I was asked by a good friend to respond to the following:
“please respond to the those who are citing Ps 33:12 ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance’ and claiming that God has chosen Trump to save America.”
The context of the Old Testament in general and this Psalm in particular suggests that the nation addressed here was Israel. The Psalmist was writing to encourage the people of Israel to call upon the Lord so that the promised blessing would come to fruition. Of course, one could hypothetically suggest that this promise of blessing applies to any nation. The reality, however, is that only ancient Israel was ever in a position to fulfill this command. For, it is only in the context of ancient Israel that the chosen people of God were essentially identified with a particular nation (of course there were exceptions, such as the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7); but such exceptions only prove the rule).
Once we reach the Christian era the people of God are now composed of individuals from many nations. Since no one nation today is composed wholly of the people of God, there is simply no way to receive the blessing of this Psalm on a national scale.
Could the blessing of this Psalm be applied to an individual? Sure. In fact, the focus of God’s blessings today applies to the people of God. Note that 1 Peter 2:9 even identifies the people of God in nationalistic terms: “a chosen people and a holy nation.” The NT application of Psalm 33, then, would be, “Blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.”
In conclusion, any attempt to apply this Psalm on a national scale in the contemporary world is simply anachronistic. No secular nation may receive the blessing of this Psalm.
Nota Bene: I was searching images.google for an image to go along with this post (as I usually do) and was surprised when Ps 33:12 showed up in the search box. I was more surprised when the page loaded and hundreds of images with the script of Ps 33:12 and the US flag appeared. I am sorry but in light of my post here I just don't see how this connection can in any way be supported by this text. (note there were also images of the Star of David--the Israeli flag. This has more potential to be correct. The problem here would be twofold: one the modern state of Israel is an avowed secular state. Second, the people of God are defined as those who follow Christ. And though some Jewish people indeed follow Jesus today, the essence of Judaism today is a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah)
I try to stay out of actual political discussions for one reason: too many people in the Church have convictions that are, in my opinion, too deeply held to. The result is that when one speaks something that even appears contrary to these deep-seated convictions one incurs wrath. Not worth it. (unfortunately, I can assure you that many pastors and leaders in the Church feel this way and to some extent it is a great shame!)
For me it is not worth it for another reason. I hope and believe that I have an important voice when it comes to biblical matters and living out the kingdom of God today. I want this voice to be heard. My concern is that if my political opinions do not correspond to the convictions of some, will I lose my voice on matters that I believe are far more significant? If so, why bother?
But I am compelled to speak—fully aware of the implications. I am compelled to speak for one reason because people I love are being slammed for voicing their thoughts! Furthermore, some of these people include young persons who are training for ministry. Do you adults understand what you are doing to our young people? Are we not to teach and encourage such young people to think and process and discern? Furthermore, how can we treat one another with such contempt?
It might also do us well to realize that there are people in Russia, China, and many other countries of the world who are dear brothers and sisters in Christ. The point: such people don’t hold to the same political views that we in the west do.
In fact, to be more provocative, there are people who will vote for Trump, for Clinton, for Johnson, for others, and some who will refuse to vote for any of them, who are dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
When Jesus commanded us to love one another, He didn’t specify that we should qualify our love based on political convictions!
Now this does not mean that we cannot disagree with one another. But the viciousness, and meanness, and unChristlike rhetoric is simply unacceptable! What kind of love is this? What kind of witness is this? Yes, non-Christians read your Facebook posts too.
So where do I stand on the current political landscape?
Simply put (and hear me out before you pour forth scorn), I cannot vote for any of these candidates. Sure there have been candidates in the past, though not perfect, who have displayed the character and qualities necessary to hold the office of President. But I don’t see how this is one of those times. I do not see how any of these candidates for president are worthy of my vote. I cannot stand before God and justify voting for any of them.
That this is so should not surprise us. The people of the nations are most often out for themselves; aiming for power, and greed, and their own self-interest. It is a system such as this that Christians should be very careful about participating in (yes, I am voting for many measures and even some candidates this year: just not for a presidential candidate). Our caution is part of the exhortation to be in the world but not of it!
Now it is true that when this election is over it will be my Christian duty to pray for and submit to their leadership. I will not be a disgruntled citizen who gripes and complains at their poor leadership. I already suspect that they will be poor leaders—though I do think they will do some good also.
Bottom line: the focus for the Church is on the Kingdom of God. This kingdom comes through the sacrificial love of God’s people. It does not and will not come through secular politics. It is the failure to realize this that I believe is causing most of the problems in the Church today.
Genesis 24 recounts the story of Abraham sending one of his servants to his father’s household in Haran to find a wife for Isaac. The servant determined that he would put a test to discern what woman the Lord has chosen for Isaac. He would ask for a drink from the well and whichever young woman not only offered him a drink, but also agreed to water his camels would be the one.
Many read this and conclude that the servant was putting a character test. Which woman was hospitable and kind would be the one. There seems to be nothing extraordinary to this test.
Oh contraire mi amigo!
Though it was indeed customary to offer a stranger water from the town well, it was by no means customary to offer to water his camels. After all, the servant had 10 of them (Gen 24:10). Seeing that a camel who has not had a drink for a few days can consume as much as 25 gallons of water, and that a common water jar, like the one Rebekah would have had, would hold approximately 3 gallons of water, this request is completely unreasonable. In order to water the camels also Rebekah would have had to draw water from this well 80-100 times!
God’s blessing or judgment on our country?
We are hearing all kinds of rhetoric regarding the potential for God’s curse to be upon our country if the election turns a certain way. This nonsense is radically unbiblical. Let me explain:
1)The nature of God’s blessing is primarily covenantal.
Throughout Scripture God makes a covenant (an agreement) with a people. The stipulations of the covenant include blessings or curses. What is essential to understand for our sakes is that the covenant, and its promise of blessings and curses, are for the people of the covenant—that is, God’s people.
If we are faithful we will experience God’s blessings (which in the New Testament are found in the beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23); and if we are not faithful we will experience God curses (Luke 6:24-26).
2)People of the covenant are independent of the nations
The people of God today—those who are in covenant with God—are not and cannot be identified with any nation. The people of God are in many nations. But no one nation (e.g., America) is to be identified with the covenant people.
The covenant people of God are those who follow Christ. Christ followers live in many nations of the world and no one nation is exclusively Christian. (That means that the US has never been and never will be a “Christian nation”)
Now, it is true that in the time before Jesus the covenant people were restricted to the nation of Israel. But such is not true today.
This means that the promise of blessings or the threat of curses do not and cannot apply to any nation. To say, then, that America will be blessed if we vote on way and cursed if we vote another is simply not true!
3)What about all those nations that elect corrupt leaders?
Consider this: There are many countries in the world that have elected people far worse than our present candidates. Why don’t we go about warning those countries that they are in danger of God’s judgment?
To this someone might reply: that America is in danger because we are/were a Christian nation and that because we have fallen God is bringing/will bring judgment on America. Sorry this cannot be justified from a biblical perspective. It is simply not true.
4)The nations will face judgment
It is true that the nations of the world will face judgment in the end. They are not judged, however, because they made unchristian laws or elected the wrong person as president.
The judgment of the nations is founded upon one thing: how they have treated the people of God (cf Matt 25:31-46).
If you want the nation you live in to be blessed, then be faithful
To claim then that this or any election is vital for our nation is seriously in error. What is vital is that the people of God are faithful to His mission! That we, the Church, are Jesus to the world. That we are shining the light of Christ to the nations.
If we want the nation that we live in to be blessed, then be faithful. After all, politics always flows downstream from culture! Want to affect politics, then change the culture!
But note: we cannot change the culture through legislation. We change the culture one heart at a time; and this begins with ourselves!
I hear it too much—then again for me, hearing it once is too much!—“God is more concerned with doing His Word, than with knowing His word.” This one really bothers me. After all, this thinking is not simply counter to all of Scripture, it is actually quite dangerous.
One of the most commonly asserted arguments in defense of the position that we should focus on the heart over the head is that the Bible says, “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor 8:1). (I heard this twice within the last week and one time it was from one of the most prominent leaders in evangelicalism).
Before responding to the argument from 1 Cor 8:1, let me ask if anyone sees the irony here? The argument is essentially quoting Scripture to argue that it is more important to do Scripture than to know it. They are asserting a certain knowledge of Scripture to condemn knowledge.
What was Paul saying?
The problem with this understanding of 1 Cor 8:1 begins with the fact that Paul was not saying that knowledge by itself was bad. Paul was condemning those who claimed to have knowledge, but had no love! Such knowledge, he argued, was worthless. Paul in no way says that knowledge was worthless: only that knowledge without love was worthless. After all, to say that knowledge was worthless would be a self-refuting statement.
In addition, this argument from 1 Cor 8:1 fails to account for the multitude of places that Paul elevates knowledge as the core of Christian living. Romans 12:1-2 says that we must renew our minds so that we can test God’s will. We really could go on and quote hundreds of Scriptures to support the primacy of the mind in Christian living. Foremost among them is John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
Allow me to cite one more to bolster this argument. Paul says,
I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead
Biblical Story is bringing the knowledge of God to the nations
The whole narrative of Scripture is aimed at bringing the knowledge of God to the nations! Exodus 6-9 repeatedly states that God’s actions through Moses were aimed at bringing the knowledge of God to Moses, the Israelites, Pharaoh, Egypt, and the nations. Failing to know God is the whole point of the biblical story!
When we reach the New Testament we learn that the heart of Christian Gospel is the fact that Jesus has come to make God known (John 1:18)! What the Old Testament anticipated, that God would be made known, has been fulfilled in Jesus.
This is evident in the dialogue between Jesus and His disciples in John 14:7-9 “‘If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.’ Philip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father?’’”
Jesus is God made known.
Another problem with the idea that we can separate the head and the heart is that this thinking derives from an Enlightenment worldview that is radically foreign to the Scriptures.
