A Quick Thought on the Image of God

There is a presumption among far too many fundamentalist Christians to equate “Man made in the image of God” with the outward and physical characteristics of God, despite the fact that God is spirit and not material. Fundamentalists do so because they want to counter the findings of biological evolution that traces man’s biological ascendancy from brute beast to a thinking mammal (I myself find the ascendancy from brute mammal to mammal that has a personal relationship with God fascinating). Such an idea unfortunately borders upon that of Mormonism (and some other fundamentalist groups) that views God as having a physical body not unlike that of Adam. Nevertheless, if “Man made in the image of God” with were to be thought of in such physical terms, what would God then look like?

Young or old?
Black of white?
Male or female?
Tall or short?
Fat or thin?
Blonde or brunette?
Brown eyes or blue eyes?
Beard or clean shaven?

The classical philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) would by dialectical reasoning attempt to find out what the essence of Man is by reducing him or her down to its most common and universal denominator and then state this ideal as that which is what makes man in the image of God and thus, God. Such a Thomist approach to theology would send Barth into a tirade. I myself (like a good neo-orthodox thinker) would rather find out about Man from God and not God from Man.

But, again, if we did make such test on the condition that God is most like what man is most like … then God would be an Asian woman because there are more Asians than any other race and more women than men. Thus, an Asian woman.

[In case your wondering what it means for Man to be made in God’s image, it refers to Man’s ability to relate on a personal level. Thus, He created Man to be able to relate to God. My own personal theory is that the first animal that was able to relate to God on a personal level was the first human (i.e., Adam). I’ll probably have to wait until the resurrection to get an answer. Oh well.]

DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES (1 Cor 14:39)

XXXX takes stance against Pentecostal/charismatic doctrine

So says Paul: “DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES” (1 Cor 14:39)

I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.


1) I do believe that they will no longer hire any professor that affirms the Scriptural practice of “private prayer language” whether that professors practices it or not or whether that professor refrains from promoting it or not. However, I do believe that all the current professors who practice private prayer language will be okay as long as they do not promote them.

“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of XXXX Seminary.”

I take the above statement as a true policy and my experience with SWBTS suggests that they will not act upon anyone unless that person does publicly make a statement in support of the Biblical practice.

So while I disagree with this policy, I do believe that any current professors’ jobs are threatened … over this issue.


2) I am somewhat concerned about the growing hostility towards the issue of “private prayer language” for the following reasons:


- “Private prayer language” concerns the intimate relationship between God and the believer who is worshipping Him (1 Cor 14:2). No one other than Christ has the right to either dictate or mediate the relationship between God and Man. Such an effrontery not only ignores Protestant Reformation theology, Baptist distinctive theology, but places such dictators in the position of usurping the position of Christ.

- “Private prayer language” is the result of an experiential and emotional worship of God. Essentially, in this personal worship, the individual believer’s spiritual contact with God results in an overflowing of the senses to the degree that the brain’s speech abilities “overflow”. Essentially, it is the Spirit “speaking” emotionally to God in reaction to what God has done (1 Cor 14:2, 14). Now just like in a normal conversation, the individual does not have to speak (either in “tongues” or otherwise). Thus the individual engaged in “private prayer language” does not have to do so. If any charismatic tells you that he cannot help himself and that it is all the Spirit’s doing, then this person is wrong. Neither God nor His Spirit ever violates an individual’s freedom and autonomy; to do so would negate the intimate relationship between the two persons involved. Nevertheless, as Paul clearly teaches, “private prayer language” edifies the individual (1 Cor 14:4). Indeed, “private prayer language” is an edifying experience which is also the result of an edifying experience. To prevent believers from having an edifying experience is both negligence and hubristic. To this effect, the SBC leadership might as well tell everyone to not pray, worship, read Scripture, disciple, minister, repent or do anything else that brings edification to the individual believer.

