To watch the video, click on the link below:
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Sermon Video: Building up the Church - 1 Corinthians 14:1-12
In 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul established the supremacy of Love, but how would one rank/evaluate the lesser gifts of the Holy Spirit? In order to impart perspective, Paul compares the efficacy of two of these: prophecy and speaking in tongues. Prophecy is designed to encourage, strengthen, and comfort, it 'edifies the church' by sharing with the people of God the Word of God. Speaking in tongues (foreign languages) has potential, but without an interpreter it can only benefit the one to whom the gift is given. Thus comparing the effects of the two upon the Church, Paul strongly prefers gifts that are outward focused, rather than inward, and gifts that help the many, rather than the few (in this case individuals). This then is our principle: seek gifts from the Spirit that build up the Church, by building up the local church, through help that is truly beneficial, in particular the sharing of the Word of God.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission
The list of companies being boycotted by various Christians and/or conservatives has grown rather long: Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, CSV, Disney, Nascar, Amazon, Google, basically the biggest and most popular corporations in America, all having done something regarding guns, homosexuality, or politics to put them on "the list". No, I'm not going to enter into the boycott argument, and yes, a similar list exists among liberals listing different companies (or sometimes the same companies for different reasons). What do we make of this, and how does it impact the Church and the Gospel?
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation. Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide. The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue. People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them. We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe. Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off. {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}. I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'" In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates. He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them. In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates). At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ. Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within. Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer? Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society. In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't. Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension. That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension. It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers} Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element. For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing. We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like. Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church. At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century. We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us. We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they? We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'". As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot. We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World. Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation. Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide. The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue. People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them. We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe. Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off. {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}. I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'" In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates. He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them. In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates). At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ. Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within. Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer? Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society. In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't. Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension. That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension. It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers} Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element. For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing. We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like. Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church. At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century. We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us. We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they? We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'". As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot. We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World. Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Sermon Video: The Greatest of these is Love - 1 Corinthians 13:8-13
In the culmination of his ode to the supremacy of Love, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the permanence of love by comparing it to the temporary nature of three other spiritual gifts: prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. These gifts exist because of the flawed nature of humanity. In order for the Church to function, it needs spiritual assistance from God, but this will not always be the case. After the establishment of the Kingdom of God, when humanity is fully reconciled to our Creator, there will no longer be a need for assistance in bridging the current gap between God and man. Yet in that day, Love will not cease, but fully come into its own. Rather than a limited version of God's love, in imitation of Jesus, the children of God will have and experience love in its pure form, no longer marred by the selfishness of sin. Finally, while faith and hope are also foundation with love, Paul declares love to be the greatest of these, for one day faith will be sight, hope will be fruition, but love will be fully realized and once more in its glory as it was within the trinity before Creation.
To watch the video, click on the link below:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Friday, September 13, 2019
Sexist Gospels? Another reminder that Inspiration and Inerrancy matter
In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women. This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating. That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be. That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all. That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all? The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors. In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy, believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}
In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father. Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall
Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}. Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place. In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers. In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy? Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture. What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view. What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text. The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women. God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote. It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal. Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when? Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself. Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead? Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more. If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value? On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender. We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other. These things are necessary. What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written. The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all? The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors. In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy, believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}
In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father. Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall
Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}. Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place. In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers. In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy? Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture. What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view. What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text. The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women. God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote. It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal. Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when? Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself. Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead? Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more. If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value? On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender. We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other. These things are necessary. What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written. The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Does God even want state-mandated prayer?
Calls for a return of required prayer in the nation's public schools are common on social media and letters written to the editors of local newspapers. Some who I would count as valued colleagues and friends are echoing this call. As the theory goes, this is a key to turning around the American culture and bringing back a golden age of Christendom where America's status as a Christian Nation was unchallenged {A return to a supposed past Golden Age is a common trope in history, one rarely based in reality; a different topic for another time}. Setting aside the question of whether or not state-mandated prayer in schools would benefit the culture (An assumption made in the argument, but how would one know if it is true: crime rates? teen pregnancy? drug use? Would prayer be expected to lower such things by 10%? 50% With a complex system like a nation/culture, we cannot single out one factor for much of anything because of interconnected cause/effect.), or the Church itself (Was the Church healthier during periods when the population was required {on pain of various penalties} to pay nominal homage to God? When everyone living in the land was assumed to be a Christian by simple right of birth regardless of any evidence of the Holy Spirit? Was that marriage of Church/State a healthier Church?), even if we assume that both the nation and the Church would benefit, that there wouldn't be any unintended negative consequences to either, there still remains a fundamental question that is not being sufficiently considered: Does God want state-mandated prayer?
How can we know the mind of God? A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word. What then does the Word of God say on the subject? How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)? For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.} A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:
Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.
Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.
Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart. If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state? What about those prayers would be pleasing to God? Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him? Is false prayer better than no prayer at all? The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.
Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God. It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help. It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith. It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer. Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know? Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different). How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God? (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid. 'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')? What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in. If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc? Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in. As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school. As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology. The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government? Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy. If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.
From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best). Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society. They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right. The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them? If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely. Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.
How can we know the mind of God? A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word. What then does the Word of God say on the subject? How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)? For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.} A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:
Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.
Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.
Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart. If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state? What about those prayers would be pleasing to God? Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him? Is false prayer better than no prayer at all? The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.
Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God. It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help. It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith. It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer. Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know? Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different). How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God? (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid. 'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')? What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in. If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc? Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in. As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school. As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology. The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government? Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy. If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.
From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best). Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society. They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks. We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right. The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them? If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely. Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)