"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
"We affirm personal purity and separation from worldliness. Convinced that a redeemed life produces the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-24), we abhor compromise of biblical holiness, modesty, and temperance in the name of Christian liberty (Romans 6:15). Though we do not endorse pharisaical legalism, we resist attempts to accommodate standards of holiness to vacillating cultural norms. To this end, we oppose the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Throughout its history, our Convention has stood against the evils of alcohol. The present generation can in good conscience do no other."
If the Scriptures are clear about how alcohol consumption is completely fine (and the Scriptures are clear that alcohol consumption is completely fine), and if Jesus both drank alcohol and believed alcohol consumption was completely fine (and Jesus did drink alcohol and did believe that alcohol consumption was completely fine, so much so that He said that He is going to hold off on drinking alcohol until WE ALL get to drink alcohol with Him), but we are now saying that while the Scriptures and Jesus are completely fine to drink alcohol we should refrain from doing so today because where we found ourselves with “the present generation” and with our present cultural context ... WHO REALLY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE VACILLATING BECAUSE OF CULTURAL NORMS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON SCRIPTURE???
Who are the ones ignoring Scriptural teachings because of worldliness? Who are the ones compromising biblical holiness due to the culture? Who are the ones not resisting attempts to accommodate Scripture and Christ-like standards of holiness by reacting against “this present evil age”?
Who is allowing the culture to dictate how they lead the Christian life, how they interpret Scripture, and how they implement the Scriptural teachings?
I would say that it is those who are opposing alcohol sale and consumption who do not have a firm Scriptural foundation and are being blown this way and that by the cultures of the world and the traditions of men. They need to obey the Word of God and not buckle under the pressures of this present generation.
I urge all of you oppose alcohol consumption to read the Scriptures and not the culture.
...
P.S. It’s easier to defend your viewpoint when your viewpoint is correct.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Use of the Word "Sinner"
This is so good it deserves a section all its own
Concerning the use of the word “sinner”: It is an English translation of the NT Greek word hamartolos.
Do you really want to know? Do you really want to know how many times Jesus used the word “sinner”? You’re not going to like it.
Here goes:
Jesus responds to religious leaders who criticize him for hanging out with “sinners”. He responds by using their word “sinners” to say that He was called to minister to “sinners” (recorded three times but only one historical incident [in Mat 9:13; 11:19; Mar 2:17; Lk 5:32]).
Jesus uses the term “sinner” four times to again respond to the criticisms of the religious leaders criticize him for hanging out with “sinners”. He responds by using their word “sinners” (in Lk 7:34; 13:2; 15:7, 10; 18:13).
Jesus uses the word “sinner” three times (in Lk 6:32ff.) to tell his disciples to avoid false prophets who do not love for even “sinners” love.
Jesus uses the word to describe the unloving religious leaders who are coming to arrest Him. These are the religious leaders who were criticizing him for hanging out with “sinners” (recorded three times but only one historical incident [in Mat 26:45; Mark 14:41; Lk 24:7]).
Lastly, Jesus refers to His generation as a “sinner generation” (Mark 8:38). This is the generation of unloving religious leaders who criticized him for hanging out with “sinners” and who came to arrest Jesus.
There you have it: TEN TIMES. Jesus used the term “sinner” 10 times. He only used the word on five occasions.
Concerning the use of the word “sinner”: It is an English translation of the NT Greek word hamartolos.
Do you really want to know? Do you really want to know how many times Jesus used the word “sinner”? You’re not going to like it.
Here goes:
Jesus responds to religious leaders who criticize him for hanging out with “sinners”. He responds by using their word “sinners” to say that He was called to minister to “sinners” (recorded three times but only one historical incident [in Mat 9:13; 11:19; Mar 2:17; Lk 5:32]).
Jesus uses the term “sinner” four times to again respond to the criticisms of the religious leaders criticize him for hanging out with “sinners”. He responds by using their word “sinners” (in Lk 7:34; 13:2; 15:7, 10; 18:13).
Jesus uses the word “sinner” three times (in Lk 6:32ff.) to tell his disciples to avoid false prophets who do not love for even “sinners” love.
Jesus uses the word to describe the unloving religious leaders who are coming to arrest Him. These are the religious leaders who were criticizing him for hanging out with “sinners” (recorded three times but only one historical incident [in Mat 26:45; Mark 14:41; Lk 24:7]).
Lastly, Jesus refers to His generation as a “sinner generation” (Mark 8:38). This is the generation of unloving religious leaders who criticized him for hanging out with “sinners” and who came to arrest Jesus.
There you have it: TEN TIMES. Jesus used the term “sinner” 10 times. He only used the word on five occasions.
The Traditions of Men and the Meaning of Scripture
Rabbinical Judaism holds that the Five Books of Moses, called the (Written) Torah or the Pentateuch, have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They state that two guides to laws were given to Moses at Mount Sinai. The first, known as Torah she-bi-khtav, or the "Written Law" is composed of only the Five Books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). These five books are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh or Old Testament.
They further state that the second law given to Moses at Sinai, known as Torah she-be'al-peh is the exposition or interpretation of the Written Law as relayed by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. This Oral Law is, in some sense, the more authoritative of the two. The traditions of the Oral Law are considered as the basis for the interpretation, and often for the reading, of the Written Law. Today the traditions of the Oral Law have been written down as the Mishnah.
Note this: the Oral Law (or Mishnah) is the more authoritative of the two because the Oral Law is considered as the basis for interpreting and understanding the Written Law, or the Pentateuch.
Now when we progress to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church we find a similar situation. The Bible, the Scriptures (both New and Old Testaments) are authoritative but they must be interpreted and understood. In both of these Christian bodies (RCC and EOC), it is the Church (i.e., the Patristics, the Papacy, Councils, and other church-recognized authorities) which interprets the Scriptures and tells the "every-day" Christian what the Scriptures means and what they should believe (e.g., the interpretations of the RCC is called the Sacred Tradition, said to have been "originally passed from the apostles in the form of oral tradition" and is seen as authoritative to the respective body's members). In a very similar manner to that of the Rabbis, these oral traditions of proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (such as the Sacred Tradition) are more authoritative of the two because it governs how the Scriptures are to be understood by the individual believer.
It was Martin Luther who is best known for challenging the supremacy of the Sacred Tradition over the Scriptures when it became obvious to him that too often the Sacred Tradition was contradicting the true meaning of the Scriptures. Given the choice Luther correctly chose to follow the Word of God (Sola scriptura) over the Traditions of Men (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13; Col 2:8).
Of course, the RCC believed that they were interpreting the Scriptures correctly. They believed (and still believe) that God has given them the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture for other believers and that their interpretations of Scripture are correct and do not contradict the Scriptures and Word of God.
Nevertheless, some five centuries later, the average Baptist (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is able to read the Scriptures for him or herself without being forced to cede its meaning to an ecclesiastical body against his or her better judgment. Thus the believer has free access to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of God thru that Scripture.
