I admit I have gay friends and relatives, so it may be difficult for me to leave emotion out of the process altogether. Yet, I hope to present a biblical case objectively and allow you to draw your own conclusion. A friend once asked me to listen to a sermon on this topic and tell him what I thought about what I heard. I have decided to share my opinion on it with you as concisely as I did with him.

The pastor asserted, “There are not two views on same sex relationships. There are many ways it can be nuanced.” (I assume the two views he referenced were sinful and not sinful.) I also assumed by nuanced, he meant “characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression.” He implied the matter isn’t black and white, but shades of gray. To my way of thinking, his assertion obligated him to demonstrate that sex acts between people of the same gender are not always viewed by God as detestable—as not being sin. To do that he defaulted to arguments originating with gay, self-professed Christians.

Homosexuality, being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender, is not a sin. It is the sexual acts and thoughts that turn temptation into sin. Based on Scripture, I think the pastor failed to make a strong case. It seems apparent to me that the Bible defines homosexual acts as sin. There may be many ways to nuance sin, but sin is still sin, regardless of context. It is true, however, there have been religious ethics discussions regarding “greater” and “lesser” sin. (e.g. telling the lie that your wife is not home to keep an intruder from hurting her.) But one would be hard pressed to make such an argument regarding homosexual acts. To make the case, let’s begin by examining the texts and arguments used by that pastor.

They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Genesis 19:5 | NIV The nuanced contention suggested here is the sinful behavior the Bible condemns is gang rape, not sodomy. Certainly, that is plausible by the context. Rape is about power and domination rather than sexual gratification. When he refused to give them his guests, the crowd threatened Lot with worse than rape. (v. 9) So, violence was obviously one factor. He responded to the men’s demands by calling their intention “wicked.” “‘Please, my brothers,’ he begged, ‘don’t do such a wicked thing.’” (v. 7 | NLT)

Instead, he offered his virgin daughters. If the sin was gang rape, by offering them the young women, Lot would have implicated himself in their sinful, detestable or wicked act. The sin involved more than gang rape. Lot, it seems, considered same sex gang rape more wicked or sinful than heterosexual gang rape of his daughters. And that would be the case under Mosaic law. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 | NIV)

It is also possible he knew it was only his male visitors the men desired. Otherwise, it seems unlikely he would have so quickly proposed a heterosexual alternative involving his virgin daughters. Jude, a half-brother of Jesus, apparently also believed the sin was more than same-sex gang rape and described the consequences of such sinful behavior. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7 | NIV)

Interestingly, when Lot’s proposal was made, the crowd accused him of judging them. The same response is typically used today when homosexual acts are judged to be sinful. To support the contention the sin was gang rape, not homosexual acts, a passage from Ezekiel is often tied to the Genesis text. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50).

That passage focuses on Sodom’s, failure to provide for the less fortunate, arrogance and self-indulgence along with undefined “detestable things.” “Detestable things” might certainly have been idol worship, but it could equally apply to sodomy, which in Leviticus, the Bible calls “detestable.” We simply cannot know for sure. There are, however, other texts that leave no room for doubt.

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22 | NIV That entire Leviticus chapter addresses sexuality, specifically incest, with several notable exceptions: having sex with a menstruating woman, men engaging in sex with other men, child sacrifice and bestiality. Examined in context, sodomy or other homosexual acts would be considered detestable.

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” (Acts 15:20 | NIV) Some people argue Acts 15 and the guidance issued by the Jerusalem Council, does not address homosexuality; apparently holding that unless something is specifically prohibited it must be permitted. Others argue that homosexuality is sexual immorality. It is always dangerous to make any case based on biblical silence. From that passage, it would be difficult to conclude that a moral prohibition defined as detestable under Mosaic law would suddenly become acceptable; especially since the apostle Paul participated in the Council meeting and later condemned homosexual acts.

Those who issued the Council’s directive were Jews, they must have had the two passages pertaining to sexual sin from Leviticus in mind when they included prohibitions against sexual sin. “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13 | NIV There is little doubt in the context of that passage that sodomy is on par with adultery and bestiality, which were condemned in previous verses.

Three types of laws are contained in the Torah: ceremonial, civil and moral laws. Ceremonial laws dealt with Sabbath and holiday observances, sacrifices, food, clothing, haircuts, etc. Civil law had to do with making things right when one’s actions harmed another (eg. civil and misdemeanor courts). Moral law violations offended God and carried a death sentence.

For all practical purposes, Jesus fulfilled Jewish ceremonial law. Jewish civil law disappeared with the dissolution of the Jewish theocratic state and the introduction of a monarchy. Only moral law remained in effect. Jesus followers are expected to adhere to the moral laws of Scripture, however, a problem arises because nowhere does the Bible describe which laws are moral laws covering moral sins.