It is an Enlightenment worldview that sets forth a radical distinction between heaven and earth and the spiritual and the physical. Neither Jesus, nor Paul would have ever conceived of such a distinction. Jesus, in fact, said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).
When Paul rebukes the Corinthians for failing to love he was contending that their knowledge was not really true knowledge. If it were true knowledge, then it would have had love!
Satan is the deceiver
To contend that it is more important to love God than to know God is also quite dangerous. Scripture is replete with warnings to “examine everything carefully” (1 Thess 5:21), “watch out for false prophets” (Matt 7:15; cf Matt 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26).
Those who undermine the role of knowledge in the Church are opening the door for deception: which just so happens to be the primary weapon of the devil (cf Rev 12:9).
Furthermore, how do we distinguish the believer in Christ who does good works from any other religious person who does good works? The answer is that the Christians knows Christ! The Christian is being obedient to Christ. Knowing Christ, knowing Scripture, and knowing truth are essential to living out the Christian life. This is why Jesus said, “You will know the truth and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).
In conclusion, allow me to reiterate. It is impossible to have heart knowledge without a head knowledge. Certainly, one can have a head knowledge that doesn’t translate to the heart. That is, in fact, what Paul was condemning in 1 Cor 8:1. But you cannot have heart knowledge without head knowledge. To claim to do so is treacherous. It leaves the person susceptible to all kinds of dangers and deceptions.
I find it quite interesting that neither Jesus, Paul, nor any other author of the NT addressed Jewish or Roman politics. They didn’t address slavery—there were millions of slaves throughout the empire—nor Roman militarism, nor the many other ills that proliferated throughout the Roman world.
Now one can make the argument that Christians in the US have a different role because we live in a democracy. Certainly, living in a democracy carries with it the responsibility to participate in the political system.
One of the problems I see rising with regard to evangelicalism and politics has been the failure to properly distinguish between the church and the nation. It seems as though many within evangelicalism are convinced that it is necessary to impose Christian laws on the nation. For many, the reasoning is that Christian laws make for a better nation. And though I am certainly inclined to agree with this, my question is whether or not this is the role of the Church?
Is it the job of the Church to make sure the nation has good laws?
I see several weaknesses and unintended consequences that call into question this approach.
First, the people of God need to rise up and follow the law of love, which is THE law for the Church, well ourselves before we seek to legislate it on others. In fact, demanding that others obey what we ourselves do not is the essence of hypocrisy.
Secondly, imposing Christian laws does not address the issues of the heart. And it is the heart that matters. Having godly laws with uncircumcised hearts didn’t do the Israelites any good. Why should we expect things to be different today?
Thirdly, such efforts are more and more impacting our Christian witness in a negative way. Why is it that many Christians are surprised when non-Christians reject Christian laws? After all, if they don’t believe in God, or if they just don’t wish to follow Him, then why should we expect that they would want to follow God’s laws?
This is key. The fact that they have rejected God’s laws and often God Himself means that our efforts to impose such laws on them will often result in a further alienation of individuals from Christ.
This is one of those unintended consequences I was speaking about. The effort to impose Christian laws on a secular society is often received by that society as an attack. It is perceived as an attack on their freedoms; an attack on their convictions; and sometimes an attack on themselves personally. The end result is a further alienation of such people from Christ!
Such efforts have placed our civil responsibilities above our kingdom responsibilities.
Our goal is not to make a Christian nation. Our goal is to reflect Christ to the world in such a way that the world is attracted to Him! If our efforts to impose Christian laws on a society have a negative impact on our witness, then we should discard such efforts.
Now I am not saying that our intentions aren’t good; or that such laws are not good. But if the end result is detrimental to the cause of the kingdom, then we must abandon ship!
Is the Church called to be agents of social change?
Yes, but not by forcing such change on the state. Our means of affecting social change is first by living it out ourselves—regardless of the laws. This is how the early church overthrew Rome.
Finally, many Christians are operating from the perspective that our responsibility is merely to present the Gospel. That is, we are responsible for what we say and not what others hear. But if love is our over-arching ethic, then we must care how others are hearing our presentation of the Gospel. Now, certainly, we cannot control this at all times. But we do bear some measure of burden to communicate and express ourselves in love.
“But, God’s laws are good for society!”
I would agree. But we live in a democracy (a democratic-republic) and the nature of such is that people have the right to vote and decide what they want. We can try to influence their vote. That is true. But we must do so in a way that respects them and their vote!
This, I fear, has not been done well by the Church in recent years.
The Church must proclaim the Gospel in a manner that is relevant and palatable to the culture. Preachers should always speak against injustice. They should exhort the Church to be the people of God in the midst of injustice. This is the Gospel facing culture! We should raise up our congregations to advocate for those who are suffering oppression.
Many Christians are convinced that our country is going downhill and going there fast! This great nation is in decline. Election day is viewed by many as the means of reversing this trend. Folks, election day is not the day to reverse this trend. Every day is. Every day is another chance for us to reflect Jesus to the world. Only He can change hearts!
“They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” (John 17:16).
One of the problems that I see for the Church with regard to politics is the failure to grasp clearly the fundamental distinction that Jesus makes in John 17:16. The Church is in the world, but not of it. The Church is to reach the world and claim it for Christ, yet we have been rescued from the world.
Of course, this verse has been abused by the incursion of secular thinking that proposes the Jesus is saying we are to dwell in the spiritual realm and not in the physical. Time will not allow me to delve into the multitude of errors that come from this thinking. Simply put, Jesus is not telling us to escape the world as though it has nothing to offer. Instead, He is asserting that the people of God, as members of His kingdom, are to stand in distinction from the kingdom of the world. For, as John writes, “The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17). The kingdom of God aims to redeem the world and claim it for Him. We do so neither by discarding the world, nor by imposing Christianity on it.
Missions of the Church and the State are Never the Same
It is essential to understand that the mission of the Church and the mission of a nation are never the same. The mission of the Church is to make Christ known; to proclaim Him as Lord! We do so both by loving one another and our neighbor as ourselves. This mission is one of great risk—as any study of Church history will show. That is, we do so knowing that it may cost us our freedoms, our jobs, and possibly our lives.
The mission of the nations may reflect some aspects of the Christian mission—depending on the nation and how much influence the Church has been able to have. But the mission of the nation will always transcend the mission of the Church. After all, they exist with fundamentally different goals: while the Church exists to make Christ known, the state exists to protect its people and to ensure their safety and well-being.
To put it another way: the Church’s main task is to be the means through which God brings the nations to Christ: to make known to them that there is one true Lord, one true King. The nation aims to maintain its own sovereignty and to protect its citizens at all times. There is, therefore, a fundamental tension between the Church and the nations.
Efforts to Legislate Christianity Inevitably Fail
We must also recognize that the mission of the Church is not to impose Christianity upon the state Christian. Now on the surface this might seem as something good. History, however, shows that efforts to legislate Christianity always leads to the Church’s demise. Attempts to impose Christian laws on a secular society inevitably drive people away from Christ. Os Guinness in his book The Call notes, “There is a direct and unarguable relationship between the degree of the church’s politicization in a culture and the degree of the church’s rejection by that culture” (168). This is of grave significance. Since our mission is to make God known to the nations for the purpose of their redemption, it is imperative that we do so in such a way that people come to Christ.
In other words, the Church must understand that although the imposition of Christian laws upon a nation may temporarily have good results—including the benefits to the people of God themselves who prosper from living under such laws—the net result is consistently detrimental to the mission of God’s people.
What Then Shall We Do?
How then should the people of God relate to the state? This is not an easy question. I would begin by noting that the fundamental mission of the Church is to work to change the hearts of the people. We know that if the hearts of the people are changed, then the laws of the land will change.
But honestly we shouldn’t care so much about the laws of the land. We should care primarily about the Kingdom of God. Don’t take me wrong here. It is great to live in a country where the laws are good and just. But a country with good and just laws where no one knows Christ is not better than living in a brutal dictatorship with no freedoms and a thriving Church!
Does this means that the Church is only to worry about spiritual things and leave political matters alone? By no means! Never. The Gospel does not work like this. It means that we should we focus on transforming people and not the state. The transformation of the state will happen only when the people have been transformed. To aim to transform the state without addressing the hearts of the people is to put the proverbial cart-before-the-horse. And the result in inevitable: neither is transformed. In fact, as noted earlier, the Church dies in such nations.
The Church and Politics
During this election year I think it is important for you to know who I am voting for. I am voting for (sorry I ran out of ink just then)
Okay, I have been thinking about how to address such issues at the Church. I know some of you want to hear more on this topic from me. And I agree that such a discussion is very relevant in the world we live in. I. also, agree that it is important that the Gospel is made relevant to the world we live in. That is the job of a pastor.
Before addressing the issue of politics in the Church today let me note something of great importance. I have been preaching politics since day one. After all, the Gospel is intensely political! The politics of Jesus are, however, even for a Christianized western world, highly countercultural. As a result, the politics of Jesus, don’t look like the politics of our world. So perhaps some of you might be thinking that I haven’t addressed politics. But I have. Well sorta. I think it is imperative that we come to terms with and grasp the significance of Jesus’ politics before we can take on the political world of our day.
The politics of Jesus are focused on His kingdom. Yes, they have significant implications for the kingdoms of the world also. The Church, however, needs to grapple with and dwell in the politics of Jesus before we get too wrapped up in the politics of this world. This, in fact, is where I think the Church is erring greatly today. The Gospel transcends politics. The Gospel gives us a framework for understanding the world and the things in it. But God’s kingdom is not of this world. Christ is the King of Kings. And someday every king and every nation will bow before the True King.
As for politics and the Church today, let me provide some opening thoughts.
First, politics in the contemporary world are often too loaded. Many Christians have political convictions that are too closely tied to their conception of the Gospel. We must be careful here. Jesus clearly distinguishes His kingdom from the kingdoms of the world (cf John 18:36). Because some in the church today adhere to these strong convictions, pastors need to be cautious. After all, dissenting from their positions will only upset some. This does not mean that we can’t talk politics in the Church. We need to. After all, the Gospel must be made relevant to the present day. I am just saying that we must be careful in doing so. In fact, I think that such conversations are better reserved for a classroom—where a conversation can take place—than from a pulpit.