So we Baptists are very fortunate in that we have neither the Rabbinic oral traditions of the Mishnah nor the Sacred Traditions of the RCC to displace the authority of the Scriptures by governing how the Bible is to be understood by the individual believer. Indeed, given such a situation it would be more proper for the Scriptures to govern the interpretation of the tradition than for the tradition to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures. Correct?
Therefore, if the average, individual Southern Baptist believer (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is confronted with any confession, creed, abstract of principles, statement, or document which purports to interpret the Scriptures, he or she should interpret such confessions, creeds, abstract of principles, statements, or documents in light of the Scriptures because the Scriptures are the more authoritative. We should consider the Scriptures as the basis for the interpretation of any confession or creed.
Remember: Sola scriptura
Remember: Jesus never had a good thing to say about traditions (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13).
Therefore, the meaning of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message should be interpreted by the Scriptures and should not be the interpreter of the Scriptures.
They further state that the second law given to Moses at Sinai, known as Torah she-be'al-peh is the exposition or interpretation of the Written Law as relayed by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. This Oral Law is, in some sense, the more authoritative of the two. The traditions of the Oral Law are considered as the basis for the interpretation, and often for the reading, of the Written Law. Today the traditions of the Oral Law have been written down as the Mishnah.
Note this: the Oral Law (or Mishnah) is the more authoritative of the two because the Oral Law is considered as the basis for interpreting and understanding the Written Law, or the Pentateuch.
Now when we progress to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church we find a similar situation. The Bible, the Scriptures (both New and Old Testaments) are authoritative but they must be interpreted and understood. In both of these Christian bodies (RCC and EOC), it is the Church (i.e., the Patristics, the Papacy, Councils, and other church-recognized authorities) which interprets the Scriptures and tells the "every-day" Christian what the Scriptures means and what they should believe (e.g., the interpretations of the RCC is called the Sacred Tradition, said to have been "originally passed from the apostles in the form of oral tradition" and is seen as authoritative to the respective body's members). In a very similar manner to that of the Rabbis, these oral traditions of proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (such as the Sacred Tradition) are more authoritative of the two because it governs how the Scriptures are to be understood by the individual believer.
It was Martin Luther who is best known for challenging the supremacy of the Sacred Tradition over the Scriptures when it became obvious to him that too often the Sacred Tradition was contradicting the true meaning of the Scriptures. Given the choice Luther correctly chose to follow the Word of God (Sola scriptura) over the Traditions of Men (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13; Col 2:8).
Of course, the RCC believed that they were interpreting the Scriptures correctly. They believed (and still believe) that God has given them the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture for other believers and that their interpretations of Scripture are correct and do not contradict the Scriptures and Word of God.
Nevertheless, some five centuries later, the average Baptist (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is able to read the Scriptures for him or herself without being forced to cede its meaning to an ecclesiastical body against his or her better judgment. Thus the believer has free access to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of God thru that Scripture.
So we Baptists are very fortunate in that we have neither the Rabbinic oral traditions of the Mishnah nor the Sacred Traditions of the RCC to displace the authority of the Scriptures by governing how the Bible is to be understood by the individual believer. Indeed, given such a situation it would be more proper for the Scriptures to govern the interpretation of the tradition than for the tradition to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures. Correct?
Therefore, if the average, individual Southern Baptist believer (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is confronted with any confession, creed, abstract of principles, statement, or document which purports to interpret the Scriptures, he or she should interpret such confessions, creeds, abstract of principles, statements, or documents in light of the Scriptures because the Scriptures are the more authoritative. We should consider the Scriptures as the basis for the interpretation of any confession or creed.
Remember: Sola scriptura
Remember: Jesus never had a good thing to say about traditions (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13).
Therefore, the meaning of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message should be interpreted by the Scriptures and should not be the interpreter of the Scriptures.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Narrowing Doctrinal Parameters
I would say that to remove ANY Christian from "power" (I use quotes because they have neither spiritual nor ecclessiastical power) or any position the person (leader or not) the reason must be because of 1) Sin, 2) Incompetence, or 3) Budgetary.
However, in the case of the narrowing of doctrinal parameters, those wishing to do so are in no way arguing that those who should not be in power due to their doctrinal positions are in anyway sinning. Far from it!
Recall how the current SBC leaders removed all of the seminary professors, agency presidents, and various agency workers AND all of the IMB and NAMB missionaries who would not sign the 2000 BFM. None of those people sinned.
Furthermore, no one is denying that there needs to be doctrinal parameters. The question is what those parameters should be. Should we narrow the existing doctrinal parameters for leadership and service to exclude those who are already leading and serving in various positions within the convention?
"Narrow parameters." That is very abstract and less than specific. Really - what are the parameters that are wanting to be narrowed?
1) Individuals who practice glossolia (tongues, "prayer language") privately (not in church or worship but on their own without anyone else around) can not work for the IMB.
2) Individuals who drink alcohol cannot work for the SBC.
3) Individuals must have been baptized in SBC-affiliated churches or have received believer's baptism by immersion. Individuals who receive baptism in another tradition, it must be viewed as symbolic rather than sacramental or regenerative.
4) The church or denomination in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation.
Are these "doctrinal" issues considered so important that we cannot allow them to be practiced? If this is indeed the case, then should we not just simply prevent people who practice glossolia from working in the IMB, should we not prevent people who believe glossolia is okay from being in the IMB? Why stop there if this is so important that we must prevent such people from serving God in the IMB? Should we not prevent those people who may not practice glossolia, who may thinks it's undoctrinal, but do not mind other Christians practicing it?
Paul could not be allowed as an IMB missionary because he practiced glossolia. Jesus could not work for the SBC because He drank alcohol.
We claim to believe that baptism is symbolic and represents the coming to faith of the individual believing Christian. Yet, Baptist believers who do not receive a symbolic immersion cannot be SBC missionaries because they did not get the right kind of symbolic baptism. We say that the NT practiced symbolic immersion but a symbolic pouring cannot be allowed because it isn't the right kind of symbolism. Yet, the NT practiced the symbolic Lord's Supper with wine and not grape juice. We might as well be saying that we want to ban all missionaries who attend the Lord's Supper at a church that doesn't practice the Scriptural symbolic Lord's Supper with wine. Ludicrous!
And the "church in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation." Who in their right mind would exclude a person from missionary service not because they do not believe in the "security of the believer" (a belief which by itself should not be banned), but exclude a person from missionary service because they were baptized in a church that did not believe in the "security of the believer"? This is completely insane, yet these are the parameters which are being pushed.
I believe that as time goes by more people will begin to question the thought process of those who want to narrow these doctrinal parameters.
However, in the case of the narrowing of doctrinal parameters, those wishing to do so are in no way arguing that those who should not be in power due to their doctrinal positions are in anyway sinning. Far from it!