The Reformed church holds those acts subject to the death penalty under Mosaic law are moral sins. Some gay self-professed, Christians disagree and, standing against Reformed orthodoxy, contend the Holy Spirit, not Scripture, provides all the moral discernment a believer requires. Such a position is called Antinomian, which from the Greek means “anti law.” Antinomians believe it is not necessary for Christians to adhere to the Old Testament moral laws. Obviously, such a view assumes believers have been filled with the Holy Spirit and exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. The closest practice to that we find in the New Testament is the Nicolaitans.

Rather than transform the world, the Nicolaitans conformed to it by compromising with Roman societal pressure regarding sacrifices to idols and immoral sexual practices. Ironically, those were the two areas Gentile converts were specifically told to avoid by the Jerusalem Council. And for their apostasy, the Nicolaitians’ were hated by God according to Revelation 2:6. Neither the Antinomian nor Nicolaitan view align with the teaching of Jesus who said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15 | ESV If you are still on the fence, I suggest a re-reading of Leviticus 18 and 20 and decide which of the sins described, aside from perhaps sex with a menstruating woman, does not appear to be a moral sin.

The most interesting pro-homosexuality argument is that the sinful homosexual acts to which the Bible refers involved casual sex that occurred in the ancient, pagan temple, not sex between two same sex partners who love each other. It maintains the same sex prohibitions of both Testaments was directed toward ancient homosexual practices versus what goes on in the modern world. On the face, it discounts God’s inspiration of the text and refutes the letters of the apostle Paul. Finally, it doesn’t hold up under academic scrutiny.

Ancient practices were nearly identical to what we observe today.  Professor John Boswell asserts, “Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories.” The Bible means what it meant and there is little confusing about, “. . .a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.” The author of Leviticus was crystal clear in describing a simple sex act.

The apostle Paul was not writing about same-sex relationships that differ from those of today. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27 | NIV Historically, he was pointing backward and forward. Recall Genesis 19, those men were struck blind at the time and destroyed after Lot left the city.

The progressive argument against homosexual act shaming employed by the men of Sodom can be used for any sin. And it is, even today. Consider this argument. Suppose I am an alcoholic. I can be outraged if you call me a drunk, but it doesn’t change the fact that I am. If I can refuse the first drink, but not the second. I am naturally, perhaps even genetically, drawn to drink. But if I choose not to drink, God provides the strength to quit drinking. The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure. (1 Corinthians 10:13 | NLT) If you need confirmation, ask anyone who has stopped drinking, drugging and other sinful habits through Celebrate Recovery.

The apostle Paul made a partial list of sins that deny membership in the body of true believers in both the earthly church and the heavenly one. “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 | NIV) The Greek for men who have sex with men in that verse refers to both passive and active participants.

Some have argued Greek compound words may not mean what they appear to mean, but the obvious meaning in Biblical translation is usually the most accurate. People who begin an argument with, “What if it means . . .” sound a whole lot like “Did God really say . . ?” Men who have sex with other men are violating scriptural standards. Adam was not given Steve. Adam and Eve were directed to procreate. If God had wanted Adam to have a Steve, he would have allowed for same-sex reproduction. But he didn’t.

Faithful Christians can disagree. Even if we do, we must assume the best about one another and disagree in good faith. Unless we can support our position with Scripture it is best to remain silent. The Bible’s position on homosexual acts seems pretty clear, rather than nuanced. Consider what the prophet Jeremiah said. This is what the Lord says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jeremiah 6:16 | NIV) The Church has always stood against homosexuality. But many now are bowing to external pressure and responding as the people did to Jeremiah. “We will not walk in it.”

We are commanded to love LGBTQ+ people as much as we love ourselves. They should be welcomed to join in our worship without reservation. However, loving them does not mean we must accept their lifestyle as being anything but sinful. The church is filled with sinners in recovery. Consequently, we should embrace sinners of every kind and leave any heart-changing to God.

We serve a God that does new things, but he has never redefined sin. Ezekiel 33, warns the watchman of the consequence of silence in the face of threats. It is not a question of inclusion, but approval. The Bible, not emotion should be our guide. We all have LBGTQ friends and family members for whom we are praying for. Please don’t give up on them. Invite them to a church that loves and welcomes them. It breaks my heart that many churches filled with sinners of all types choose to focus on this one sin. All sin is between the sinner and his or her God. Our job is to love without judging and let God do his.

Divorce?

Divorce?

by | Sep 14, 2022 | What Does the Bible Say About?