- Paul specifically encourages other believers to “speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5, 39). Indeed, Paul; does state that “prophesy” is a greater gift than “tongues” but this still means that “tongues” is a gift. Indeed, Paul does not teach that “tongues” should not be a part of Christian worship services. In fact, if “speaking in tongues” is accompanied by an interpretation, such a practice is encouraged (1 Cor 14:5). Why? If I experience a blessing from God that is edifying to me, correct? Now if I tell others about that blessing from God, such a blessing edifies the body. Therefore, to forbid or even discourage “private prayer language” is not simply negligence and hubristic but directly contrary to the teachings of Paul in the Scriptures.

- Those who are either practicing or advocating “private prayer language” are doing so in accordance with the specific, clear, literal teachings of Scripture.

- Because these SBC leaders are both in clear violation of the Scriptures and are ignorant in this matter, we who are following the Scripture must ignore these SBC leaders in this specific matter (1 Cor 14:37-38). Really, how clearer can Paul be? “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor 14:39)

3) And the above is what is so disconcerting. Many in the SBC are continuing to explicitly and directly and openly disobeying Scripture and encouraging others to do so. And this not a matter of different hermeneutics. These SBC leaders are violating their own hermeneutics when they not simply teach against alcohol and “private prayer language” but actually force others to ignore the Scriptures. Say what you will about liberal believers ignoring Scripture; they never force others to do so. With the conservative leaders, they are not satisfied with simply ignoring Scripture they want everyone to agree and do likewise even if they must do so by force. I imagine that they have a guilty conscience and think they will feel better about their actions if everyone is on their page. It’s the typical sort of peer pressure one sees among homosexuals, drug addicts, etc. in our culture: they feel guilty so they try to force everyone to agree with them so they can feel better.

Some have said that “private prayer language” or the contemporary practice of “speaking in tongues” should not be equated with the practice that is recorded in the Scriptures. The idea is that this contemporary is not the same as the NT practice and thus it can be either ignored or eliminated by the Church. However, there is no evidence or indication (Scriptural or otherwise) that these two phenomena are anything but identical.

But if some argue that this practice is not the equivalent of the NT practice, there are three questions that they must answer before they inflict their will upon the relationship between God and Man:


1) What is the true NT practice regarding “speaking in tongues”?

Up till now, the SBC leaders who are so dogmatic about this issue have yet to identify this NT practice or even to make any differentiation between various charismatic practices. There is a blanket statement which condemns all charismatic practices without making admission that one can perform “tongues” as the NT teaches. Of course, such general condemnation apart from Scriptural authority is nothing new. Their treatment of alcohol consumption and women in ministry shows a similar Scriptural ignorance. Though they are quick to condemn that which they consider to be wrong, they are silent on what they affirm. The pessimism in me argues that they are silent because they want to give themselves room to wiggle given the political winds. The optimism in me simply admits they are Scripturally ignorant. Nevertheless, how can they legitimately condemn and eliminate “private prayer language” without any argument other than “trust us”? Possibly they hold to the view that charismatic gifts have ceased but they do not make an argument for this either. Some have said that “speaking in tongues” should be equated with experience at Pentecost in which everyone heard their own language. However if this was so then 1) why would Paul say that no one understands what is being said? 2) why would an interpreter be needed? 3) why would non-believers think everyone is mad because they do not understand? Really, these are two similar but still different phenomena.


2) What is the experience that so many Christians believe to be the NT practice of “speaking in tongues”?

If “private prayer language” is not the NT practice, what then is this phenomenon that so many believers from so many various Christian traditions (Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) are experiencing? Why is it that so many SBC leaders (SBC agency presidents, agency trustees, professors, pastors, etc.) are themselves experiencing it? What is it they are experiencing?


3) How do we identify authentic NT “speaking in tongues”?

If the practice in the NT which people presumably then have erroneously identified as “private prayer language” is something different than what is now being practiced, then how would the true incarnation of this NT practice be identified? How do we differentiate between “true private prayer language” and “false private prayer language”?

I believe that we shall never hear the answers to these questions from the people who desire to interfere with the relationship between God and Man by prohibiting “private prayer language” and the people who agree with them. Why?