Recall how the current SBC leaders removed all of the seminary professors, agency presidents, and various agency workers AND all of the IMB and NAMB missionaries who would not sign the 2000 BFM. None of those people sinned.
Furthermore, no one is denying that there needs to be doctrinal parameters. The question is what those parameters should be. Should we narrow the existing doctrinal parameters for leadership and service to exclude those who are already leading and serving in various positions within the convention?
"Narrow parameters." That is very abstract and less than specific. Really - what are the parameters that are wanting to be narrowed?
1) Individuals who practice glossolia (tongues, "prayer language") privately (not in church or worship but on their own without anyone else around) can not work for the IMB.
2) Individuals who drink alcohol cannot work for the SBC.
3) Individuals must have been baptized in SBC-affiliated churches or have received believer's baptism by immersion. Individuals who receive baptism in another tradition, it must be viewed as symbolic rather than sacramental or regenerative.
4) The church or denomination in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation.
Are these "doctrinal" issues considered so important that we cannot allow them to be practiced? If this is indeed the case, then should we not just simply prevent people who practice glossolia from working in the IMB, should we not prevent people who believe glossolia is okay from being in the IMB? Why stop there if this is so important that we must prevent such people from serving God in the IMB? Should we not prevent those people who may not practice glossolia, who may thinks it's undoctrinal, but do not mind other Christians practicing it?
Paul could not be allowed as an IMB missionary because he practiced glossolia. Jesus could not work for the SBC because He drank alcohol.
We claim to believe that baptism is symbolic and represents the coming to faith of the individual believing Christian. Yet, Baptist believers who do not receive a symbolic immersion cannot be SBC missionaries because they did not get the right kind of symbolic baptism. We say that the NT practiced symbolic immersion but a symbolic pouring cannot be allowed because it isn't the right kind of symbolism. Yet, the NT practiced the symbolic Lord's Supper with wine and not grape juice. We might as well be saying that we want to ban all missionaries who attend the Lord's Supper at a church that doesn't practice the Scriptural symbolic Lord's Supper with wine. Ludicrous!
And the "church in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation." Who in their right mind would exclude a person from missionary service not because they do not believe in the "security of the believer" (a belief which by itself should not be banned), but exclude a person from missionary service because they were baptized in a church that did not believe in the "security of the believer"? This is completely insane, yet these are the parameters which are being pushed.
I believe that as time goes by more people will begin to question the thought process of those who want to narrow these doctrinal parameters.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
A Thought on Contemporary and Traditional Worship
I do not like contemporary worship music. There I said it.
But I like traditional worship music even less.
As a Protestant and evangelical seeking to witness and worship amongst the people of my particular culture, I silently suffer my Christian cultures’ music. I am much too much the pragmatist to allow my own particular tastes to hamper the witness and worship of the overwhelming majority of my Christian peers.
Let that be a lesson to those who want hold on to traditional worship when the overwhelming majority of the Christian worshippers in their particular church want contemporary. Let that be a lesson to those who want contemporary worship when the overwhelming majority of the Christian worshippers in their particular church want traditional.
Certainly, if the overwhelming majority of an institution’s attendees prefer contemporary worship, then it would be both selfish and prideful for that institution’s leaders to limit worship only to the music they prefer. Again, the reverse would be true as well.
In my own desires, I would prefer classical music (Bach, Mozart etc.), or classical rock (The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.), or modern alternative rock (Beck, Radiohead, STP, Phish, etc.). But I have to be both realistic and pragmatic about my desires when it comes to the effectiveness of our evangelism and the general preferences of the majority of believers. I deal with it and I understand.
For most people, my musical tastes would be distasteful if not incomprehensible. The same goes with the books that I read, the films that I watch, as well as the TV shows. My particular cultural standards are significantly different from the culture God has put me in. I do not force my particular tastes upon others because it would be damaging to both the witness and worship of other believers.
Imagine that I went to Africa and forced other believers there to worship with Michael W. Smith or even Southern Gospel Country Quartets ALL in English when the overwhelming majority of African believers prefer to non-English, energetic, and charismatic worship services. For me to inflict my worship style on them would be incomprehensible, counter-productive, and prideful on my part.
It would be equivalent to making Latin worship and liturgy mandatory in our churches.
Of course, when I take part in the worship services of my culture, I do not sing along. Instead, I bow my head and close my eyes and worship God in my own thoughts and in my own spirit.
Is this wrong? Should I be forced to sing songs that I dislike? Is worshipping God in this manner while everyone else is singing wrong?
I have to tell you: I take my worship of God and prayer life very seriously but also very personally. My communication with the Creator in Christ is an extremely serious matter to me. I do not take it lightly at all. However, it is also a very private matter for me in general. I do not like to emotionally express my emotions about God in public. Thus, while I do not raise my hands to God in public (1 Tim 2:8), I occasionally do so in private. Of course, the Scriptures both authenticate and recommend lifting hands in worship. But should we make hand-lifting mandatory in worship?
Should we prohibit all hand-lifting in church?
Should contemporary worship services require ALL people to raise hands while worshipping?
Should traditional worship services prohibit ALL people from raising hands will worshipping?
Now should the IMB or NAMB require ALL missionaries to raise hands while worshipping?
Should the IMB or NAMB prohibit ALL missionaries from raising hands while worshipping?
You do see where I am going, do you not?
Yes, why should particular people who do not like particular forms of worship music, alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, or worshipful expressions of God (i.e., private prayer language) be able to force their own tastes and prejudices upon other believers? Again, perhaps such prohibitions against alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, and private prayer language might be warranted if the Scriptures were silent upon the issue, but since the Scriptures both authenticate and recommend alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, and private prayer language, such prohibitions by particular believers in high positions of leadership are unbiblical, contrary to Scripture, selfish, prideful, arrogant and abusive of the positions they have been given.
The one of arguments of those who are abusing their leadership positions by prohibiting believers from worshipping God in “private prayer language” is that it violates the regulations of 1 Cor 14:2-28:
“For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”
Of course, this verse completely refutes the position of those who are seeking to prohibit believers from worshipping God in “private prayer language.”
But it also suggests something else: if those leaders seeking “private prayer language” prohibition are arguing that it should be prohibited because it violates Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 12 that unbelievers visiting a church will not understand what is going on …
THEN WHY ARE THESE SAME LEADERS FORCING OTHER BELIEVERS TO ADOPT UNBIBLICAL AND OUTDATED CULTURAL STANDARDS COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO THE CONTEMPORARY UNBELIEVING CULTURE?!!!
"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." (1 Cor 14:37-38)
But I like traditional worship music even less.
As a Protestant and evangelical seeking to witness and worship amongst the people of my particular culture, I silently suffer my Christian cultures’ music. I am much too much the pragmatist to allow my own particular tastes to hamper the witness and worship of the overwhelming majority of my Christian peers.
