The Most Ignored Doctrine in the Bible

I would like to take four sections of Scripture and analyze them together, since they are all on the same subject—namely, the woman’s role in the family and in the church.  A hot topic, for sure.  Scripture is crystal clear on several points, but churches and families are not being taught this by their pastors.  The question is, Why?

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-8:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. ⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

Here are the facts clearly taught regarding the role of women from these verses: 

1.       Verse 3  “the head of woman is man.” This says the man is the head of the home.  This is affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does, since covering is a sign of an umbrella of protection--from him. V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which encouraged congregation participation—someone could lead in a song, another could lead in a prayer of intercession, protection, etc; another could speak in a tongue—and another could “prophesy.”  Prophecy is not just foretelling the future; it’s also, as Vine puts it in his Expository Dictionary, “telling forth the divine counsels”—i.e., as I Corinthians 14:3 says, speaking “edification and exhortation and comfort.”  These two gifts, prayer and prophecy, had great meaning in the early church—but the prophetic gift has fallen into disuse, along with congregational participation. Vv 5-7  says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”  It was important enough that if she didn’t do it, it was “shameful,” it “dishonors her head,” or as bad as if she shaved off all her hair.    

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts in these verses?  I doubt not; they seem weird when first looked upon. Have you ever been to a church where the women covered their heads?  I’ve visited a Mennonite church (so said the online yellow pages), but they hired a Baptist pastor and only one very old woman was covered.    I’ve been to a Plymouth Brethren church, which only had maybe five women covered, and covering wasn’t stressed in sermons.  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this truth.  So the way they avoided controversy was by assuming that women obeyed the truth of this Scripture and did not need a head covering to show that fact. But many women, even in this Plymouth Brethren church, refused to cover, perhaps had no idea what the covering was for, and "followed" their man like the average woman in secular society.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-37:

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ Let your  women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. ³⁶ Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

          V. 34 gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive,”  as is also taught             in Ephesians 5:22-23a: 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife…” 
This confirms #1 in I Corinthians 11 above

V. 34-35  “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  Yet we saw above that women could pray or prophesy in church.  What this verse means, then is that in accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking sermons, or leadership role.  Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that.  

    V. 36-37  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; he considers it a challenge to his getting inspiration from God.  He took that very seriously.  I think his opening sentence in v. 33 about “confusion” has to do with this—confusion is what happens  when these rules are violated. 

Now, are THESE verses being preached on for their obvious meaning?  Again, I suspect, No.  It is another Scriptural command, is it not?  I've heard people call Paul a "sexist guy."  But Paul wrote what God inspired.  So, is God a "sexist" God?  Don't ask me to be around if anyone is making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.

Next,   I Timothy 2:9-14:

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreetness”).  This suggests not rousing up lustfulness in men.  (Hey, I'm not saying women are at fault in rape.)  Not using “gold or pearls or costly clothing” suggests that they are expressing that their thoughts in life are sober and God-fearing, not gaudy or worldly. So the men hopefully could look at them for their spiritual beauty, instead of being attracted by worldly lust. Unfortunately, it’s true that if a church or youth leader were to teach about sober-minded clothing to teenage girls (along with these other verses on submission to men), the keening and whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. Youth group leaders should do everything they can to disabuse that thought and train the opposite. 

V. 11-12 She is to “learn in silence with all submission,” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” confirms our earlier discussions.  Paul (or, really, God, right?) is driving home this point several times. 

V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t actually speak well of him, I think. By the way, I'm not suggesting that his being un-deceived means he didn't sin; future verses make heavy consequences on him for his sin.  Lucifer convinced Eve to doubt God’s goodness, as well as hinting that God was a liar, a great sin for her to think that (see Genesis 3).  If you say, “she should have never believed a serpent, or snake,” keep in mind that the serpent wasn’t cursed to crawl until later.  Keep in mind that all this was brand new, and she didn't know what capabilities God had created each creature with--maybe some creatures He created could talk.  Satan might have looked like an elegant upraised shining light when speaking with her.  What I’m saying is, she had “excuses.”  But Adam fell just because Eve talked him into it.  It wasn’t deception.  Maybe he just did it because he wanted to please her more than pleasing God.  But that was a sin too.  He lost his immortality as she did.  In fact, HE gets chief blame elsewhere in Scripture for this event (see Romans 5).  