Secondly, preachers have to be careful with what comes out of the pulpit. The pulpit is a place of great authority in the Church today. Sometimes too much authority. Pastors must choose their words carefully.
Thirdly, the job of the preacher is to teach the Word. In teaching the Word we are to exhort and encourage God’s people to be God’s people. Indeed part of being God’s people is to shine the light of Christ in the world and to the world. As a result, the Gospel has to be made relevant to the world. But, we must note that neither Jesus nor Paul addressed matters of Roman political, economic, or social policies head on. They never condemned slavery, for example, which was excessive to say the least in the Roman world. What they did address was how the Church was to be the Church in the midst of Rome. Thus, slaves are to obey their masters and masters are not to be harsh towards their slaves (which, by the way, is a statement that undermines slavery. After all, being harsh with a slave was a means of keeping all one’s slaves in check). What Jesus and Paul then do is address how Christians are to think and behave in the midst of culture. We find that when Christians follow the way of Christ they end up undermining culture. Jesus was not concerned so much with how we vote. He was concerned with who we are. The preachers job is to help the church become the people that Christ wants us to be. Once that happens, how we vote should take care of itself.
Fourthly, we must recognize that inside and outside the body of Christ are people of diverse convictions. To trumpet a political agenda from the pulpit may result in ostracizing many. Preachers must be careful about drawing lines in the sand that result in some feeling as though they are out and not welcome because their political views dissent from the establishment. Such preaching may even result in non-Christians rejecting the Gospel because they don’t agree with the pastor. Many non-Christians reject the Gospel because they think there is no room for them and their political views in the Church. For someone to reject Jesus because they do not agree with the preachers political agenda is a shame. Paul said he became all things to all men that he might win the more (1 Corinthians 9:22). If the preachers political convictions might cause someone to reject the Gospel, then the preacher should save those convictions for an occasion in which a discussion can take place. The pulpit just doesn’t allow for discussions.
I would like to reiterate that my blog and facebook blog posts are intended to address Christians. My tag line is “Challenging the Church to be the Church.”
In recent weeks I have posted a number of comments on my facebook blog page about the refugee crisis. I am somewhat grieved by the Christians who are contentious on this matter. One of the primary mistakes people are making in their responses is the failure to divorce their responsibilities as Christians from their nations concerns.
One person honestly asked about the need to balance the love of Christ with the need for security. Here is my response:
My response is not just for you but for the many who might read this. I would simply say that sometimes the balance you ask about involves a risk. Though I personally don't think that part of the equation (the risk issue) is our (i.e., the Church’s) responsibility. Our job is to love like Jesus. The nation’s job is to maintain national security. And the US has one of the most extensive vetting processes already in place. But if they choose to close the borders because Christians are telling them to do so, then we have a problem.
Christians should be advocating love towards everyone! Period. Sure, we all take the personal responsibility to lock our doors, etc. But to shut them and not let them in: ever?
The entire Bible (OT/NT) is a story about refugee people! We are “strangers and exiles on the earth” (Heb 11:13). Jesus told parables about welcoming the refugees. He says, "I was a stranger and you let me in" (Matt 25:35). Jesus Himself was a refugee—remember the Christmas story how they fled to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill Him? The early Christians were refugees after Saul began to hunt them down. Christians over the centuries have been refugees!
So, where is the Church now? Are we hiding behind our western comforts? Sleeping in warm beds and homes while our brothers and sisters are struggling to survive? Are we content and well fed while our brothers and sisters go hungry? Are we amusing ourselves with all the luxuries of the western world, while our brothers and sisters flee? I could go on for a long while with Scripture after Scripture (OT and NT) that commands that we take them in! Love our neighbor; love the alien within our midst; They will know we are Christians by our love; etc. Why are we as Christians more concerned about political argumentation and our nation’s self-interest than we are our responsibilities toward the refugee?
(Note: I am not saying that we don't have the responsibility to our families and our neighbors to be wise. Neither am I saying that a nation shouldn’t do what is right for its national interests. Nor, am I saying that nations do not have the responsibility to protect its citizens. In fact, I am not addressing how a nation responds!)
Instead, I am speaking as a pastor and a leader in the Church. I am speaking as a scholar and a teacher. I think I know the Word a little. And the Scriptures I read are unambiguous on this one. What I am saying, then, is that for the Church the command to love trumps these in times like this. Love the Refugee. “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Heb 13:2).
Lord, Jesus, have mercy on your Church, that we might give mercy to the world.
“Seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry” (Psalm 34:14b-15)
My heart is broken.
I just returned from a dynamic conference hosted by the Telos Group in Wash DC focusing on bringing peace to the Middle East and the Holy Land in particular. The platform of Telos is to be Pro-Israeli, Pro-Palestinian, and Pro-peace. The gathering was of high-powered religious and political leaders from around the world along with social activists and human rights leaders.
During the three days we heard the heroic stories of the likes of Jeremy and Jessica Courtney who are risking their lives to bring life-saving heart surgeries to the children of Iraq. We listened to the cries for peace from Daoud Nassar, Roni Keidar, and Jamal Shehade; a Palestinian, an Israeli, and an Arab-Israeli who live out this conflict as a part of their daily lives and work tirelessly to promote peace across borders. We were inspired by the transformative work of Rev. Traci Blackmon who was instrumental in bringing diverse groups together to work for peace in Ferguson, Missouri. And we were briefed by high level world leaders on the status of peace in the Holy Land.
And my heart was broken.
My heart was broken because despite all the efforts of these dynamic people to work for peace, peace has not merely alluded us; it has fled. While families on both sides of this conflict, who want nothing more than what we have—namely, peace, safety, and opportunities of education, employment, and hope for their children—continue to struggle for daily subsistence, the powers that be continue to be thwarted when it comes to brokering peace.
My heart was broken because we were made all too aware that the sun is setting on the prospects of peace—in fact, it may have already set. And when peace fades, hope will soon follow.
My heart was broken because as I sat there those three days I knew deep within that this conflict has been exacerbated by the theological views of some within the western evangelical church.
My heart is broken because I know that a major step in bringing peace is to awaken the evangelical church and I worry that there is simply not enough time to arouse this sleeping giant. The fact is that the conditions on the ground are beyond desperate. When you remove the prospects of peace from this tinder box, and with it hope, the likelihood of an increase in violence, which tragically has already begun, increases exponentially.
The Role of the Evangelical Church
The evangelical church acknowledges that Jesus is the prince of peace. It affirms a call to advocate for justice and to love their enemies. At the same time, among some segments of evangelicalism, there is a running eschatological (“end times”) conviction, which has gained widespread traction, that actually promotes conflict in Middle East. They consider such conflict as evidence of the imminent return of Jesus. As a result, when it comes to peace in the Holy Land, many become apathetic.
“Why work for peace in the Middle East when the Bible says it won’t happen.” “Only the return of Jesus can end this conflict.” “The Bible says that there will be ‘wars and rumors of wars’ and that ‘such things must happen.’” From popular proponents like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, this rhetoric tragically pervades many communities within the evangelical world.
So, as I sat through session after session in DC, my heart was broken. I met people from both sides of this dreadful conflict who desperately want peace. And, yet I knew that one of the most significant obstacles for the peace that they so desperately need lies in the hands of the evangelical church.
(some of you may wonder what I mean by this comment, or question it outright. Simply put, politics always flows downstream from culture. I have attended a number of Congressional dinners as part of these conferences in Washington DC. Every time the congressmen who come let it be known that they cannot flow against the current of culture which staunchly advocate for one side and against the other in this conflict. It is not just that these political figures want to keep their jobs. They are often acting from a genuine sense of duty and a responsibility to be faithful to their constituents. As a result, if a large percentage of the voters who elected them favor one side over against another in the Holy Land, then their hands are somewhat tied.)
God causes the growth
So, is there any hope? Not as far as we can tell. The desperate situation on the ground appears to have moved beyond a political resolution.
But, then, I am reminded of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth” (1 Cor 3:6).
Maybe we are to continue to press forward all the while clinging to this truth. After all, He is the One who is building His church. He is the One who is the Prince of Peace.
So, I ask you to join with me in pressing forward and pursuing the peace that Christ calls us to. As the Psalmist says, “Seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry” (Psalm 34:14b-15).
You can begin by gaining an understanding of this conflict and the role of God’s people in bringing justice and crying out for the oppressed. For the sake of those on both sides, let us help to wake up the Church.
Blood Brothers, by Elias Chacour
Understanding Eschatology, by Rob Dalrymple
These Brothers of Mine: A Biblical Theology of Land and Family and a Response to Christian Zionism, by Rob Dalrymple
Revelation is arguably one of the greatest pieces of literature in the history of the world and certainly one of the great books within the Bible. Unfortunately, for many the book of Revelation remains a mystery, which few dare to explore. Ironically, the book opens with a blessing for its reader, hearers, and keepers (Rev 1:3). Which raises the question: How can one be blessed by reading a book that no one seems to understand?
This question troubled me for some time. For many years I concluded that Revelation was a mystery that would only be solved after everything was over. Therefore, I didn’t read it or pay attention to it.
Now you must understand that in my younger days I was fascinated with the ‘end-times’ and all of the hype that goes along with it. I grew up in the 70’s (I was born in 666; no really, June of 1966) when the fascination with world events and the apparent fulfillment of everything was right at the door. I read dozens of books as a youth and sought to inquire into the fulfillment of the book of Revelation and the end-times sermons of Jesus. I even spent hours in local library one day to determine if there was an increase in the number and frequency of earthquakes in the last century: after all, that would have been a clear sign of the imminent return of Christ.