Let that be a lesson to those who want hold on to traditional worship when the overwhelming majority of the Christian worshippers in their particular church want contemporary. Let that be a lesson to those who want contemporary worship when the overwhelming majority of the Christian worshippers in their particular church want traditional.
Certainly, if the overwhelming majority of an institution’s attendees prefer contemporary worship, then it would be both selfish and prideful for that institution’s leaders to limit worship only to the music they prefer. Again, the reverse would be true as well.
In my own desires, I would prefer classical music (Bach, Mozart etc.), or classical rock (The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc.), or modern alternative rock (Beck, Radiohead, STP, Phish, etc.). But I have to be both realistic and pragmatic about my desires when it comes to the effectiveness of our evangelism and the general preferences of the majority of believers. I deal with it and I understand.
For most people, my musical tastes would be distasteful if not incomprehensible. The same goes with the books that I read, the films that I watch, as well as the TV shows. My particular cultural standards are significantly different from the culture God has put me in. I do not force my particular tastes upon others because it would be damaging to both the witness and worship of other believers.
Imagine that I went to Africa and forced other believers there to worship with Michael W. Smith or even Southern Gospel Country Quartets ALL in English when the overwhelming majority of African believers prefer to non-English, energetic, and charismatic worship services. For me to inflict my worship style on them would be incomprehensible, counter-productive, and prideful on my part.
It would be equivalent to making Latin worship and liturgy mandatory in our churches.
Of course, when I take part in the worship services of my culture, I do not sing along. Instead, I bow my head and close my eyes and worship God in my own thoughts and in my own spirit.
Is this wrong? Should I be forced to sing songs that I dislike? Is worshipping God in this manner while everyone else is singing wrong?
I have to tell you: I take my worship of God and prayer life very seriously but also very personally. My communication with the Creator in Christ is an extremely serious matter to me. I do not take it lightly at all. However, it is also a very private matter for me in general. I do not like to emotionally express my emotions about God in public. Thus, while I do not raise my hands to God in public (1 Tim 2:8), I occasionally do so in private. Of course, the Scriptures both authenticate and recommend lifting hands in worship. But should we make hand-lifting mandatory in worship?
Should we prohibit all hand-lifting in church?
Should contemporary worship services require ALL people to raise hands while worshipping?
Should traditional worship services prohibit ALL people from raising hands will worshipping?
Now should the IMB or NAMB require ALL missionaries to raise hands while worshipping?
Should the IMB or NAMB prohibit ALL missionaries from raising hands while worshipping?
You do see where I am going, do you not?
Yes, why should particular people who do not like particular forms of worship music, alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, or worshipful expressions of God (i.e., private prayer language) be able to force their own tastes and prejudices upon other believers? Again, perhaps such prohibitions against alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, and private prayer language might be warranted if the Scriptures were silent upon the issue, but since the Scriptures both authenticate and recommend alcoholic drinks, jewelry piercings, and private prayer language, such prohibitions by particular believers in high positions of leadership are unbiblical, contrary to Scripture, selfish, prideful, arrogant and abusive of the positions they have been given.
The one of arguments of those who are abusing their leadership positions by prohibiting believers from worshipping God in “private prayer language” is that it violates the regulations of 1 Cor 14:2-28:
“For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”
Of course, this verse completely refutes the position of those who are seeking to prohibit believers from worshipping God in “private prayer language.”
But it also suggests something else: if those leaders seeking “private prayer language” prohibition are arguing that it should be prohibited because it violates Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 12 that unbelievers visiting a church will not understand what is going on …
THEN WHY ARE THESE SAME LEADERS FORCING OTHER BELIEVERS TO ADOPT UNBIBLICAL AND OUTDATED CULTURAL STANDARDS COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO THE CONTEMPORARY UNBELIEVING CULTURE?!!!
"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." (1 Cor 14:37-38)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Inerrancy and the SBC
A Question From Another Blog:
The ETS members will also vote as to whether or not to approve the following resolution:
“For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”
It looks as if the ETS is “narrowing” the tent as well. This is very interesting in light of claims by many Southern Baptist leaders that insisting on inerrancy alienates fellow Baptists from fellowship and, possibly, service in certain SBC organizations.
...So the question that naturally arises in my mind is, “are we going to hear an outcry against the ETS for narrowing the tent?” We might, for it is now merely a resolution. Further, is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?
“Here an outcry?” Probably not, because the only people who would care what the ETS does would agree with the narrowing move.
This is the society that when they could not get enough votes to kick out open theists, changed their governing rules so they could kick them out.
I always find it humorous when evangelicals point to an authority (CSBI 1978) outside the Bible in order to prove that the Bible has such authority.
The resolution states: “We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”
1) The problem with the inerrancy issue is not the argument of whether or not biblical truth claims are grounded in reality but what actually the biblical truth claims are.
2) Oddly enough, “inerrancy” is not taught in Scripture and its existence as a doctrine violates the doctrine of the “sufficiency of the Scripture.”
3) The doctrine wasn’t conjured or even formulated until the very end of the 19th century among Princeton Presbyterian theologians. Even then it did not appear in any Baptist confession until the first decade of the 20th century. Even then that confession was among fundamentalist and Landmark Baptist groups reacting against the theory of Evolution. Even then, the inerrancy doctrine in no way negates or not allows belief in evolution. One can believe in evolution and inerrancy at the same time (as I do). In fact, many of the Princeton Presbyterian theologians who formulated the doctrine of inerrancy believed in evolution. To this day, with all the anti-evolution crusades in the SBC not one SBC confession as ever rejected biological evolution.
4) The debate now among evangelicals is not whether inerrancy is or is not true but how much different evangelicals support the doctrine. “That person holds to inerrancy but does not hold it as an important a doctrine as we do.”
5) Such confessions and creeds are pointless. Really, why do we have a Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and a Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Why not simply us the Bible instead of all these confessions and creeds? Because various believers will come to various conclusions of what various Scriptural truths mean. Of course, these various believers will also come to various conclusions as to what these various creeds and confessions mean. We then need a confession or creed so that everyone
“is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?”
Various parts are moving with, against, and others are completely irrelevant.
In terms of ecumenicalism, very much against.
The ETS members will also vote as to whether or not to approve the following resolution:
“For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”
It looks as if the ETS is “narrowing” the tent as well. This is very interesting in light of claims by many Southern Baptist leaders that insisting on inerrancy alienates fellow Baptists from fellowship and, possibly, service in certain SBC organizations.
...So the question that naturally arises in my mind is, “are we going to hear an outcry against the ETS for narrowing the tent?” We might, for it is now merely a resolution. Further, is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?
“Here an outcry?” Probably not, because the only people who would care what the ETS does would agree with the narrowing move.
This is the society that when they could not get enough votes to kick out open theists, changed their governing rules so they could kick them out.
I always find it humorous when evangelicals point to an authority (CSBI 1978) outside the Bible in order to prove that the Bible has such authority.