1) They do not know the answers. They have no idea what the Scriptures say about this issue. Need proof? Every time they want to make a point about anything they support it by Scripture or tell everyone to not disagree with them because they are only doing what Scripture teaches … except in this case (and also with alcohol). Also, there has not been any real debate upon this issue – rather those who seek to prohibit “private prayer language” have consistently attempted to shut up anyone who questions the legitimacy of their actions and beliefs. A quick not for the future: if a particular party with a point of view about a Biblical issue must force their views upon others and seeks to silence contrary arguments, then that’s a pretty good indication that such a party really doesn’t have a good argument for their POV – and they know it!

2) They do not care what the answers are. This is true. The fact of the matter is that too many of the people who want to prohibit “private prayer language” (and those who agree with them) are doing so not because of what the Scriptures say but because they simply do not like “private prayer language”. Such an idea is bolstered by their similar actions with regards to alcohol consumption.

3) They do not have to answer these questions. These people have the power to force people to do what they will and because they don’t like “private prayer language” (or alcohol) they are using their power to prohibit it regardless of whether such an idea is Scriptural or not. They do not have to follow Scripture. They do not have to convince other people to agree with them. They can completely ignore all contrary arguments and disagreements and force their will upon all. All they have to do is appoint the “right” trustees and then tell these trustees to do X and these trustees will dutifully do X despite what the rest of us think. Is this not the case?

Yes, I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.

The Problem With The Baptist Faith and Message

What is the purpose of the BFM? Supposedly to confess what the SBC believes about particular Biblical subjects. However, now we are debating about the meaning of the BFM. Soon we will need a new confession to confess what the SBC believes about the BFM.

To know what does the BFM says about this issue (or any issue), it would be best to look at the writings of its authors when they composed it (i.e., E.Y. Mullins, H.H. Hobbs, etc.). Of course, they all don’t agree on what it means. But since the BFM2000 does not alter much of the BFM1963, then we should probably focus on Hobb’s intention. Of course, since Hobbs was a “student” of Mullins and Mullins composed the first BFM, perhaps we should focus first on Mullin’s intention in the BFM1924 and then temper that with the updated BFM1963 by Hobbs. Of course, Mullins is no longer respected in today’s SBC and both the composers of the 2000BFM and other SBC leaders blame Mullins for the “moderate” SBC. And Hobbs is also no longer appreciated because he is held responsible by many SBC leaders and 2000BFM composers for neo-orthodoxy in the SBC and the problems deemed inherent in the BFM1963 which made necessary the composition of the BFM2000.

However, since each confession was confirmed by majority vote of the SBC messengers to each of the respective “confessional conventions”, then perhaps we should look at how the messengers who voted on the BFM understood the issues when they voted their approval. Of course, then we have to decide which groups of messengers we should focus: SBC messengers in 1924, SBC messengers in 1963 or SBC messengers in 2000?

Whatever the focus of our inquiry on what the BFM says, we are still basing how we practice our faith on the unknown whims of a mostly unknown minority of people on one day in history.

Of course, since the current prologue states that “confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience” then this whole issue is moot.

To You Who Attempt To Force Others To Adopt Your Traditions: YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.

I read this paper. Allow me to be tangentially within my academic freedom. How is it that such people who have the most remedial understanding of Scripture be given the authority to force other people to adopt their milky views? Their opinions and traditions are not the answer. What is the answer? Again, the answer is Jesus and Scripture.

All of their evidence for their abstaining position is based upon tradition. Now if they themselves desire to abstain that is completely their decision and no one at all should criticize them for it.

However, if they themselves say that a believer should not drink or have the effrontery to make rules and regulations that prohibit other believers from properly enjoying God’s gift of, then those prohibitionists should be criticized for the sake of the Gospel.

1) Both Jesus and the Scriptures which testify of Him are completely and unequivocally clear that alcohol consumption is approved by God.