Problems began to surface for me along two lines. First, I began to conclude that there were tremendous disagreements among the popular writers over the meaning of Revelation. And I felt uneasy in my heart as a grappled with these things. Who should I trust? I grew less and less confident in what I was reading, hearing, and believing.
The second problem was that by the mid-1980’s many of the prophecies that I had been confident were being fulfilled among us never seemed to actually come to pass. By the time 1989 came around, I was totally disillusioned. The Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell.
The problem was more than just certain prophecies were not being fulfilled as I had come to expect. The problem was that things were moving in the opposite direction. The Soviets were not about to invade the Middle East and start Armageddon as I was assured would happen. They were suddenly more concerned with feeding their own people than with starting a war.
It was in this mild state of disillusionment, that I came to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was a mystery not to be understand by mortal man. I decided that the book of Revelation needed a blank page before it (similar to what one typically finds between the end of Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament—OT) and the beginning of Matthew (the first book of the New Testament—NT). This blank page needed to read: Do Not Trespass.
My own conviction was, why bother?: no one can understand the book.
Mind you that my convictions about not reading or being able to understand the book of Revelation didn’t sit comfortably with me. For I knew that Scripture promises that all of it, which had to include the book of Revelation, was “profitable for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). And I knew that Revelation opens with a promise of blessing for its readers, hearers, and keepers (Rev 1:3). Somehow this book was meant to be read, studied, and used by the Church. Yet, it made no sense!
The Lord, of course, has a way of messing with us. He knew I had a passion for Scripture. And here I was so disillusioned with the book of Revelation things that I wasn’t even willing to study the book anymore.
Within a few years I found myself pursuing my passion as a student of Scripture. And I was forced back into a study of the book of Revelation. After all, one cannot prepare to be a professor of the NT and somehow act as though there were only 26 books in it!
I began my studies of Revelation by consulting several volumes within some standard, trustworthy, evangelical commentaries. I had utilized volumes in these series for other books of the NT, so I determined that this might be a good place to start.
It didn’t take long to fall in love with its message. This book is awesome! I quickly learned that there was actually significant agreement among scholars as to what the book of Revelation meant. Now they certainly do not agree on all the details, but overall there is tremendous unity on the core of the message.
Most importantly, the book of Revelation was beginning to make sense. Simply put, the book of Revelation serves as a climax to the entire Biblical story. It message is simple: it is “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1). The message is that Jesus Christ, the Lion, has “overcome” (Rev 5:5). And, what this means for you and me is of great importance!
So I just finished a weekly ritual of reading some interesting blogs. I don’t read many. But I do find a few of interest.
One blog was talking about abortions in countries outside the US. It seems as though many countries have far more restrictive laws than the US. Interesting.
Another blog, which was very well written, was discussing the need for the Church to be a source of truth and love. The author noted that when we do one without the other it does more harm than good.
Unfortunately, the Church has not done this very well. As a result many are abandoning the Church.
You should know by now if you have read any of my writings that I am deeply committed to the Church. I have been thinking about the Church for some time. How can we save it? For many the church is beyond saving. There is, in fact, a significant movement among younger Christians to love Jesus, but to abandon the Church.
I can hear Jesus screaming: YOU CANT DO THAT!
The Church is the body of Christ on the earth (something we will see clearly in our study of 1st Corinthians this Fall). As Christians, we are privileged to know the Truth (capital “T” because it is both a noun that refers to something that corresponds to reality—i.e., it is ‘true’—and it is a Person: Christ!).
But beyond just knowing the Truth, we have been commanded to make the Truth known! And we are to do so by manifesting love to one another and to the world.
This is where the difficulty arises. This delicate balance of truth and love is hard to maintain. How do we speak truth and, yet, do so in love? Let me suggest a couple of thoughts:
Love comes before Truth
First, Love is relational. The biblical story tells us that we were created to be in community: “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).
Relationships are such that the deeper they are the more transparent they become. A stranger probably won’t tell us we have a coffee stain on our shirt. But someone close to you might point it out to help cover the embarrassment (kind of like how everyone says, “great message pastor” after the service; but later those close to you tell you the truth! This, of course, never happens to me; but I have heard from other preachers that it happens to them!). The fact is we don’t usually take advice on how to live from strangers.
The Church can learn from this. We must learn to establish relationships with people first. As we develop those relationships with people we earn the right to speak into their lives. Then, since we have a relationship with them, we will be more likely to speak into their lives out of love.
After all, Love comes before truth.
We will never be perfect at it!
Second, we must also understand the fact that we will never be perfect at balancing love and truth. It is important, then, that when we fail, we own it. Admit our failures. Apologize. Seek forgiveness. It is here that we need each other to come alongside us and pick us up: to help us see the error for what it is.
I think people will respect this. They will be drawn to the truth when we lovingly live it out in our lives with humility.
Allow others to be people too
Third, if we aren’t perfect then why should we demand that others must be? Sometimes the Church has been the place where everyone who enters is judged. Do they have the right clothes on? Do they look respectable? Do they believe the right things?
But what if the church became a place where people who are hurting can find refuge? Where they can come and be loved? Where they can learn to love Jesus over time? As one scholar put it, “Is the Church a museum for saints or a school for sinners?”
You see, people know they are not perfect. And if they think they need to be perfect to be a part of the Church they will flee. But, when they see that we are all broken people who have been rescued by the Savior, they may run to Him with us.
Now I am not in the least suggesting that we suspend truth. No, they need the truth also. But sometimes they just need a hug, or a warm meal, or a place of refuge. We will give them the truth too. But maybe the best truth we can give them is to show them the love that Jesus showed us. Cause as far as I understand, Rom 5:8 is true for every one of us: “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
I often hear people say that they want a class on how to share their faith with others. I understand fully this desire. Many Christians want to share their faith but are afraid to do so. Some are uncertain because they don’t think they have they know enough. Others are uncertain because they think they do not know how to do so. The fact is that we will never know enough and that there is no perfect way to do it. We just need to get out there and tell the world about Jesus.
Now, if anyone says to you, “here are the 10 keys to effective evangelism,” or, “use these effective strategies for guaranteed conversions”, or, “win them over with this irresistible trick,” be cautious. They may well have good insights. But no one has the corner on “sharing the Gospel with success.”
When we think about it, our theology tells us that those who come to Christ are called by Christ. This means that there is no way we can be certain that our “secrets” to sharing Christ will ultimately lead anyone to faith. No matter how good our presentation was. If they are not called by God, they will not repent.
At the same time, however, we can go about it the wrong way. So, here are some thoughts on how we might share the Gospel more effectively.
Pray for them
Really, truly, deeply, and consistently pray for them. We believe that it is only God who changes the heart! God is the one who calls! God is the one who saves! Prayer helps us see things the way that God sees them.
In addition, our motives and ego can so easily get in the way. So pray for ourselves also. That the Light of Christ might shine through us to them despite our sinfulness!
Just be real with people. Love them. Care for them. Come alongside them. And live Jesus before them.
Love them for who they are. Don’t try to fix them. Don’t assume that they have to become like us to be saved! Sure, we hope that they will become more like Jesus each day. But, that is not a pre-requisite to being saved either! Being saved starts with recognizing that I am not like Jesus! I am a sinner. I need Jesus to change me!
Being real with people also means that we admit our faults and weaknesses. We believe that we are not perfect; so don’t pretend to be.
What to do next!
Invite them to Church or a Church event. Don’t worry if they say no. Just keep looking for ways to integrate them into your community. Allow them to journey to Christ.
Sure, some people have an experience in which they accept Christ. Some of us can name the day and time and place in which it happened. Others cannot. They just know that previously they were not a Christian and now they are. When that change took place, they do not know.
I remember a time when I was sharing the Gospel with someone. We met weekly and just read the Gospel of Matthew together. Sometimes we would discuss what we read. Sometimes we just kept reading. About 8 months later I asked, “why don’t you get baptized?” He was startled. The reality, however, was that sometime during the previous 8 months he had become a Christian. He had gone from just reading and inquiring to believing and desiring. I could see the change. I don’t know when it happened. Neither did he.
Within a month, I had the pleasure of baptizing him!
An important part of loving people and sharing Christ with them is to ask them questions. Find out who they are.
As people talk they will let you know how they are struggling; what they are looking for. You will find that be listening to them you will learn easy entry points to bring Jesus into the conversation and into their lives.
Sometimes they will be closed to the Gospel. That is important to know! Give them time. Sharing the Gospel too forthrightly with such persons will only cause them to repel further. Just love them. Be there for them. Model Christ for them. Perhaps, on occasion you can insert the Gospel ever so gently into a conversation and then let it go. If it is received, perhaps it will be a seed that germinates over time. Later, you can tell them more.
Others may be struggling with something. Perhaps it is a loss that they cannot comprehend. They cannot accept Jesus because it doesn’t make sense how God could have allowed this to happen. By asking questions you will find this out and learn how to bring the Gospel to them personally.
Share your story
This is crucial. You may not think you have a story, but you do. Sharing your story let’s people know that you are real too. You have struggled with growing up in a broken family; or suffering a divorce; or the loss of a loved one. Let them know that you are just another person. You have struggles. Life is not perfect for you either.
Some people have this conception that they have to have it all together before they can become a Christian. The problem is accentuated when Christians pretend that they have it all together. We, for some reason, think we are supposed to let people know how great our life in Christ is. The result is that people are distanced from Christ because they think they will never have it all together!
So, to the Church I exclaim: “be real with people.” Don’t put on a face of something you are not. Sure, Christ has made my life infinitely better. But my life is still full of gaffs and blunders.
In hearing your story, people might come to find that there is hope for them too. If God can save people like us, then He can and will do so for them!
For some reason we Christians think that we not only have to our life perfectly together but that we have to know everything. We don’t know everything. And no one expects that we do!
So, be ready to answer people’s questions. But not with this supposed “I know it all” mentality. In fact, one of the best answers we can give is: “I don’t know.” Now this answer should be immediately followed by, “but let me find out.” Then go and find out and come back soon and let them know what you learned.