The resolution states: “We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”
1) The problem with the inerrancy issue is not the argument of whether or not biblical truth claims are grounded in reality but what actually the biblical truth claims are.
2) Oddly enough, “inerrancy” is not taught in Scripture and its existence as a doctrine violates the doctrine of the “sufficiency of the Scripture.”
3) The doctrine wasn’t conjured or even formulated until the very end of the 19th century among Princeton Presbyterian theologians. Even then it did not appear in any Baptist confession until the first decade of the 20th century. Even then that confession was among fundamentalist and Landmark Baptist groups reacting against the theory of Evolution. Even then, the inerrancy doctrine in no way negates or not allows belief in evolution. One can believe in evolution and inerrancy at the same time (as I do). In fact, many of the Princeton Presbyterian theologians who formulated the doctrine of inerrancy believed in evolution. To this day, with all the anti-evolution crusades in the SBC not one SBC confession as ever rejected biological evolution.
4) The debate now among evangelicals is not whether inerrancy is or is not true but how much different evangelicals support the doctrine. “That person holds to inerrancy but does not hold it as an important a doctrine as we do.”
5) Such confessions and creeds are pointless. Really, why do we have a Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and a Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Why not simply us the Bible instead of all these confessions and creeds? Because various believers will come to various conclusions of what various Scriptural truths mean. Of course, these various believers will also come to various conclusions as to what these various creeds and confessions mean. We then need a confession or creed so that everyone
“is the Southern Baptist Convention or movements therein moving with the tide of global evangelicals or against it?”
Various parts are moving with, against, and others are completely irrelevant.
In terms of ecumenicalism, very much against.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Justice, Mercy and Punishment: A Sermon on Genesis 4:2b-16 on the Occasion of the 5th Anniversary of September 11th
(Genesis 4:2b-16): “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”
I begin with the well-know statement of the apostle Paul:
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God … But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;” (1 Cor 1:18, 23)
“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect."
Both of these professions are perfectly fine to the Lord. In no way is the writer of this story giving any preference to one profession over the other. Indeed, Adam’s original job was to tend the earth (a job picked up by his eldest son). In times past, some Christians have taught a theory that the Lord did not “honor” the offering of Cain because it was produce, fruit or vegetables instead of a lamb. The idea here has been that the Lord only honors animal sacrifices and not plants, but such an idea is completely missing from this passage. In of themselves, both of these sacrifices would have been completely fine to the Lord. Cain was a farmer and brought an offering of farm produce to the Lord. Abel was a herder and brought an offering of his herd to the Lord. Both of the offerings were in of themselves fine. So the question remains: why did the Lord not honor the offering of Cain like he did with Abel?
"And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."
In this passage we get the answer to our question. The offering of Cain was completely fine and befitting a farmer, but it was the attitude of Cain that made the Lord not honor the offering. For whatever reason, Cain’s heart was far from the Lord and he was making his offering in a manner of disrespect to the Lord. Often times in the OT, the Lord will speak to the people of Israel through His prophets stating that their offerings are repellant to Him because they are not made out of love. Again, the offering in of itself is not the point but the heart of the one making the offering.
Recall the widow who gave all that she had where others with far more gave only a tithe (Mark 12:41-44). Now there was nothing wrong with what the others tithed. Nothing! However, the gift of the widow was greater because she gave all that she had and it was an expression of love.
Recall the story of Ruth in the OT book of the same name. Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi loses her husband and two sons while in a strange land – leaving her only with two foreign born daughters in law (Rth 1:8-18). The first daughter in law, Orpah, did what she did and she followed the customs of her time. She did the right thing. Ruth, on the other hand, went above and beyond the call of duty. Orpah did good; Ruth did better. And, as you read the rest of the story, such devotion on the part of Ruth helped bring happiness both to her and Naomi (Rth 2:5f., 11f.; 4:13-17).
God wants mercy, not sacrifice (Hsa 6:6; Matt 9:13; 12:7). God wants love and not animals and vegetables. God created plants and animals and there are more where they came from. God wants the love and devotion of man. God wants man to love and have devotion for other men. He wants people to show the love of the widow to Him. He wants people to show the love of Ruth for Naomi to all others.
The Christian Faith is not about doing what is right or what is expected. It is about doing more than what is expected. It is about going above and beyond the call of duty (Matt 5:38-42). It is about mercy upon those who do not deserve it. What is the teaching of Jesus upon this? Love your neighbors as yourself? Yes, that is it. The greatest commandment is about loving God who does deserve it (Matt 22:37f.), but the second greatest commandment is about loving our neighbors who may or may not deserve it (Matt 22:39). Of course, even non-Christians love their friends and family. Jews and Muslims are wonderful people who show great kindness to each other and to outsiders. And that is the point: The Christian faith is about loving our enemies (Matt 5:44). It is about showing kindness, mercy, love, joy, patience and tolerance to our enemies and to those who do not deserve kindness, mercy, love, joy, patience and tolerance (Gal 5:22; Eph 5:9). I hear you say: “Love that completely annoying jerk at work who makes my life a living Hades? He is as mean as sin! He’s worse! He doesn’t deserve that kind of compassion! He needs to learn to be nice!” Exactly! And this is the gospel. This is the love of God in Christ. That guy is your neighbor. Who is your neighbor? The Samaritan who helped his Jewish ethnic enemy and not only saved him from death but went above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that this Jewish man was healed (Lk 10:30-37). Why should we be gracious and kind to the jerks of the world? Because we have all been jerks to others and to God and God was kind, merciful, loving, joyful, patient and tolerant with us.
"And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Now the Lord knows that Cain’s heart is not right and this is why the offering is not honored. The Lord sees disaster on the horizon. The Lord is reaching out to Cain. The Lord knows what Cain is thinking and knows that the temptation to horribly sin is at the door. Again, see what the Lord is doing here: He is reaching out to Cain and warning him to beware of sin.
This reminds me of the Last Supper. Jesus knows that Judas is seeking to betray Him. Jesus knows the thoughts of Judas and that his heart is far away. What does Jesus do? He gives Judas the choice seat. He gives Judas a choice portion of food. Though out this meal the only two people who know the thoughts and intensions of Judas are Judas and Christ. It is Christ the one who is about to be extremely wronged by Judas who is reaching out to his eventual betrayer. “It’s not too late. Come back and it will be forgiven” (Matt 26:20-29; Mark 14:18-25; Jhn 13:21-30).
Part of loving one’s enemies is going out of our way to be of help to them. It is about not simply being nice to our enemies but going that extra mile, giving the shirt off our backs, in order to make peace and hopefully reach them for Christ. Those who are our enemies (whether deservingly or not) need that kindness, mercy, love, joy, patience and tolerance. Why? Because when we were still sinners, Christ died for us. That can be just as easily stated as “when we were still enemies of God, God sent us Christ to die for us.” If God loves us that much to be so kind, merciful, loving, joyful, patient and tolerant, then he is just as kind, merciful, loving, joyful, patient and tolerant to our enemies and, therefore, we should also be kind, merciful, loving, joyful, patient and tolerant to our enemies.