Finally, let’s look at I Peter 3:1-6: 

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ² when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. ³ Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— ⁴ rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

V. 1-2  One side reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  But this idea is a huge “turn-off” to so many women; but that reaction suggests how far we are from the spirit of sacrifice that real Christianity demands.  I might add that you could oftentimes avoid this fate if you obey another Scripture that says not to marry an unsaved person.

V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” (no flirting) and “accompanied by fear.” This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God's judgment on sin, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor. 

V. 3  Again, Scripture is against outward adornment, “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.”  Our women are urged to be God’s adornment, the “hidden person of the heart…beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”  Being submissive to husbands, and the beauty you show because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.

Sarah was given as an example of proper womanhood, calling her husband “lord.”  I’m not saying we should do THAT, but the woman’s mind should have the same vibe. 

Note that in all four of the Scriptures above, which are all focusing on the teaching on the role of women at home or at church, emphasizes submissiveness, being under his headship—that quality is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God.  But, in all honesty, it is never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  This subject is without question the most ignored important doctrine today.   

If men or women read their Bible with the intent to obey it, it would be clear to them as well, so they too are at fault when they casually ignore it.  The symptoms of this disease?  Confusion over leadership at home.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads (especially working heads) doesn’t work in a situation, let's say,  where the decision is extremely important to both, and they differ in opinion.  The result?  As every current study shows, divorces are the same high percentages in “Christian” homes as they are in pagan homes.  Yet we should all know,  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)—and provided narrow guidelines where it was allowed.   Divorce is never the best solution; it is only allowed.

So here’s what I’m saying in response to this elephant in the room that nobody sees:  Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words are as if written by God—it is written exactly as how He intended it.  Now you could argue that Scripture has been changed over the years due to flawed copying, but examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and others show that only a few occasional, minor, un-damaging changes have happened. 

If you do believe in God-breathed inspiration, then you can’t accuse Paul as being a sexist for writing what he did, because the words he wrote came directly from God.  It wasn’t like a dream, where God gave him the general idea and let him fill in the rest—and then he did so crudely.  We’re saying, every meaning was really from God. 

So, you say, OK, based on these “rules,” then God is a sexist.  We're so culturally past submission, you say.  If you believe that God, or Paul, wrote every Scripture as biased males, then you don’t really believe in the all-goodness of God.  His commands are for one purpose:  For everybody to live our lives to the fullest.  As Jesus said in John 10:10:

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly

This is certainly what God, who loves you beyond your mother, your husband, even you, could ever love you, wants.   Would you reject that intense love?  You say you want to live your own life as a female, make your decisions based on your perspective?  This “revolution of independence” is not new. Any such independence is a movement away from God, in this subject.

Here’s a little different argument you may have.  You believe that the Bible has many truths, but many indefensible culturalisms (like its position on womanhood).  But you say that relationship to men has evolved beyond that ugly culture, so you will choose which Bible verses are proper to live by, and which are better for you to ignore.  In response, I say this:  First, you are denying that the Bible is God’s Word for all time.  Secondly, for you to pick and choose your verses that are "culturally relevant," that means you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  

It is amazing to me that so many people claim they believe the Bible, but in a critical situation, they cave in to self-will.  I Will decide this one, they say, since this one is important, and the solution seems obvious--never mind what Scripture commands.  But this is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.    Consider I John 2:3-4:

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The role of women outlined here is clear--and it is a commandment of God.  So does I John 2:4 apply to you? But are you aware what the Scripture says about the eternal destination of those who continually live a lie, and do not embrace the truth?