Also, in answering people’s questions, acknowledge them as good questions. What might seem as a simple question for you, might be the basis for a real struggle for someone else.
The fact is that I struggle with the problem of evil and suffering too. I don’t know why, or even pretend to understand why, God allows 25,000 people to die each day from starvation.
I do know this though. That God has done and is doing something about it! The beauty of the Gospel is that, though evil and suffering is the result of the mess that we made of this world, God has entered into our mess by sending His Son that we might live. This is it. I don’t get it. I don’t understand why there is so much evil in this world. But, I do get the fact that God has done something about it! My son lives because God’s Son died! There is no greater comfort to a grieving parent than that!
Let the Light of the Gospel Shine Forth in Our Lives as we Love One Another
Finally, we need to do a better job of loving each other! Jesus said that this is how they will know that we are Christians!
What do you do when your pastor says something you don’t want to hear?
I don’t know if you are all like me, but I can’t really think of anything wrong in my life. No real sins that I am dealing with. My moral, theological, and political views are all in line with Jesus’. So, if a pastor has something to say to me during a weekend service that I disagree with, then it must be that he/she is mistaken.
Seriously though, what should we do when a pastor says something we don’t want to hear? Leave! Go to another church. (I am being facetious, of course. I hate the notion of church shopping and I am frustrated with how easily people leave one church and head to another)
Okay, in all seriousness (mind you that is hard for me), we all have issues! The simple fact is that from time to time the Word proclaimed should ruffle my feathers! I should be convicted in my heart. How about if I say it this way: If the preacher does not get under my skin at times, then I dare say that he/she is not preaching the Word!
I expect the preacher to say things I don’t agree with.
The simple fact is that we don’t all agree! So what if he/she expresses his/her opinion on a matter and it happens to conflict with what I think? This should be fine. We can all learn from each other. I may not be convinced of someone else’s opinion, but what is wrong with hearing the other side?
Nothing is wrong with it! In fact, hearing opposing viewpoints is often critical in fostering understanding. I may not agree with you but at least I understand where you are coming from. I may not agree, but I will respect you.
But for some reason it seems as though Christians are more and more resistant to hearing differing opinions. We have always had a strain of narrow-mindedness in the Church. But today it seems even more intense. We just don’t want to hear ideas that we don’t agree with.
But, doesn’t being a Christian mean that we understand that we don’t have it all figure out?
We make it very hard on our pastors.
You need to understand that as a pastor this is hard. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to exercise caution over what not to say, what to say, and how to say it. Sure, sometimes it is important to not speak. My job is to lead the sheep; not to beat them. I am to guide them and help them along on this journey towards Christlikeness.
Now I fully respect the fact that the pulpit is not always the place to have a conversation. Some matters are simply best left for other settings—a classroom, small group, or even a private conversation.
But, sometimes I wonder if I am just a coward. Only saying what I think the people want to hear. And I hold back. I resist the opportunity to proclaim important aspects of the Gospel to the Church.
Let’s be honest that one of the reasons we pastors are afraid to speak up is that we know that when we do we will have lots of angry congregants. So it is just not worth it.
One of the best ways, however, to pursue peace and break down walls that divide us is to understand the other side. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as pastors to “preach the Word” (2 Tim 4:2).
When the pastors are afraid to dissent from the popular opinion in public,
the net result is that we become further entrenched in our convictions. As a result, we have less understanding and less chances for peace.
PS: Funny thing here: how many of you are unsure if you will read my blog anymore because I used both male and female pronouns (he/she) to refer to pastors? Here is an example in which some will decide to no longer read my blog because we don’t agree on something. Let us learn from each other even when we don’t agree!
I thought I would take on another easy question: ‘What about women in ministry?’ Admittedly, the question is multi-faceted and the issues are complex. (I recognize for some that the issues are not complex: for some the Bible says that women should not be in authority—though many define authority differently, which affirms my point that the issues are complex—and so it is black and white). The complexities include at the most basic level whether or not women can teach in the Church at all (including the teaching of children; youth; or, adults—whether that be women only, or both women and men). The issues also include whether or not women can have authority in the Church and at what level (including authority over children; youth; adults—whether it be women only, or both women and men).
Before we look at the primary biblical text in question (1 Tim 2:12-14), allow me to digress and give a brief background of my own journey with regard to these issues. I came to faith in Christ in a wonderful, but very conservative, church environment. As a result the Bible was read as very black and white (aside from the red letters of course!). The Bible lays it out very concretely—as I was taught—women cannot ‘teach or have authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12). Over the years two things began to cause me to wonder if this was not too simple. (Now I have always held a very high view of Scriptural authority, and still do).
First, I had several encounters with women in higher education. On a few occasions I had the privilege of having a female classmate during my post-graduate work. I noticed that she was much brighter and had a keener sense of Scripture than most of the men in the class. Furthermore, I found myself studying various scholarly articles and books that were written by women. I wondered to myself at the oddity of it all. These female scholars are very gifted. They are great writers and communicators. And they appear from their writings to have a deep passion for the Lord. Yet, ironically, what they write and communicate can be used to teach and train leaders and pastors, but at the same time, they themselves are not allowed to speak from a pulpit on a Sunday in many churches. This just didn’t seem to mesh for me.
A second catalytic factor that caused me to delve more deeply into the Scripture was the fact that I have clearly witnessed women in the Church who are quite gifted in a variety of ways. Some of these women are high level executives that are quite gifted at running and managing multi-million dollar corporations. Yet, many of them are suppressed in today’s churches and their voices are not heard simply because of their gender.
Now, I fully understand that this does not have to be this way. That is, women can thrive in environments in which there gifts and passions are utilized, where they are affirmed and not suppressed, and yet they are still restricted for cultural reasons from having full authority in a local church. After all, when we look at the Church of the NT we find that women held prominent roles/positions in the Church and thrived even though they were restricted from having pastoral authority: e.g., Priscilla, Pheobe, Philip’s daughters, among others. Jesus seemingly allowed women as disciples. Furthermore, women were prominent in the Gospel accounts. Etc. Yet, at the same time Paul forbade them from holding the office of ‘pastor over men’ (1 Tim 2:12). This demonstrates that women can simultaneously be used effectively and esteemed in numerous ways in the Church, all the while being withheld from holding high offices in the Church. I get that.
But, we must also acknowledge that we don’t see women at the time of Paul writing commentaries, scholarly articles, being esteemed professors, and even presidents of seminaries! So, the question remains, ‘how can we allow women to do such things in our modern academic environment and then tell that same woman that she cannot teach on Sunday?’ She can teach our emerging pastors in the colleges and seminaries Monday through Friday, but she cannot teach our congregations on Sunday. This is a fundamental difference between our setting and the setting of the NT.
You see, the irony is much deeper. Many young pastors and teachers write their messages based on outlines, lectures, etc., that they had from their time in formal education. So, if the notes that this young pastor used on a given Sunday came from a lecture that a female professor gave to him, that would be okay: as long as he gave the sermon? He can tell everyone what he learned from her, but she can’t deliver the same sermon (even though she is more qualified and perhaps more gifted to do so)?
Now, in order to gain more consistency in these matters, one option would be to eliminate women from positions in higher education. But, these women are highly qualified and quite gifted at what they do. We would be essentially asking them to not utilize gifts that God has given them. And we would be restricting in a manner in which Scripture does not forbid.
But what about Scripture? Fair enough. We still need to contend with the Scriptures. Space will not allow me to delve into all the texts, nor even every nuance of 1 Tim 2. But a good look at the primary text in question, 1 Tim 2:12-14, is necessary. Here we find the command of Paul that: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12).
Now we immediately recognize that this is not an absolute dictum forbidding all teaching activities of women for several reasons. For one, we see women doing just that throughout the NT. Priscilla is teaching Apollos in Acts 18. Philip’s four daughters are prophesying in Acts 21. And in 1 Cor 11:5, Paul stresses that women must have their heads covered when praying and prophesying in Church (note: the act of prophesying entails teaching).
Also, we must observe that the twin prohibitions of ‘teaching’ and ‘having authority’ in 1 Tim 2:12 appear to entail the primary functions of a pastor. Thus, while not absolutely forbidding a woman from teaching in every setting, Paul is forbidding them from the role of a pastor or church leader ‘over men’. This would suggest that a women preaching on a Sunday morning to the congregation may well be permitted even by Paul; for though they are performing a task that a pastor performs they are not exercising his position as pastor and leader of the flock. That is, the text forbids them from two things that together constitute the position/office of what we term ‘pastor’. This does not mean that a woman cannot perform the task of teaching—which is why we see women teaching at various times in the NT. To suggest that women cannot preach on Sunday, but yet they can present the same message to a classroom on Wednesday is quite silly. What is the difference between a woman teaching a message on a Wednesday and her giving the same message on a Sunday morning? She is performing the task but not the office of a pastor. This distinction is quite significant. Paul allowed the former and forbade the latter.
Furthermore, we should also note that Paul seemingly restricts women from having this role of authority (pastor: i.e., ‘teaching and having authority’) not absolutely, but only over ‘a man.’ For many, and I would concur, this means that women are permitted to function and serve as children’s pastors, or, even pastors of women. That this holds true finds support in Paul’s letter to Titus in which he counsels Titus on how to relate to younger and older men and women. Propriety, even in Paul’s day, suggests that women are better suited at addressing and ministering to women.
It is at this juncture that most evangelical churches would actually be in agreement with me. They have no problem with women being in authority over women and children. Some refuse to allow a woman to preach on Sunday, but, as we have shown, that does not appear to be what Paul is forbidding here. At this point, we could stop and most everyone, even the quite conservatives, will be content, though not necessarily in full agreement, with what has been said. Paul seemingly allowed women to teach in various settings and to be in authority over women and children. But, let’s look at the prohibition of women in 1 Tim 2:12-14 to see if there is more.