Is divorce a sin. Or is remarriage a sin? Could it be both or neither? What does the Bible say about Christian divorce and remarriage? Critics often cite statistics indicating Christian divorce rates mirror that of the general population. However, a distinction must be made between those who are serious about following Jesus and those who are not. Glenn Stanton asserts, “Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith – be it Christian or other – have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.”

The Barna Group reported, the  Christian population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced are Catholics (28%) and evangelicals (26%). Born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce. . .” It is apparent that people who are serious about practicing their faith are somewhat more committed to a lifetime union. Yet, even that group falls far short of God’s expectations for marriage.

The sentence, “God hate’s divorce” may be found in about half of the translations of Malachi 2:16, which establishes a pretty good case for just how he feels on the subject. God only allowed it, according to Jesus, because of their “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8). The plan from the beginning was for marriage between one man and one woman to be a lifelong commitment; one not to be entered into or ended lightly.

Many Christian marriage ceremonies include the words from Genesis 2:24, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” ((NIV) See also Ephesians 5:31 and Mark 10:8.) Malachi reiterated God’s position in an address to husbands who capriciously sued for divorce. Women, of his time and even much later when Jesus spoke on the subject, had little or no say in the matter. Obviously, times have changed. Women may be self-sufficient. And wives are not considered a husband’s possession under the law.

Divorce may have been permitted under Jewish law, but Jesus left no doubt that it violated God’s original intent. The New Testament teaches both the person who initiates the divorce as well as the person he or she remarries is guilty of the sin of adultery. A person unwillingly being divorced is considered a “victim of adultery” unless his or her sexual misconduct prompted it.

In his Sermon on the Mount, which was addressed specifically to his followers, Jesus proclaimed,  “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32 | NIV) The gender differentiation is a reflection of the prevailing culture, rather than Jesus advocating unequal treatment of women.The thought here is the couple is still married in God’s eyes. The two remain one flesh. And followers of Jesus are held to a higher standard.

Later, in response to the Pharisees who asked if divorce was permissible for any reason, Jesus expanded on his original response, “. . . at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:4-6, 9 | NIV)

Luke quoted Jesus as saying, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18 | NIV) Notice that Luke omitted the “sexual immorality” condition. Perhaps it was because he assumed his readers already knew that was a valid reason, since Mark was likely the source of some of Luke’s material. Jesus, in effect, declared the writ of divorce ineffective in protecting Jews and Christians, alike, from breaking the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14 | NIV). (Please see also Mark 10:2-12 and 1Corinthians 7:10-11.)

Some sincere Christians believe that the appropriate remedy is for the first couple to divorce their new spouse(s) and remarry. I disagree. In fact it was prohibited in Old Testament times. (See Deuteronomy 24:1-4) This is especially the case should one party may not be inclined to do so. Even more problematic is the unfair penalty imposed on the second spouse, especially if he or she was not previously married. They then become true “victims of adultery.”

Setting aside the practical difficulties, such as children, inherent in divorcing a second spouse and returning to the original, ignores the very heart of the gospel—God’s grace and forgiveness. Our God forgives and reconciles to himself all who repent. When others are involved, undoing mistakes may be more harmful than leaving it with God.

I am admittedly making an argument from biblical silence in concluding divorce severs a marriage without sin as long as believing parties remain unmarried. If divorce, alone, broke the Seventh Commandment, God would never have allowed it. Furthermore, it appears that the act of remarriage constitutes the sin of adultery.

God’s love for us is stronger than his feelings about divorce. Making it right with God requires repenting of the sin that resulted from remarriage and committing to make the second marriage last a lifetime. The New Testament is full of passages of Scripture relating to repentance, reconciliation, and forgiveness.

In the interest of space we’ll consider only three, beginning with 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (NIV) Paul reminds we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 | NIV)

God’s grace makes it right, not anything else we might do. Finally, from the apostle John again, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-3 | NIV)

Marriages disintegrate for a host of reasons. Where abuse, addiction or abandonment is the cause, a strong case may be made for separation, if not dissolution in the interest of safety and security. Remarriage is considered by some to be willful sin. But, technically, isn’t all sin willful?

People do not normally leave a difficult marriage in the expectation of remarriage. Life-long celebacy is the biblical standard, but should they find another believing person to love, marrying, it seems, would be preferable to cohabitation. Remarriage ought not be viewed as being different from any other intentional sin. However, repentance of the sin of remarriage is necessary for God’s forgiveness. And that marriage must be considered indissoluble.

Repentant, remarried couples have no reason for shame. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2). The take-away from Scripture is marriage should be as permanent as a tattoo. And, if God remains at the center of it, unlike a tattoo, it will become more beautiful with the passage of time.