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do pastors refuse to stand with Scripture—and don't encourage men to step up and act like leaders at home?  I have a theory as to the reason.  The theory is surrounded by greed, covetousness, and self-gratification.  This whole thing started with women going to work and making some serious money.  From 1950 to 1990, according to the 1996 Green Book, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%.  To me, that means that 60% of mothers have walked away from their main job, supporting and bonding with the kids, in favor of making more money for the family to spend.  I realize I’m stomping on some nervous threads here, but let’s get it all out:  They’re saying, “I have money!  Now, let’s buy, buy!  Yes, enjoy life more, and we'll give the little ones toys and entertainment, not empathy or closeness when they need us.  Yes, Possessions are more important."

If you’re thinking, well, since there are unemployment males, the women have to pitch in to support the family--but that doesn't explain this huge move.  The unemployment rate is a roller coaster, up and down, for the 1950-2006 period—between 3% and 7.5%.  That certainly does not explain why the women-with-small children chart is straight up, no pauses or backing up.  It's not like women are supporting the men, getting jobs when they're off, then dropping that gig when husbands get back to the grindstone.  If that were the case, both charts would be acting like a roller coaster—but no, it's straight up.  They get caught in the greed of wanting the extra money all the time, and the kids are left behind.

For another slice of data, please observe the chart below.  What do we draw from it?  Women are contributing more to family income.  But is this good?  Consider: The wives have more "skin in the game;" so, they could simply feel that that entitles them to make their desires known on important decisions, whether conflicting with their husband or not--again, ignoring Scripture.

If you’re thinking, that chart does not represent serious labor; that could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—the chart below proves that idea wrong.  In 1974, wives contributed 25% of family income; that's not "pin money," that's a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice to family support.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ?  Apparently not.  Look on the following chart.  The yellow bars (the men's participation) are in a steady drop. The women rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. Now, it looks like both charts are down.  It looks like the men are willing to stop fighting with the women, give up and drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner, and she's not sure if she likes how all this is turning out.. 

   

Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might be talent.  I have no problem giving the women that.  But that great talent should be used at home.  Maybe we could get more home-schooling.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Home schooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bulliness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are becoming socially.  They're so poorly trained in school, that they fail in college and lose their Christian faith among all the immorality.  

Or, it could be “men dropouts.”  The weed.  Shame on them. 

If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is not God's plan.  If the women were to go home, we’d have better kids.  Secondly, if they went home, then jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, so more men could work, and the lack of men in the labor force means they could demand a raise in their average pay.  Of course, their total family incomes would decline, but not as much as you think (especially after taxes). With one person at home, they wouldn’t have to spend as much—they wouldn’t need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  They might be forced to spend less on vacations and fancy possessions; they might want to spend more time looking at discounts.  They might even do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner,  family games, reading the Bible together?  It’s certainly less expensive.  Throw out the multiple phone pads, multiple TVs and computers.  “Together” is socially beneficial.  Have one computer in the house, in a major traffic area, if you ask me.  If a child wants to do his homework from it, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results.  Let the kids develop normal thoughts about people of the opposite sex. 

You’re not going to argue here, to tell me that the trends in kids and young marrieds are terrific, so you want to defend the status quo rat race.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides are at all time highs.  You’ve got to take the long view on this, and  train everybody to endure the peer pressure for an upstanding lifestyle. 

Getting back to my original theme, God really does know what’s best for you, ladies.  Forget the grab for more dollars—grab for the husband.  Submit.  Yeah, he might be churlish and make lots of dumb mistakes.  But that’s where you can ask God to fight for you, rather than nagging the husband.   God won’t kill him, like you want on some days (there is virtue in patience), but God is very effective in answering prayers of righteous women.  Oh--and righteous men.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.

Let's Re-Introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people, they want them to hang around and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker, unless it’s to quietly reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week; fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication.  Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   In some evangelical churches, many times the only real "church discipline" might occur if you question the pastor’s authority, or point out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship.  Disputing the all-knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.

A few churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, like even to the point of shunning, they go overboard on applying it too much; the cults are big at this.