2) Those who seek to force others to abstain from alcohol consumption are:

a. Proclaiming a teaching contrary to both God and Scripture.
b. Promoting the traditions of man above the teachings of God.
c. Allowing culture and society to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.
d. Allowing personal preference and personal experience to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.

In this article the authors admit that the Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning alcohol consumption, yet, despite such admitted confusion, they then argue that their view of alcohol prohibition should be adopted by all. Why? They prefer to cite the short span of Southern Baptist tradition while ignoring both Scripture and the other 1900 previous years of Church tradition.

They are supposed to be orthodox Christians of the conservative evangelical style. We are continually given the drum-beat of Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! Every sermon, article and conference that comes along is framed and based upon what the Scripture teaches and why we must follow Scriptural teaching whether or not we agree or like it.

Please tell me: Why is it these same people who fire, excommunicate and criticize anyone who does not agree with their view of inerrancy and Biblical authority are now telling everyone to ignore the Bible on the issue of alcohol? And their arguments are not simply about persuading people to adopt their unscriptural view. No, their arguments are about making regulations and laws to force other people to adopt their unscriptural view.

YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.

Let me ask you: How did the Roman Catholic Church respond when Martin Luther argued that their theology of indulgences did not correspond with the teachings of Scripture?

1) The Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning indulgences.
2) It is traditional.
3) Who are you to tell the Pope, the RCC and other theologians and scholars much better than yourself what is acceptable to the faith?

How did Luther respond? He ignored them.

What is my advice to other believers? Ignore them.

What will I do? I shall ignore them.

When the baskets are forcing people to not drink, to not have piercings, to not pray to God in tongues, and to just generally not follow the teachings of Scripture, I tell all to ignore the baskets.

They are wrong. They are not correct. They are teaching and acting contrary to Scripture. They have no authority to teach and act in this manner.

I am a believing soul quite competent to read and apply the clear teachings of Scripture. I have always done what I what I want and always shall. What is my justification?

YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.

The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5

Would you like to learn of a great Biblical joke that really presents the humour of both Deutero-Isaiah and God?

Read Isaiah 56:3-5 paying particular attention to the end of v. 3 and the end of v. 5. It’s best to use the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, or the NASB. The TNIV completely obscures the joke which is quite funny in any language and culture in which the Scripture is translated.

Is An Unbeliever Condemned By Participating In Communion?

A very nice discussion with a fellow believer.

First, dear brother, I really enjoy your blog and appreciate the powerful points you make for the sake of the Church. This issue of unbelievers and the Lord's Supper is personal for me as our house church in a Hindu neighborhood in Chicago deals with this issue often. I appreciate your stand that unbelief is a disqualification for taking the Lord’s Supper and agree wholeheartedly with it. However, there are some in house church settings who do not hold your view and say that since an unbeliever does not really understand, he is not guilty of unbelief, merely ignorance.

I would be shocked if some in house churches didn’t disagree with me. Such an idea of closed communion is extremely old and widespread.

In your hypothetical senario there is no way for the unbeliever to know the bread/wine, torilla/chips, whatever is part of our special commemoration (or sacrament or memorial or wherever you fall on that issue) of the Lord's death. It is sitting on the table as part of the meal and there is no leader saying, "this is the body..." Of course the unbeliever can eat freely - the bread/wine aren't inherently special. They become special for the Church in that time of remembering the Lord's death until He comes.

Yes, that is why it matters not that an unbeliever consumes the communion elements: it is nothing more than bread and “wine”.

Your use of John 6 is interesting and I like the noting of the foreshadowing here. But, John 6 is before Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper and is therefore not a valid case.

Actually John 6 is an extremely valid case. The “historical event” which is recorded in John 6 may have occurred before the formal institution of the Lord’s Supper, the story was recorded by John some 50-60 years after the event took place. All Christians who originally read the Gospel of John would have been quite familiar with communion. The Feeding of the 5000 appears in the other Gospels, but John’s version includes Jesus’ exposition of the “miracle” in which the Eucharistic aspect of the “miracle” is emphasized.