Glenn Stanton, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce-rate-in-the-church-as-high-as-the-world/

Barna Group, http://www.barna.com/research/new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released/)

It’s the Message, not the Messenger

It’s the Message, not the Messenger

by | Jun 1, 2022 | Just Sayin'

It’s the message not the messsenger. We must not focus on the garbage and miss the “pearl of great price.” Sex scandals in the church are not new. Media reports and public awareness of them goes back at least as far as the 1920’s. The most unusual of which was the month-long disappearance of Aimee Semple McPherson, whose explanation remains suspect even today. Other Pentecostals who, according to media reports, have been engaged in inappropriate behavior include Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. But it isn’t just Pentecostals. Baptist pastors Jerry Falwell, Jr., Donald Foose, Coy Privette, Garry Evans and Joe Barron are among those who have been disgraced over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Reports of lawsuit payouts for abusive Roman Catholic priests seem to be in the news with great regularity these days. But they are not alone. The Southern Baptist Convention, SBC, came under fire for covering up inappropriate activities by clergy. According to a New Yorker article published May 26, 2022, “Last year, pastors belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention, which has nearly fourteen million members and is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, decided that the problem of sexual abuse within its ranks had to be addressed.”

The list of pastors reportedly engaged in sexual misconduct includes both the well-known and the unknown. Nothing would be gained by repeating the sordid allegations against those listed or the many others. That information is readily available online. But I hope I have made the point that pastors are sinners just like the rest of us. They sometimes yield to temptation. Frankly, because of their position, they may be a bigger target for Satan than we are. When they are disgraced, the Church is often painted with the same scandalous brush, especially in the minds of unbelievers. And that hampers our ability to make disciples.

It is easy to question our faith when someone we have admired fails. The news concerning Ravi Zacharias hurt me deeply. I can only imagine what I would be feeling if I had come to faith as a result of his ministry. Yet, I can promise you this, if you are genuinely following Jesus, your experience is real even if his life was a facade. Until Zacharias, the two falls from grace that most shook my faith were Jimmy Swaggart and Bill Hybels. I listened to Jimmy Swaggart daily on my commute to college as an undergraduate and attended several of Bill Hybels’s Willow Creek Leadership Summits. Still, I wept when I heard the disturbing news of Ravi Zacharias’s moral falure, just as I did last May when his death was reported. I recall reading many of the media tributes lauding him as a leading Christian apologist and agreeing that his passing was a mighty blow against Christianity.

On September 30, 2020, Christianity Today published a follow-up on a story it did on May 19, 2020 that had started off as a tribute listing his many accomplishments, but cast a tiny shadow over his ministry. The article described what many believed to be Zacharias’s mischaracterization of honorary doctorate awards as academic achievement. In addition and hidden near the end of the article, the author, Daniel Silliman wrote, “Zacharias was also involved in a legal dispute over “sexually explicit” communication with a woman he met through his speaking ministry. Her lawyer said Zacharias had groomed and exploited her. Zacharias sued, and the lawsuit was settled out of court with a non-disclosure agreement.”

We have since learned the famed apologist was deeply engaged in sexual misconduct. He used his power and position to prey on women. His fall from grace was even more painful for me than that of Swaggart and Hybels. I admit the truth about his conduct broke my heart. But I was determined that his failure would not destroy my faith. Christianity is about the message not the messenger. And the message is, God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die. (John 3:16 | CEV) The behavior of those listed, plus the hundreds of other Christian leaders concealing sin in their lives should not rock our spiritual boat. And it won’t as long as our eyes are firmly set on Jesus and our faith is in his finished work on the cross. I confess I held Swaggart, Hybels and Zacharias in higher regard than I should have. They came close, if not in fact becoming, my religious idols. I have learned my lesson and repented.

We can’t condone such behavior, nor should we allow their failure to cause us to give up on Jesus. When another human, no matter how famous or highly placed he or she may be, commits sin, that should remain between them, God and those to whom they are accountable. And we should not simply write them off as sinners. God would no more give up on them than he would you or me. Just as it is for us, confession and repentance is necessary for them to restore their relationship with God. If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just [true to His own nature and promises], and will forgive our sins and cleanse us continually from all unrighteousness [our wrongdoing, everything not in conformity with His will and purpose] (1 John 1:9 | AMP)

When we consider how we have been tested and failed, it is not hard to imagine the greater temptations faced by those who speak to hundreds, if not thousands, about Jesus and other matters of faith. So, who are we to sit in judgment of them? Instead, we can do something positive. We can pray that if they have not yet gone to God in heartfelt confession that they soon will. We can also pray for our own pastors. Not only are they held to a higher standard by the world, God also expects more of them. Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1 | ESV)

Join me in committing to add our prayers to those of our our pastors that God will give them the strength to stand against any temptation they may encounter.

Pin It on Pinterest