"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."
What is interesting about this story is that Cain is angry both and the Lord and his brother. He is angry at his brother for being honored by the Lord and he is angry at the Lord for honoring his brother and not honoring Cain. Of course, the problem is neither with Abel or the Lord: the problem is with Cain. And, naturally, that fact that it is Cain is probably making Cain all the more mad at everyone else.
The Lord’s warning to Cain finally comes to fruition. Cain’s unchecked sin, “fallen countenance”, his distant heart has lead Cain to kill his brother. More on this in a moment.
"And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper?"
The answer to Cain’s question “[Am] I my brother's keeper?” is “Yes! You are your brother’s keeper!”
The principle here is not simply in reference to biological brothers (and sisters) or step-brothers (and step-sisters). Recall the numerous times in the NT where Paul refer to fellow Christians as “brothers and sisters”. Recall Jesus’ answer to the question of “Who is my neighbor?” Your neighbor is the one in need. Your brother or sister is the one in need. Such an idea is more evident in this story since both Cain and Abel are the first generation of children born from Adam and Eve. We thousands of years later are quite distant from Adam and Eve but we all share the same original parents and we are all in this since siblings and family. Everyone is your brother and sister. Everyone is your aunt and uncle. Everyone is in your family.
"And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength;"
We should probably take the idea of “thy brother’s blood cries to me from the ground” as a poetic expression of the seriousness of Cain’s crime. However, it does provide evidence that the ancient Israelites held to a belief that when a righteous man or women died their bodies laid in “Sheol” or the death in ground. There is no idea of an intermediate state of “heaven”. When a man dies his body returns to the ground from which it came. As we approach the NT, this same idea is present in the thought of Paul. When a man dies his body (and soul) return to the ground and remain there until the resurrection. There is no intermediate state of the soul or spirit in heaven. The human soul is in the grave (“sleeping” if you will).
Of particular interest in this passage is the similarities with the curses of Cain’s father Adam’s sin.
“cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen 3:17b-19)
Both of their respective sins contains an ironic punishment. Adam is made from the ground (‘adamah) (Gen 2:7) and thus his sin causes him to return to the earth to which he came: Adam from ‘adamah back to ‘adamah (Gen 3:19). And because Cain has killed his Abel, his brother’s blood (dam) cries from the ground (‘adamah), the ground is cursed for Cain and will not yield its fruit as easily as it once had.
Both Cain’s and Adam’s sin results in an increase of labor to their work. Adam was made from the ground and was given the task to till the ground for its fruit. His sin resulted in increased difficulty his work. Like his father, Cain had the task of tilling the earth for its fruit. However, the consequence of his sin of fratricide and the blood of his brother falling to the ground, has ironically left Cain in a state similar to that of his father, the ground will now be difficult to work.
Just as in the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2-3), the writer is stressing the reality of the consequences of sin. Such consequences are extremely real and exist even if we are forgiven. God can forgive sin, does forgive sin, and will forgive sin but many of our sins’ consequences remain even when we are forgiven.
"a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me."
The weight of the his sin is catching up to Cain. He realizes the consequences of his sin and fears the banishment from the presence of God. Just as Adam was withdrawn from the presence of God in the garden of Eden, so Cain is now being withdrawn from the presence of God. Sin causes this separation between Man and God.
There is an age-old question from this passage about who were the ones which caused Cain to fear. Such a question falls into the same category of where Cain’s wife comes from (Gen 4:17). For those who hold to the biological evolutionary theory of human origins, such a question is not difficult to answer. For those who reject this theory there is a solution that could be offered. It is possible that Adam and Eve had many children other than Cain, Abel and Seth who are not named because they are not necessarily a part of the unfolding story. Thus, Cain could be afraid of his other siblings or could even be afraid of his future nieces and nephews. If Cain understands “where babies come from” it is not difficult to postulate that he anticipates an increase in population of men who, like him, could kill other men. Those who hold to a biological evolutionary theory would hold to a similar theory but without the necessity of incest.
Interestingly, Cain, who has taken the life of his brother, now fears that someone will take his life. He greatly fears “eye for an eye” vengeance and now calls to the Lord for mercy.
"And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”
Sin causes separation between Man and God. However, in both cases of Adam and Cain, complete separation is not the result. Both Adam and Cain confessed and sought mercy from the Lord. The Lord hears their confession and calls for help and is quick to forgive and give mercy (or grace). Again, Cain, who has taken the life of his brother, now fears that someone will take his life. He greatly fears “eye for an eye” vengeance. What is so unbelievably unfair to the modern and postmodern mind (not to mention the Ancient Near Eastern and pre-historical mind) is the idea here of grace.
CAIN DESERVES TO DIE. He killed. He killed another human being made in the image of God. He killed a human being who was a member of his family. He killed another human being who was a member of his family who was his brother. And not just his brother, but his little brother. Cain killed his little brother not because his life was threatened but because he was jealous at the spiritual life his little brother had with the Lord. Not only is this the first murder recorded in Scripture but it is one of the most heinous murders. Again, CAIN DESERVES TO DIE. “Eye for an eye” justice (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). For Cain to die as a result of his sin is perfectly justifiable. Death is the correct and appropriate punishment. CAIN DESERVES TO DIE.
But God has mercy on Cain. Even though he totally does not deserve it, God gives Cain mercy and Cain does not receive his just punishment.
It has often been thought that the mark the Lord gave Cain was a stigma, not unlike the scarlet letter “A” that the woman caught in adultery was forced to wear in Hawthorne’s book The Scarlet Letter. But actually, this was a mark of grace. It was a mark given to Cain by God that protected Cain from his just retribution. All those who have turned to God in repentance have that same mark. All those who have turned to God in repentance have been granted mercy from our deserved punishment. Not everyone will kill their baby brother and sisters but we all have been offered the same mercy as ones who have.
Assyrians at Nineveh (Jonah 1-4)
Recall the story of Jonah.
The Assyrians were one of the most evil people who have ever lived. They were extremely brutal and blood-thirsty war mongers that make the Nazis look like boy scouts. They were evil and they were the enemies of Israel and Israel hated them and with good reason. Israel lived in fear that the Assyrians would one day attack them and destroy them. Thus, when Jonah gets the divine commission to go the Assyrians city of Nineveh to preach to it, the prophet goes the other way. He disobeys the Lord. We learn in the last chapter that Jonah knew that the Lord would forgive Nineveh if it repented. Jonah knew that the Lord is gracious and merciful and would spare the Ninevites if they turned to the Lord in faith. And, sure enough, the Ninevites to repent to the Lord at the preaching of Jonah and the Lord grants them mercy ... even though they do not deserve it.
The Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32)
Recall the Parable of the Prodigal Son. When the prodigal son had wasted his inheritance with riotous living, he returned to his father hoping to get a job as a servant because he knew he should no longer be called a “son”.
“But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put [it] on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on [his] feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill [it]; and let us eat, and be merry:” (Lk 15:22f.)
When the faithful older brother learned what was going on, he said to his father:
“Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.” (Lk 15:29f,)
The father responded:
“Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” (Lk 15:31f.)
The younger son had sinned and everyone knew it. He came back crawling to his father hoping to at least survive as a hired servant because that is what he deserved. The prodigal son deserved to be a servant; he did not deserve to be a son. Justice would have dictated that he not be given such a pass. The older brother was justified in his complaint that the son was getting such a pass.
Yet, despite all of this, the prodigal son was given mercy by his father.
Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:23-35)
Recall the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant.
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Matt 18:23-35)
Read this verse again: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." (Matt 18:35; Mark 11:26)
All those who have turned to God in repentance have that same mark as mercy. All those who have turned to God in repentance by faith in Christ Jesus have that same mark of mercy. All those who have received that mercy are required to be just as merciful. Jesus' parable makes the reason for this perfectly clear.
My understanding of the true meaning of this story about Cain and Abel is the basis for my rejection of capital punishment and the death penalty. My understanding of the grace and mercy of God as presented in this chapter (and the story of Jonah and teachings of Jesus) caused me to identify the death penalty as incompatible with my understanding of the Christian Faith. For me, to advocate both the mercy of God and the death penalty is untenable.
However, I am in no way an activist on this position of mine. I am not an activist of this belief because governments work under the rubric of justice and the death penalty for murder is justifiably correct. Technically, what they are doing is correct. It is justice. It is fair. Thus for people (including believers) to advocate the death penalty is not an injustice. It is not unfair. It is a reasonable and correct position to have. However, I do not believe it to be the position advocated by God in Christ. Thus, while I certainly do not look down my nose at those who do advocate such a system of justice, I cannot myself honestly support that system.
Furthermore, I think that we as Christian believers need to be tolerant of the non-Christians who do not share or even understand the mercy and forgiveness of God in Christ. How could they understand such things? We are Christian believers and we are still trying to grasp these truths!
I go back to Ruth and Orpah. What Orpah did was correct. The first daughter in law did what she did and she followed the customs of her time. She did the right thing. Ruth, on the other hand, went above and beyond the call of duty. Orpah did good; Ruth did better. Again, the Christian Faith is not about doing what is right but about doing what is better. We as believers are not called to fulfill our duties of the status quo; we are called to go beyond the call of duty. We are called to be like God in Christ, who went beyond the call of duty and justice. We are not called to see punishment meted out to the guilty. We are called to forgive the sins of the guilty just as God forgave us when we were guilty. We are called to follow Christ, who is the Way. It is a slow process. It is not an immediate process, but it is a process we are called to. Some of you may be believers and some of you may not be. For those who are not believers: turn towards God in repentance by faith in Christ. Ask God for the forgiveness he is offering and ask God to help you. For those who are believers: continue on your journey by continued repentance and faith in Christ. Examine yourself and seek God in how you can be improved. Ask God how you can improve yourself and ask God to help you do so.
Everyone should seek the forgiveness of God. Everyone should seek to forgive others. Everyone should seek the mercy of God. Everyone should seek to be merciful towards others.
Amen.
Questions For The Faint of Faith And Not For The Frustrated and Faint of Heart
Part of the “Dangerous Unchecked Knowledge that Puffs Up” Series
Here is a list of questions designed to be read in order. They are not for the faint of heart and probably should not be read by those severely frustrated by the decline of traditional, conservative evangelical Christianity in the Western world. These questions will only make you MORE frustrated.
After some thought on the matter, I am not going to warn those who are currently struggling with their faith, particularly with regards to the purpose of this post, to avoid reading the questions and seeking to find the answers in Scripture. I believe that these questions may help edify them and buttress their faith. Hopefully, this will be the case. But if one does find doubts creeping into their thoughts, the best method of dealing with such doubts is to ask God for help in overcoming those doubts: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
Is a child made in the “image of God”?
Is a baby made in the “image of God”?
Is a fetus made in the “image of God”?
Is an embryo made in the “image of God”?
Do babies have value?
Do fetuses have value?
Do embryos have value?
Are humans still made in the “image of God” even though they start off as embryos?
Do humans have value even though they start off as embryos?
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7)
Are humans still made in the “image of God” even though they were formed from dust?
Do humans still have value even though they were formed from dust?
Would humans still be made in the “image of God” even if they were formed from animals?
Would humans still have value even if they were formed from animals?
How are humans made in the “image of God”?
Why do humans have value?
Here is a list of questions designed to be read in order. They are not for the faint of heart and probably should not be read by those severely frustrated by the decline of traditional, conservative evangelical Christianity in the Western world. These questions will only make you MORE frustrated.
After some thought on the matter, I am not going to warn those who are currently struggling with their faith, particularly with regards to the purpose of this post, to avoid reading the questions and seeking to find the answers in Scripture. I believe that these questions may help edify them and buttress their faith. Hopefully, this will be the case. But if one does find doubts creeping into their thoughts, the best method of dealing with such doubts is to ask God for help in overcoming those doubts: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
Is a child made in the “image of God”?
Is a baby made in the “image of God”?
Is a fetus made in the “image of God”?
Is an embryo made in the “image of God”?
Do babies have value?
Do fetuses have value?
Do embryos have value?
Are humans still made in the “image of God” even though they start off as embryos?
Do humans have value even though they start off as embryos?
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7)
Are humans still made in the “image of God” even though they were formed from dust?
Do humans still have value even though they were formed from dust?
Would humans still be made in the “image of God” even if they were formed from animals?
Would humans still have value even if they were formed from animals?
How are humans made in the “image of God”?
Why do humans have value?
Friday, September 08, 2006
Should Women Teach Men At Church?
For many conservative Christians (including Roman Catholics, Fundamentalists, Landmarkists, traditional evangelicals, Separatists, (I'm not sure about Greek Orthodox), etc.) the answer to such a question is “No, women should not teach men at church.”
Anybody who knows me or even is slightly familiar with my understanding of the Scriptures knows that I believe that the Scriptures teach that women can (and should) be pastors and that the Scriptures teach that women can teach doctrine to men.
I’m not going to give the Scriptural evidence for my belief because I have before, because other have as well, and because I know such evidence will not convince those who refuse to consider or even to look at the evidence.