The time of the year is Passover (Jn 6:4)

“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (Jn 6:27)

“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (Jn 6:31)

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:32-40)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (Jn 6:47-58)

Perhaps there is some deep point that I am missing in Acts 27, but all I see there is a blessing and having some bread. Blessing your bread doesn't make it a communion meal in the ecclesiastical sense.

One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is the Jewish attitude towards meal fellowship with Gentiles. This issue was central to early Christianity because of the centrality of Communion and what it meant in terms of the fellowship of believers (both Jew and Gentile) united in Christ. Luke is continually reinforcing the notion that it is okay for observant Jews to fellowship with Gentiles during meals.

A literary device that Luke uses in his work is parallels. Luke depicts Jesus in a particular way in the Gospel of Luke. In Acts, Luke portrays Jesus’ apostles in a manner which parallel that of Jesus (see Peter in Ac 9-12). Paul also portrayed in a manner which likens him to Jesus.

Allow me to give an excerpt from my thesis:

"Just as Jesus makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by the disciples (Lk 9:51-19:28), so Paul makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by his friends (Ac 19:21-21:17). Just as Jesus receives a good reception and people praise God for what they have seen (Lk 19:37), so Paul receives a good reception and God is glorified for the things done among the Gentiles (Ac 21:17-20). Just as Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Lk 19:45-48), so Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Ac 21:26). Just as Jesus is seized by a mob (Lk 22:54), so Paul is seized by a mob (Ac 21:30). Just as Jesus experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod Antipas, Pilate; Lk 22:26; 23:1; 23:8; 23:13, so Paul experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, Herod Agrippa; Ac 23, 24, 25, 26). Both are charged with sedition (Lk. 23:2; Acts 24:5). Both are sent to Jewish representatives of their own districts (Herod for Galilee in Lk. 23:6-7, and Agrippa for Cilicia in Acts 23:24-25). Both are deemed innocent by Roman government officials (Lk. 23:15, 22; Acts 25:25; 26:31). Just as Pilate states that he will release Jesus (Lk 23:16, 22), so Agrippa says: “This man could have been released” (Ac 26:32). Both Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry ends on the note of the fulfillment of Scripture (Lk 24; Ac 28)."

Therefore, notice the similarities between Jesus’ statement in Luke and Paul’s statement in Acts:

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)

“And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.” (Ac 27:35)

This parallel is reinforced in Acts 27 by Luke’s statements that those on the ship are saved by God because of Paul having divine favor. Notice this verse:

“Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.” (Ac 27:34)

Thus we have a parallel “Last Supper” in Acts in the context of Luke’s focus on the theme of meal fellowship with Gentiles.

But, the more pressing question for our fellowship among Hindus in Chicago is whether or not to let them participate in the Communion time. Some members of our church insist that the Lord allowed Judas to participate. Indeed He did, but in my view, He let Judas participate as part of Judas' just condemnation, not for his salvation!

Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis?

If we say that Judas was a non-believer and that one should not allow a non-believer to partake of communion, then Jesus would have sinned by allowing Judas to partake, regardless of His reasons for doing so.

Of course, Judas was not “condemned” because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. Even then, if Judas would have repented after betraying Jesus, he still would have been saved, communion participation or not.

Who wants to rely on the example of Judas to support an action by their unbelieving friend?! In the very context of Judas' participation in the Lord's Supper, Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!" No please, do not use Judas as justification.

I think Judas is a good example for this issue because of who he is and what he did.

Judas is a perfect example of this passage, which you must deal with on this issue: "Whoever therefore eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (See whole passage of 1Cor.11:27-32)

Yes, the issue becomes hinges on what Paul means when he uses “unworthy” (anaxios).

You may not be aware of my previous article on the subject: When Communion Is Open And When It Is Closed

Essentially, my conclusion is that the “unworthy” manner on which Paul focuses is divisions within the body: one who partakes of communion while practicing division within the body is participating in an “unworthy” manner (which is why I consider it 180 degrees wrong and even blasphemous to deny another believer fellowship and access to communion).