What we notice is that Paul’s prohibition of women from occupying the office of pastor over men is justified by Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14. Here Paul gives two reasons for his prohibition. His first justification is that Adam was formed first (2:13). This is a reference to what is called ‘primogeniture’ (basically: the order of birth or creation). Paul is saying that since Adam was first in creation, we are going to establish a rule that man is to be first in the Church. Now this appears very concrete and very conclusive. It remains true today that Adam was formed first—in fact, it will remain true forever. Therefore, Paul’s prohibition appears to be eternally validated. Thus, in order to argue that Paul’s prohibition of women being pastors over men was culturally conditioned (that is, it is not necessarily the result of absolutely binding and eternally fixed factors), one would need to contend that the law of primogeniture is not absolute.
Well, it is not. There are numerous occasions in which the one who was first was not given the privilege forever: Isaac over Ishmael; Jacob over Esau; Ephraim over Manasseh; Moses over Aaron; David is the youngest in his family, etc. Furthermore, primogeniture is culturally bound in that it was necessary to impose in a culture that was intimately tied to land transfers and the allotment of inheritance. This was important in the ancient world. For, it was necessary to pre-determine who was the inheritor of the land and such. In such cultures it was often essential to not split up the farms equally among all surviving heirs as this would have been detrimental to the long term survival of the clan. In such societies, then, it was natural to choose the oldest—since the oldest was more likely mature enough to care for the family; and younger siblings may even have been in need of care themselves. Choosing the oldest as a rule also eliminated/minimized the potential for sibling rivalry. These pragmatic factors made primogeniture a part of the fabric of the biblical world. But, as such, they do not necessarily translate to our contemporary situation. Thus, to say that Paul was saying men can be pastors and women cannot based on an absolute fact that Adam was made first, fails to recognize that it was not based on this absolute, but on a culturally accepted practice of primogeniture. Thus, for Paul, this was a valid reason. But it was a reason that was culturally conditioned. And one that does not necessarily translate into all cultures for all time.
The second reason that Paul states to justify his restriction of women from the office of pastor over men is that Eve was the one who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). Again it appears that Paul has provided for us a theologically grounded basis for his rule—the fact is that she was deceived first. Paul appears to be setting forth the fact that Eve, and the women of his day, were more susceptible to deception.
This is an important point. But, before we look at the nature of this assertion we must reflect on the fact that for Paul the pastor must keep watch over the flock. In doing so, one of the most central roles of the pastor is to watch over the teaching and beliefs of the flock and to guard them from deception (note: the devil’s name is ‘the deceiver’: this is one of his primary weapons!). Therefore, whether it is a woman, or anyone else for that matter, who are more subject to giving in to false teaching and deception, Paul lays forth an important rule that the pastor must not be one who is more susceptible to deception (I’ll return to this in a moment).
Now, we must ask why it is that Paul deemed that women are more susceptible to deception. For a while, I myself concluded that since Paul stated that women are more susceptible to deception, then it must simply be so. However, more recent studies have revealed (beyond the fact that I was naïve among other things) that there are several causes that make a person more susceptible to deception. Among these factors are such things as age (children are more easily deceived than adults), experience, intelligence, and education (the more educated the less likely to be deceived). Note that gender is not a factor! Thus, Paul was not saying that women by nature are more naturally deceived. Why then did Paul say that women are more easily deceived? Considering all the factors that contribute to a person being subject to deception, the only factor that would have been generally, and perhaps almost universally true of women at the time of Paul, is that they were not privileged to the same levels of education as men. As a result, women were, generally speaking, not qualified to serve as pastors.
But, as access to education is made more available to all, including women, then we may conclude that women may well qualify to serve as pastors over men—and many of them are quite qualified. That is why we can have women as scholars, professors, and university presidents today, yet they essentially did not serve such roles in Paul’s day. Paul wasn’t forbidding a woman who lectured on Wednesday from teaching on Sunday. The educational preparation wasn’t there. Now that it is, it stands to reason that Paul would have been willing to allow women to teach the same message on Sunday that they did on Wednesday and to allow them the authority to lead the entire church.
What does this all mean? First off, even if we take Paul’s prohibition as an absolute restriction that excludes women from the office of pastor over men, I do not see any reason why women cannot function as pastors over women and children, or why a woman cannot teach or preach. But, it also does not appear that Paul has given us a timeless edict. He has laid down a principle that cannot be ignored: namely, that whoever serves as a pastor must be educated and prepared so that they are not easily deceived. This would apply to men and women. Anyone who is not educated well enough is more subject to deception (modern studies have confirmed this to be one of the leading factors for deception among adults), and therefore should not be in the office of pastor in the Church. This corresponds with Paul’s list of qualifications in 1 Tim 3 for pastors: including the fact that they cannot be a ‘new convert’ (1 Tim 3:6) and that they must be ‘able to teach’ (1 Tim 3:2). For those who are new converts will be susceptible to deception as they are likely not educated in the teachings of the Church. And those who cannot teach means that they are not qualified with the knowledge of the Word, which also would make them more susceptible to deception.
Why stress this point? Because some of these very churches who adamantly restrict women from being pastors and teachers in the Church based on 1 Tim 2, have men in these positions who are not qualified based on the fact that they lack the education necessary to protect the flock from the deceptions of the devil. The principle, as Paul has set forth in this passage, is that anyone who is more easily deceived cannot serve as pastors and teachers over the Church. Paul simply eliminated all women because in his day they were, generally speaking, not privileged to the education necessary to qualify them for such positions. But, in chapter 3, as we have noted, when he lists the qualifications for pastors, he notes that men who are not educated (i.e., new converts and not able to teach) are similarly excluded from the office of pastor over men.
In all, women have tremendous gifts and callings from the Lord. These gifts and callings are essential to the full growth and edification of the body! It is time that we all recognize them for who they are and what they can bring to the table!
 Cf Acts 18. Note in 18:18, 26, Rom 16:13, and 2 Tim 4:19 her name precedes that of her husband suggesting strongly that she has a more prominent role. 1 Cor 16:19 is an exception where Aquila appears first, but this only makes one wonder more why Priscilla (or Prisca) is listed first in every other occasion.
 Rom 16:1 appears to call Pheobe a deaconess. Though most translations use ‘servant’ here. The calling out of Pheobe itself suggests someone of note. Grammatical considerations also lend towards her being a deacon.
 Acts 21:18-19: they are called prophetesses. One must remember that a prophet in the NT is more than one who receives oracles from the Lord. But they are often associated with teaching and exhorting. Cp Paul’s contrast of those who speak in tongues vs those who prophesy in Acts 14.
 Luke 10:39 has Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet listening to him, which is the posture of a disciple. Luke has seemingly depicted her in the role of a disciple.
 Granted that one may contend that perhaps Priscilla may have performed tasks similar to these.
 Other passages do not forbid women from being pastors. 1 Cor 14:34 is discussing abuses in term of disorderly conduct in the church and not roles and functions of authority and does not need to be discussed here.
 My own translation. The Greek is interesting here because the word order reads: “to teach women (the word ‘women’ is in the case that identifies ‘women’ as the object of the verb) I do not permit, nor to have authority over a man”. This suggests that Paul is stressing the words ‘to teach’ and the word ‘women’.
 Titus 2. Note: Paul gives no provisions for Titus on how he is supposed to counsel younger women. Presumably, because this would have been inappropriate.
 Now I am not suggesting that Paul allowed women to be pastors of women in his day because such is an anachronistic thought. It doesn’t appear that they had such roles then. I am suggesting that if Paul were here today in our contemporary western churches he would have had no problem with women being ‘leaders’ of women. You’ll see why below I refrained from using the designation ‘pastor’ here.
 The Greek of 1 Tim 2:13 begins with gar (for) which often states the reason why something is true. That is, Paul is effectively saying, ‘The reason why women cannot be pastors over men is . . . (v 13) and . . . (v 14).
OK Church, get over it. The conception that the prophets were like us. We do Bible studies on Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, and the like and we think of them as leaders among the people of God. We memorize their words. We cite them in argumentation. We paste Jer 29:11 as a tag line at the end of emails.
But folks. Though they were leaders among God’s people, the prophets were hated. They were outcasts. They were killed!
Stephen, in his debate with the religious leaders shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus states, “Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him” (Acts 7:52).
Yet we read this and assume that Stephen could not be speaking to us. He was speaking to “them” (whoever the “them” may be all we know is that it doesn’t include “us”). Ironically, most of the people to whom Stephen and the prophets were addressing didn’t think they were in the wrong either. They pointed to their fasting and giving and all things apparently religious as proof that they were on the good team. Surely, the people thought, the prophets were speaking to “them” and not “us.”
So, if the “them” back in the day thought that they were the “us”, then shouldn’t we be more cautious about assuming that we the “us” aren’t the “them”? Why should we assume that we are somehow different?
I suppose it all stems from the fact that we always assume that we are the good ones. Since the prophets were the good ones, then they must be part of us. Since the prophets were speaking to the bad ones, they must be talking to “them.”
Jesus Himself warned, “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city” (Matt 23:34). Here again, when we read Jesus, we of course assume that He was speaking to “them” and not “us.”
You see, we all know that we are in league with Jesus. So, we are part of the “us” and Jesus was definitely speaking to “them!” We may even go so far as to assume that we are the ones about whom Jesus was referring when He says that He will send prophets and wise men!
Now, I am not suggesting that we know who the “them” might be today! I just think we ought to be careful to too quickly assume that it aint us. Something I think we don’t even consider.
So, who might the “them” be? Well, if we think about it, the “them” cannot mean the secular world; the state; the people of other religions. After all, when we look at the text we realize that the “them” to whom Jesus was addressing was some of the religious leadership within Israel (the OT people of God). Does it stands to reason then that, if there is an application today, the “them” would similarly be some of the religious leadership of the church (the NT people of God)?
Ouch, that hurts. Since, I myself as a pastor would have to be considered as one who constitutes the “some” of the religious leadership of the church (the NT people of God). Of course, I am a part of the other “some.” But, no one considers themselves today to be a part of this “some.” Which means that the “some” of the religious leadership of the church (the NT people of God) today are actually “none.”