However, allow me to ask a number of questions to those who do believe that “women should not teach men at church”. Of course, I really don’t believe that those who hold this view will read these questions but I think I have a better chance than simply giving Scriptural evidence. Also, I do believe in the Holy Spirit’s power to reveal the meaning of Scripture to believers. Hopefully, those who read these questions will actually go to Scripture to find the answers to these questions. Yes, I do know the “extreme danger” of asking questions. But if one is afraid to ask tough questions and even more afraid to search for the answers of such questions then they may need to pray about receiving help in their faith. Honestly, if we believe our Faith to be true and that the Scriptures are true then we should not be afraid to ask such questions. Again, I am confident in the Holy Spirit’s guidance in these matters. Furthermore, even if no one else reads these questions, perhaps those of you who do belief that “women should teach men at church” and know the Scriptural evidence for that view can use these questions in good spirited discussions. Of course, no orthodox Christian should hold to this particular view of Scripture simply because they want to or because they like it; no, they should hold to it because they are convinced that this is what Scripture teaches. If not, the are not better than those Christians who hold to the traditional view because it is traditional or because everyone else does. All are bad reasons. Finally, here is the one verse, the lone Scriptural excerpt which the traditional view of “women in ministry” has been based: “I permit not a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to keep silent” (Tim 2:12). That’s it. Now here are my questions:
- How should we define “teach”?
- How should we define “church”?
- How should we define “authority”?
- Can a woman teach men outside of church?
- What is God’s reason for this prohibition?
- Why can a woman write on doctrine but not speak it?
- Does the Great Commission only apply to men (Matt 28:19-20) or does it only apply to women when they are not in church? Of course, why do people believe this verse only applies to the church?
- What are the things that males are competent to do but by Scripture says they should not?
- What authority do men have?
- What authority do pastors have?
- Do prophets have authority?
- Where in Scripture does it say that a woman cannot be a “pastor”?
- What should a woman do if she is asked a theological question by a man?
- What should a woman do if she is asked by a man to explain a Christian truth that he does not know?
- Why is woman in the singular and not plural?
- Can a woman “preach?”
- What if a man reads a book while in church?
- Because Paul’s not referring to all women in general, which woman is he talking about in particular?
- What sort of authority do female prophetesses have?
- If it IS wrong for a man to be taught doctrine by a woman’s theology book, who is sinning, the woman who wrote the book or the man who read it?
- We say that the husband is head of the family. If the husband dies, who is head of the family then?
- What is the difference between “teaching” and “witnessing”?
- If Paul meant “authority”, why did he not use exousiazo, his typical word, as in: “the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife.” (1 Cor 7:4)?
- Does the traditional meaning of this verse change because Paul uses the verb authenteo in the infinitive, which means to “usurp authority”, rather that exousiazo, “authority”?
- An unbelieving man visiting a local church walks up to a believing woman and asks her a doctrinal question. The believing woman replies that she knows the answer to his doctrinal question but cannot answer him. The unbelieving man asks the believing woman why she cannot answer his doctrinal question. The believing woman replies that she cannot tell the unbelieving man why she cannot answer his doctrinal question because the question of why she cannot answer his doctrinal question is a doctrinal question. The unbelieving man begins to anticipate the problem and asks, “You mean women cannot answer doctrinal questions because they are forbidden to “teach men in church?” The believing woman replies, “Yes,” catches herself, “Oops!” and then excuses herself because she has sinned and must go repent. So what was the believing woman’s sin?
Anybody who knows me or even is slightly familiar with my understanding of the Scriptures knows that I believe that the Scriptures teach that women can (and should) be pastors and that the Scriptures teach that women can teach doctrine to men.
I’m not going to give the Scriptural evidence for my belief because I have before, because other have as well, and because I know such evidence will not convince those who refuse to consider or even to look at the evidence.
However, allow me to ask a number of questions to those who do believe that “women should not teach men at church”. Of course, I really don’t believe that those who hold this view will read these questions but I think I have a better chance than simply giving Scriptural evidence. Also, I do believe in the Holy Spirit’s power to reveal the meaning of Scripture to believers. Hopefully, those who read these questions will actually go to Scripture to find the answers to these questions. Yes, I do know the “extreme danger” of asking questions. But if one is afraid to ask tough questions and even more afraid to search for the answers of such questions then they may need to pray about receiving help in their faith. Honestly, if we believe our Faith to be true and that the Scriptures are true then we should not be afraid to ask such questions. Again, I am confident in the Holy Spirit’s guidance in these matters. Furthermore, even if no one else reads these questions, perhaps those of you who do belief that “women should teach men at church” and know the Scriptural evidence for that view can use these questions in good spirited discussions. Of course, no orthodox Christian should hold to this particular view of Scripture simply because they want to or because they like it; no, they should hold to it because they are convinced that this is what Scripture teaches. If not, the are not better than those Christians who hold to the traditional view because it is traditional or because everyone else does. All are bad reasons. Finally, here is the one verse, the lone Scriptural excerpt which the traditional view of “women in ministry” has been based: “I permit not a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to keep silent” (Tim 2:12). That’s it. Now here are my questions:
- How should we define “teach”?
- How should we define “church”?
- How should we define “authority”?
- Can a woman teach men outside of church?
- What is God’s reason for this prohibition?
- Why can a woman write on doctrine but not speak it?
- Does the Great Commission only apply to men (Matt 28:19-20) or does it only apply to women when they are not in church? Of course, why do people believe this verse only applies to the church?
- What are the things that males are competent to do but by Scripture says they should not?
- What authority do men have?
- What authority do pastors have?
- Do prophets have authority?
- Where in Scripture does it say that a woman cannot be a “pastor”?
- What should a woman do if she is asked a theological question by a man?
- What should a woman do if she is asked by a man to explain a Christian truth that he does not know?
- Why is woman in the singular and not plural?
- Can a woman “preach?”
- What if a man reads a book while in church?
- Because Paul’s not referring to all women in general, which woman is he talking about in particular?
- What sort of authority do female prophetesses have?
- If it IS wrong for a man to be taught doctrine by a woman’s theology book, who is sinning, the woman who wrote the book or the man who read it?
- We say that the husband is head of the family. If the husband dies, who is head of the family then?
- What is the difference between “teaching” and “witnessing”?
- If Paul meant “authority”, why did he not use exousiazo, his typical word, as in: “the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife.” (1 Cor 7:4)?
- Does the traditional meaning of this verse change because Paul uses the verb authenteo in the infinitive, which means to “usurp authority”, rather that exousiazo, “authority”?
- An unbelieving man visiting a local church walks up to a believing woman and asks her a doctrinal question. The believing woman replies that she knows the answer to his doctrinal question but cannot answer him. The unbelieving man asks the believing woman why she cannot answer his doctrinal question. The believing woman replies that she cannot tell the unbelieving man why she cannot answer his doctrinal question because the question of why she cannot answer his doctrinal question is a doctrinal question. The unbelieving man begins to anticipate the problem and asks, “You mean women cannot answer doctrinal questions because they are forbidden to “teach men in church?” The believing woman replies, “Yes,” catches herself, “Oops!” and then excuses herself because she has sinned and must go repent. So what was the believing woman’s sin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)