1) In truth, no one is really “worthy” of communion with God in Christ – that’s the point.

2) An unbeliever is damned whether they participate in communion or not – that’s also the point.

3) There is nothing in this passage even suggests that Paul is referring to unbelievers. Indeed, it is quite evident that Paul is referring to believers because that is his point. A believer (a member of Christ’s body) is behaving like an unbeliever (a non-member of Christ’s body) by causing divisions within the body. It is this hypocritical stance which is Paul’s focus. This would not apply to an unbeliever.

I agree that if someone is hungry and we have bread and wine we ought to share. But, when that bread and wine is serving His purpose as "the bread and cup of the Lord," it ought to be reserved for those who can discern it's worth and those who can discern themselves in light of it.

I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I understand that the bread and “wine” are symbolic and never literally Jesus’ body and blood. We all buy the elements at the store and they never take on any particular importance in of themselves. Because their importance is only symbolic, such an importance is only reality to the believer who both understands the importance and is actually participating. To say that condemnation is put upon an unbeliever who consumes the elements is nonsense. How many believers do you know thought they were saved, participated in communion, but later were convicted by the Holy Spirit that they were never saved? I know quite a few. Are they damned despite their current belief?

Again, I am not suggesting that communion be generally open to unbelievers. Rather, my argument here is that, given the scenario presented to me by my friend who is pastor of a house church, there are particular situations which would negate the general practice of communion for believers only. And, like a good evangelical, I base my conclusion on Jesus and the Scriptures.

I agree that 1 Cor. 11 is really Paul addressing division. But, we must note that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-32 with believers in mind.

Ah, you have read my article. That’s what I get for not reading the whole argument before responding.

I say that if Paul saw a moment when even believers should not take part in the Lord's Supper then certainly unbelievers should not. And if he never directly addressed the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper then (and I know this is an argument from silence, but the opposition has only an argument from silence as well) I assume the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper never entered his mind because it is so ludicrous. I leave it those who would allow an unbeliever to take the Lord's Supper to show me reason from Scripture to allow it: I guarantee that there is none.

Again, see my arguments from John 6, Acts 27, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Matthew 12:1-8.

Some in our church have said, "if we let them participate in the gospel, but taking the Lord's Supper then they will experience the gospel preached.." My answer: why don't be also then baptize them! No, the Lord's Supper is for the Church, not for the world. If we give it to the world then we surrender a beautiful gift from our Lord to us and this would be most offensive to our Holy God.

Well, I don’t make that argument. The conclusion to my argument is based solely upon the given scenario.

Share bread and wine, sure. But, do not share the body and blood of our Lord lest it be profaned.

That’s the point. We are not sharing the body and blood. It’s impossible to share the body and blood of Christ. When an unbeliever consumes communion bread and “wine”, it is simply bread and “wine” and not Christ’s body and blood. I can think of no way and no verse which would argue the possibility of an unbeliever consuming Christ’s body and blood.

I believe that you are in agreement with me. But, I write because I am concerned by hearing Judas used as an example. He was not just eating bread because he was hungry. He was taking part in the rite. And that was part of his condemnation. Far be it from us to lead our unbelieving friends down the path of Judas!

No, I do not think that his participation was a part of his condemnation. His betrayal of Jesus led him to whatever condemnation he experienced. Again, Jesus invited Judas to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave Judas the choice sop.

“Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.” (John 13:26)

If we say that allowing an unbeliever to participate in communion is wrong, then what Jesus did was wrong. Furthermore, if we say that such an action brings condemnation to the unbeliever then Jesus was guilty of premeditated murder. Not only did He invite Judas to the supper but gave him a piece to eat. Imagine that some believer brings an unbeliever to church and tricks the unsuspecting unbeliever into consuming the communion elements in order that he could be damned!

I do understand your point and the concerns behind it. It is obvious that it all comes from your love of others and that should be commended. So allow me to alleviate your fears:

1) An unbeliever who participates in communion is not damned by doing so. He or she is damned because they are an unbeliever. An unbeliever who does not participate in communion is still damned. An unbeliever who participates in communion but later becomes a believer is not damned.