So, maybe it would be good if we regularly step back and assess our place in God’s household—without always assuming that we are the “good.” Now, I don’t say this to suggest that your salvation must be questioned regularly. Or, to have you constantly being introspective to the point that you live in fear. I am, in fact, not even speaking to you (singular), but to you (plural).
My point: as long as we assume that we are the “us” and do not allow ourselves to consider the possibility that we might be the “them”, we will never hear a prophetic message. As a result, we may well continue the pattern of shooting the messenger! Then we will indeed have become the “them”—the very “them” Jesus was warning against.
PS I chose this particular photo of a prophet to accompany this blog because the prophet here is left-handed! Like me! See, I am definitely one of the “us.”—or is it that he is like me?
Jesus is the center of the Apocalypse. Or, perhaps, it may be better stated—Christ is the Apocalypse.
The Book of Revelation opens with the words: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1).
The phrase is actually ambiguous, both in English and in the original Greek. The phrase can be understood to mean: “the revelation that is about Jesus Christ”; or, “the revelation that is from Jesus Christ.” When it comes to something like this the interpreter’s best option is to read the book and see which one makes the most sense. Is the book of Revelation about Jesus or is it from Jesus?
Even after reading the Book of Revelation, however, one is still unsure which option is best. This leads many to conclude, and probably correctly, that John was intentionally unclear and that he wanted us to understand the book of Revelation as both a revelation from Jesus Christ and one that is about Jesus Christ.
But when we say that Revelation is about Jesus what do we mean? Well, that is quite simple: it is about who He is and what He has done. Okay, but what is it that He has done?
Through the pages of the book of Revelation John highlights Jesus’ person and role in terms of three key features: 1) Jesus is God made manifest; and as such He is worthy of the worship due to God alone; 2) Jesus is the fulfiller of God’s promises in that He has accomplished the mission of God’s people; 3) Jesus, as the fulfiller of God’s mission, is the model for the people of God to emulate.
All three of these are vital and will be explored more deeply in future blogs. But for now, I will focus on one aspect of the third point. It is this third point that explains John’s somewhat surprising opening description of Jesus. For, instead of describing Jesus with all the glorious titles that He uses later in the book, John attributes three apparently mundane titles to Jesus: 1) He is “the faithful witness”—likely indicating that He was faithful unto death— 2) He is the One who has overcome death and is therefore “the firstborn from the dead”; 3) He is “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5).
Of all the titles ascribed to Jesus in the book of Revelation, that these three are the first is somewhat astonishing.
The importance of these three titles, however, cannot be underestimated. They serve to highlight John’s message to the churches—as well as to us today. Namely, that, in the same way that Jesus did, so also the people of God must: 1) persevere as faithful witnesses—despite the fact that this may well result in death— 2) knowing that we will also be raised from the dead, 3) and through all this we will reign as the kings of the earth (as C. S. Lewis put it: “we are kings and queens of Narnia!”).
One of the first principles in understanding the book of Revelation is that the book is about Jesus. Knowing this will help us not only understand the book, but also its message for us today. Jesus is “the faithful witness” (Rev 1:5). And as such He is the model that the people of God are to emulate. If one gets anything from reading the book of Revelation may it be: “Go be faithful witnesses just like Jesus!”
I saw a child this week. He was a cute little guy. Maybe 3 years old.
But I was grieved when I saw him. His mom was about 21. She clearly looked at this cute young child as a hindrance. And I am sure that in many ways he was. This poor child, however, was growing up in an environment in which love was not being modelled to him (now, I hope I am wrong about this child. After all, I only saw him briefly. But, nonetheless, I am sure that I am right in regards to many children like him).
I was also grieved because of where I saw this child. We were at the county jail. He was apparently going to see his dad. Three years old and he was already being exposed to the harshness of life.
Now, I know what you might be thinking—because I used to think this way. You see, I used to blame the parents. “If they wouldn’t have had illicit sex then he wouldn’t have been born into such harsh surroundings.” “If his dad didn’t commit crimes then his mom wouldn’t have to work all those hours to provide for him by herself and then to spend here off time visiting his dad in prison.”
The problem, as I am only beginning to learn, is that this child is growing up in an environment in which all the odds were cast against him. As a result, what are the odds that he will learn to make good choices? What are the odds that he will overcome all this? Unfortunately, the statistics are not good.
So, we can blame the parents, right?
But, what if his parents grew up in an environment just like him? What if they never had love modelled to them? What if they too were raised as a hindrance to their mom and dad’s aspirations? What if their parents couldn’t go to school because they had to work endlessly to provide for their kids?
I am learning that it is easy for me to judge them. I can warn them not to have illicit sex. But I grew up in a home in which I was loved. What if these young girls cannot find love anywhere else, so they turn to sex? That doesn’t make it right. But, this is all they have.
My question, then, is where is the Church? Are we looking for ways to provide love to these families? To support them and help the parents through school? To love such kids and give them hope?
Kinda funny to think about, but no one would visit a medical doctor that has no formal medical training. Yet, many go to a church every week where the pastor, who is responsible for their spiritual care, has no formal training.
The way I see it, the Church has too many people in places of authority that should not be. Certainly, many of them are gifted leaders. They may well be called to ministry. But too often they lack the necessary training.
There are three reasons why I believe every pastor should be ordained: that is, why they should have an authorized group of leaders recognize and affirm not simply that they are called, but that they are qualified to lead a congregation (mind you that I am not saying that ordination is fool-proof).
1) Ordination is intended to make sure the pastor is qualified and properly equipped.
The importance of this cannot be overstated. The pastor is to teach and equip the saints. After all, it is the knowledge and application of the Word that is one of the central elements of dynamic spiritual growth in the life of the people of God (cf the “renewing of the mind” Rom 12:2; or, the charge that we are to be “doers of the Word” James 1:22; or the prayer of Jesus that the Father “sanctify them in the Truth, the Word is Truth” John 17:17; see also 1 John 1:10; 2:5, 7, 14).
In addition, we must understand that the weaponry of our enemy is deception. He is the one who “deceives the whole world” (Rev 12:9). Jesus constantly warned His disciples about “false prophets” and such. This is a serious matter for the Church.
Since knowing and applying the Word is so vital to the growth of the people of God, and since the main weaponry of our enemy is deception, the Church must be careful not to appoint people to leadership who are ill-equipped to help the people of God in the battle for truth.
2) A denomination determines the doctrine that the pastor and local church must adhere to.
This is meant to ensure that no leader can mislead a congregation. Of course, it still happens. But the point is that safe guards are in place to deal with it. In some of these non-denominational settings a senior leader, who founded the church based on his/her charismatic personality, maintains control over the congregation to the extent that, even if he/she started preaching heresy, they would still maintain enough influence to win the congregation to their side.
In many such instances, there are few persons in the congregation, or even on the staff, who could argue effectively with such a pastor who has strayed. Furthermore, most of these leaders have enough influence to ensure that they are going to win such debates. In a denominational or confessional setting, the pastor is bound by the essential beliefs of that group. Without a denominational structure in place it is much more problematic trying to out a pastor who is espousing suspect theology.
3) What happens if a pastor falls into sin: morally or practically?
Discipline is, unfortunately, a necessary feature of the church. But what if the leader is the one in need of discipline? In many of the rising non-denominational churches today, the pastor/leader is a charismatic figure who founded the church. Disciplining such a person is often-times very difficult. And the aftermath is quite ugly.
In a denominational setting, there is a structure in place to address the pastor who has failed. It may not always work perfectly. But it is designed to protect the pastor, those whom the pastor may be affecting, the larger Church, and the community. Regardless of how charismatic and powerful a voice a leader might have, a denominational setting is more effective in addressing such issues.
The naïve assume that the church they are a part of is immune to such issues. Their leader is different. Maybe so. But, is it fair to place him/her in such a position of potential danger? Is it fair to the congregation, to the leader, and to the community?
I recognize that denominationalism is in many ways dying. The solution cannot be to move away and start all over. Denominations are necessary. We must find a way to reform them.
Two questions: What is the “pillar and support of the Truth” according to Scripture? I have asked many biblical scholars this question and I am amazed that they do not know the answer. Many will say, “Jesus” or “love” (after all those answers work to most questions Christians ask).
How about this one: When Jesus returns who is He going to redeem? Tough question and I suspect that many do not have a quick answer.
The answer to both questions is the Church. (see: 1 Tim 3:15 says, “. . . I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”)
Jesus and Paul had a very high view of the Church. Yet too many think they don’t need the Church. They only need Jesus.
Folks, you cannot have Jesus without the Church. The Church (and here I mean the people of God) is the temple of the living God. The Church is where Christ resides. “I am with you always” (Matt 28:20) refers to the Church. After all, Paul calls it the “household of God” (1 Tim 3:15). The Church is where God dwells.
I’ll say it again: you cannot leave the Church and have Jesus. (I am sure that there are plenty of “but what about . . .” at this moment. So, let me briefly respond to the general premise of many of them.)
Sure, if some person were to know Christ and end up on a deserted island, they would still have Jesus even though they weren’t part of a local community. But, that person is still a part of the Church. Their absence from a local community was not essentially their choice. I am referring to people who live in a community where churches are present and they refuse to fellowship with them, or they choose to start their own church by first leaving the Church. Sorry, can’t do it.
Indeed the Church has many problems. Unfortunately, many Christians in their attempt to find a solution are actually contributing to the problem.
The solution cannot be to leave the Church. Here are four brief thoughts on how we can begin to save the Church.
Solution 1: We must have the same high view of the Church that Jesus and the New Testament have. This doesn’t mean that we must advocate for high church or some old-fashioned definition of what a church must be. But, we must aim to preserve and protect the Church.
Granted, this is a much more difficult task than defending our local church, or even our own Christian life. Nonetheless, it is the Church for which Christ died! And it is the Church for which Christ will return!