2) I have not found any Scriptural evidence which points to the idea that an unbeliever is damned because he participates in communion.

3) Again, Judas was not in any way condemned because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. I do not see where the Scriptures say that he was condemned for such participation. Again, if he was condemned for such participation this would make Jesus a premeditated murderer.

In a traditional church the pastor can say a little schpeel and be done with it. In house church, when there are 12 people and an unbeliever and we take it in the context of a whole meal, it can be quite a bit more awkward, but I do not see why we would water down an ancient church tradition for the sake of personal comfort.

If a church tradition is contrary to Scripture we should not simply water it down; we should remove it entirely. Nevertheless, such idealism has to be tempered with pragmatism. Sure, I would like for the Church to remove entirely the idea that participation in communion by unbelievers causes condemnation, but that is not going to happen any time soon and I am not so interested in the subject to claim it as a cause. Perhaps such an idea waters down the Gospel message but it has never done so to any significant degree that necessarily demands my attention.

Now closed communion for other believers is another matter entirely. I will take that up as a cause. I refuse to belong to any church that denies communion to other believers who are not being disciplined for sin. To deny another believer communion simply due to their association with another local church or denominational tradition is arrogant blasphemy to me. Such a prohibition runs counter to entire gospel message and purpose of communion itself. It is the unworthy hubris which Paul is directly and specifically attacking in 1 Corinthians 11. That is a hill which I will die on.

Though I might consider option 4 for the sake of not embarrassing a particular unbeliever if a situation with an individual seemed to merit it. Again, thank you for your helpful blog and may the grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit, brother.

Thank you so much. God’s Blessings on you and your church.

Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture

I have a number of theological positions which differ from those held by my peers in the evangelical conservative community. And, frankly, I really do not care whether anyone agrees with me on these particular positions or not. Why? 1) These positions are true or untrue whether any other evangelical agrees with me or not. 2) These views really do not affect one’s faith and one can be a faithful believer whether or not they hold to these theological positions, so I feel no great urgency to convince everyone that my theological positions are correct. 3) Such a task is far too difficult for me to do so. Why? a) I’d be struggling against the “tyranny of first beliefs”, which means that people so strongly grasp onto the first beliefs they have that it is almost impossible to have them change such beliefs – particularly when such beliefs are matters of religious faith. b) I’d be struggling against old traditions which are held by the majority of the evangelical crowd. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not like to go against “the crowd” either due to peer pressure or because of anxiety and uncertainty of being wrong. c) Because the tendency of evangelical conservative Christianity is to equate the authenticity of faith with the accuracy of belief, people are afraid to consider other interpretations of the faith for fear that they would be heading towards apostasy (or at least be perceived as being heading towards apostasy). d) There is a particular level of theological inquiry which must be reached in order to begin to think about particular subjects and issues. We all know this is true: one must understand basic fundamentals of algebra before one proceeds to think about Calculus problems. One is not going to be able to consider Calculus problems if they are still struggling with algebra (like myself). I reached this conclusion back in May. I began to realize that the theological and biblical issues which I was pondering were generally beyond the paradigms of my peers. It wasn’t that they were somehow stupid or something. Far from it! My peers were very intelligent but they (or I) had gone towards other avenues of exploration of the Faith. Really, how can I discuss issues of the atonement with Calvinists? How can I discuss man made in the image of God with those who reject evolution? How can I discuss Luke’s creative process of Luke-Acts with those who refuse to accept documentary hypotheses? So I generally ceased to debate many issues with many of my friends and peers because the particular issues which I wished to debate required a particular set of presuppositions that the average evangelical conservative Christian just doesn’t have.

Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.

Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.

Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).

So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:

1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”

Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.

Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.

Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”

Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.

2) The Example of the Poetry of Job

The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).

Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?

The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.

What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.

Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.

The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.

I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.

Alcohol and Vacillating to the World

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.