Solution 2: We must learn to move away from our self-centeredness. Church is not for me. Christ didn’t call you or me for our own sakes alone. We were called for a mission: as 1 Peter 2:9 says: you were chosen “so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
Solution 3: We must leave our consumerist mentality behind. We are part of a church because that is what it means to be a Christian. The local church, however, is not for me. The local church is the gathering of God’s people in order that we might serve one another in love and doing so proclaim Christ.
Solution 4: We must understand that the unity of the Church is fundamental to the mission of Christ and the New Testament.
So no more of this: “I just don’t get anything out of it.” I understand that this is a real issue on some cases. But, the solution cannot be to leave the Church!
Now, I respect the fact that some local churches are just not cutting it. Maybe you need to find another local community in which you can best serve and be served so that you will be able to fulfill your mission as a proclaimer “of Him who called you out of darkness and into His marvelous light”! As you make such a move, my encouragement is that you find a local body that is focused on bringing unity to the Church.
The solution must be in our being a solution. We cannot make the problem worse. Maybe it is our job to make the Church better.
You can't! Period. Not because I said so. Because Jesus said so! it is not your decision to start one. It is Christ’s. It is He who said, “I will build My Church” (Matt 16:18).
Now, perhaps you are called to lead a church. I am just saying that you can't start you own!
“But I prayed about this and God has shown me and others many signs that confirm this calling.” You may very well be called to be a lead pastor, but starting a church independent of the Church cannot be what God is calling you to do.
I respect very much your honest and sincere conviction that this is true. But allow me to say several things.
1) I wonder if you might be confusing your general call to ministry and your giftings as a pastor, with a perceived call to start a specific local church.
I am sure that many others around you have come to you and supported your convictions; including men and women who are mature believers. In addition, things are unfolding around you that confirms that it is the work of God: a building has opened up; resources have become available, people have volunteered to help with ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’, etc.
But realize first that many others have had the same convictions and signs from God, and have failed miserably. Now, I affirm that failure is not necessarily a sign that God did not call a person. God sometimes calls us to things that will “fail” (in such instances “fail” is a matter of perspective). The point is that such persons were convinced that they were going to build the next successful church, or even megachurch, and it never happened.
2) how many of the people around you that are confirming your call are really adequately trained in Scripture, church government, the history of the Church, theology, etc., to provide this level of counsel?
They may, and in fact I am sure they are, godly men and women. But people can only counsel from the resource of knowledge that they have. If they themselves do not have the adequate training necessary to process all that goes into such a decision, then they cannot possibly provide an authoritative response.
(I realize that I am likely upsetting a lot of people here. And I am sorry. That is not my intent. To use an analogy: a corporate executive should not come to a person who has worked their whole life as a nurse, regardless of whether or not she is a mature believer, and seek advice on how to most effectively move one’s company through a merger. This nurse simply does not have the necessary acumen to counsel in such matters. She may be able to counsel the corporate exec in regards to handling her personal conduct and Christian witness. But she cannot counsel in regards to the nature of running a corporation).
Now, does this mean that one cannot seek godly counsel from other Christians? God forbid. Indeed, in the presence of “many counselors” (Prov 15:22) there is wisdom.
I have three simple premises here. First, the Church was founded by and is built by Christ (“I will build My Church”: Matt 16:18): He commissioned His twelve to build His Church. Secondly, the Church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17). Thirdly, the unity of the body is a core desire of Christ (John 17:21).
In light of these, I will contend that one cannot leave the Church and start a church of their own. For, to leave the Church is to leave Christ.
I am referring here to those who independent of any body have gone and started their own church. I understand that such persons believe strongly that they are called to do so. I am not denying that they might even be called to start a church. I am simply saying that the means of doing so cannot be independent of the Church (such persons must simply find a legitimate body to send them).
1) The Church is Christ’s.
That means He rules it. And it means that only He authorizes His agents to lead it. The question, then, is how does Christ appoint others to lead His Church? Does He do so by appealing directly to an individual independent of the Church?; or, does He does so through the Church that He has established? I say it must be the latter.
2) Only those so appointed can lead Christ’s Church.
Scripture indicates that Christ appointed His twelve. Those twelve appointed others. And they others. And so on. If it is Christ’s church, then it is fair enough to say that only Christ can appoint someone to lead it.
In addition, we see that Christ always uses His body to further the Gospel. Hence, it was Ananias who was sent to lay hands on Paul (Acts 9:17); Philip who was called to speak to the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40); and Peter was summoned to speak to Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48).
Furthermore, we find in Scripture the principle that one must be appointed for ministry by one who has already been authorized for ministry. The means by which one becomes an official leader of a church is by being anointed by a valid authority. Thus, we find Paul encouraging Timothy not to lay hands on people too quickly (1 Tim 5:22).
The principle, then, is that Jesus appoints His twelve; they appoint others; they appoint others; and so on.
To start one’s own church is like an individual who attempts to start a local franchise without permission of the parent franchise. So, also, Christ has established His Church and given them authority to build His Church. An individual or group cannot come along independent of the Church and start a local church.
3) To start a church independent of the Church is to instantly create disunity in the body.
I recognize that the Church has many issues. But for someone to come along and suppose that they have it all figured out and that they are going to do it right is naïve, arrogant, and ultimately divisive. I won’t relay here the numerous times the Scriptures command us to maintain the unity of the Church. Starting another church simply creates more disunity.
This last point often goes unmentioned in such discussions.
In Ephesians 4, Paul refers to the four-fold offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers (the construction of this sentence in Greek confirms that the last two are reflective of one office). The purpose of such leaders is for serve the purpose of “building up the body of Christ” (Eph 4:11-12). Unfortunately, any church that creates further disunity in the Church has failed in its primary mission.
What is the solution?
We must find a way to reform the Church that already is!
Bottom line: one cannot leave the Church and start a Church. To leave the Church is to leave Christ. For, the Church is the body of Christ on earth (see post “We have too low a view of the Church.”)
So, what do we say about all those churches who have been started on their own? I would say that they are a group of Christians who are gathering together. They may well be doing great things for the Lord. But, by contributing to the disunity of the Church they have also done much harm.
We hear so much talk about the AntiChrist in certain circles of Christianity. He will come to Jerusalem and enter the rebuilt Temple, make a peace treaty with Israel, and then after 3 1/2 years he will break the treaty and force everyone to recieve a mark on their forehead or righthand with the number 666. Well, I would say that the devil, or the deceiver (Rev 12:9), is a lot smarter than this.
Paul, in a somewhat difficult passage (2 Thess 2), says that the 'man of lawlessness' enters into the "Temple of God" and proclaims himself God (2 Thess 2:4). Well, here's the key. The phrase, 'temple of God' occurs 11x in the NT and in every instance it refers to either the body of Christ Himself or to the Church as the body of Christ (Matt 26:61; 1 Cor 3:16, 17(2x); 2 Cor 6:16(2x); 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 3:12; 7:15; 11:1, 19; note the Matt 26:61 passage is not really an exception to this). This means that the 'anti-Christ/man of lawlessness' (assuming for now that they are the same) enters the Church and not a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem!
This accords with the rest of the NT. Jesus warned that “false prophets will come to YOU (not ewe) in sheep's clothing” (Matt 7:15). Paul, in what he thought was his last meeting with the elders of Ephesus notes, “savage wolves will come in AMONG you” (Acts 20:29). And we could go on, for throughout the NT we are warned repeatedly that false prophets will enter the Church in order to led astray “if possible, even the elect” (Matt 24:24).
This is precisely what 1 John is addressing in one of the few references to 'anti-christ' in the NT (the designation 'anti-Christ' appears 5x and only in 1-2 John). John notes that we know that certain people are anti-Christ's because they “went out from us” (1 John 2:18-19).
Thus, the anti-Christ is not some secular person who is empowered by a revived Roman empire or such. Instead, he is a false prophet who endeavors to spread his influence in the Church! This is the NT warning!
If we are looking to Jerusalem for a rebuilt temple, and especially if we think that the anti-Christ will not arise until one is built, then we are looking in the wrong direction! And we have been deceived by the devil!
The fabric upon the which the Bible was penned must be viewed as one garment. The whole Bible coheres and centers around the fact of God’s redemption and restoration of both mankind and the whole of creation.
The book of Revelation is Genesis fulfilled. The entire Bible, in fact, weaves a beautiful story of God’s work in creation and, because of the fall, His subsequent effort to restore His creation.
This is why the Gospel of John begins by quoting Genesis: “In the beginning” (John 1:1). Matthew’s gospel commences with a genealogy (Matt 1:2-17) that clearly serves to identify Jesus with the story of the OT. And why the Gospel of Mark opens with a composite citation (1:2; cf Isa 40:3, Exod 23:20, and Mal 3:1) that clearly intends to identify the coming of John the Baptist as the herald of the coming Christ in terms of the fulfillment of the great promise of the restoration of Israel. And Luke’s opening two chapters contain a plethora of OT citations and allusions.
In each instance, the Gospels are connecting their narratives with the OT story. John, however, takes us one step forward. For, he intends us to not only see Jesus in light of the OT, but also in terms of a new creation. That is, ‘in the beginning’ not only serves to connect the story of Jesus in John with Genesis and the OT, but it is also eschatological—forward looking to the new creation. That is, with the coming of Jesus we have another ‘in the beginning.’
What might this mean for us?
First, it means that in Jesus we have the fulfillment of God's covenant promises (2 Cor 1:20). And we must, therefore, read our Bible's in this light.
Secondly, it means that the 'eschaton' (the end-times) have begun in Jesus. We live in the 'last days'. The 'last days' then are not something to query about as though they are future and distant (or perhaps imminent) and potentially not important. Instead, they are something for us to presently endure.
Finally, the inauguration of the New Creation in Jesus means that our mission as God's people entails the bringing in of the New Creation. We are God's image bearers on earth: and as such we must reign! (of course, reigning in the New Creation is not like the kings of this world (Luke 22:25-30); but entails submission of our very lives to the Kingdom of our Lord (Rev 12:11)).