My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of unsaved people whose purpose is to sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and you and possibly the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases will be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

The church should be an interested party, if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  The church's role in this situation is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple people to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means first telling the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim--or the rebel—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ call. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear (God).” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told of this rebuke, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.  God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish." 

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel.  In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.  You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, that would be the meaning in the Old Testament, and where the Pharisees ruled.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew).There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are righteous to God; it’s more like self-righteous, and “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' visit was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this carrying on with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, and even if the person were repentant, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for awhile longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for ten years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Temporary ex-communication could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, never have Communion again.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  Again, with explanation. In the middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.

But despite all these negatives, here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open.  You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from church society). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public rebuke and ex-communication--but to no effect.  Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is.  He is still public about grievous sin.  He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this.  So we break away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, and won't repent, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to save them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy).  Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare, where one can work, but has no intention to work, was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should know repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect God couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to save him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for awhile, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  But it advises that we don't even speak to this person.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations.  Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

The Jonah Story vs. the Manasseh Story: A Pro-Life Message

I want to tell you a Bible story that will illustrate how God feels about abortion. Consider this: America has really not retracted from the disastrous Roe v Wade decision; despite our conservative judges, the hope is still just a hope that we will end this killer decision.  We still allow about one million babies to be killed in the womb in the U.S. every year. We tinker with abortion by not allowing it later, etc, putting up delay obstacles, but we’re still not anywhere close to shutting it down. I read about how Asians around the world are still memorializing the 2004 earthquake and tsunami that killed 228,000 people. An astounding number. If you do 260 more just like it, you finally get close to the number of babies murdered through abortion in the U.S. since Roe (1973) was enacted, through today. That’s 61 million little lives lost. Where is our outrage? 

Well, here is the Scripture story about how God feels about all this:  It begins with how evil the ancient Canaanites were (you can read about them in the book of Genesis, Joshua, and several more).  Just as a sidelight, one of their worship  practices was called the teraphim. Teraphim is ancestor-worship. When they wanted to zealously follow it, they would take the first-born male of their family and cut off his head! (Yes, he was perfectly healthy when they decided to do that).  The hair of the head would be removed, and then the head would be salted and oiled, thus preserving the son's features. The dessicated head was supposed to retain contact with the departed spirit. So, with the proper ritual, the head could serve as a conduit to the spirit world, passing information between a family and their ancestor gods. The book of Jasher (a reliable book, mentioned in Joshua 10:13) records the following steps:

…taking a small tablet of copper…and writing the name upon it (ed., of the person you desire to contact), and placing the tablet under his tongue and putting the skull in the house, and lighting up lights before it and bowing down to it. And at the time when they bow down to it, it spoke to them in all matters that they ask of it…

This, by the way, changed my opinion of ancestor worship, from bad to worse. This is demonology. It also strengthens my understanding of why God would initiate such a severe judgment on the Canaanites—He is a holy God, and never tolerates killing the innocents without passing severe judgment.

Let’s take another look at another unspeakable “religious” practice of the Canaanites—this is where Ahab, a Jewish king, was also involved. When we think of Ahab, we think of  his wife Jezebel. But he has his own tale of evil. He adopted many religious practices from the Canaanites. The Canaanites were so evil that God told Israel to attack them and not leave a single soul breathing. That may seem unjust--but look at the previous paragraph for the reason why.  And here's their second horrible offense:  killing children as a sacrifice offering. This was in honor of the god Molech, a god of Baal. This is where Ahab got involved.  Here is II Chronicles 28:3 about his “religious” worship copied from the Canaanites:

He (Ahab) burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

This horrific act seems beyond understanding. Why did Ahab do it? Well, maybe it was due to some other sexual “benefits” of Baal and Molech worship that might outweigh losing a son. (It helped if you had many wives and many sons; the pain of losing one was lessened). The religion, after all, included sex rituals such as, would you believe, sodomy and prostitution in religious liturgy, and adultery with swapping wives and fornication with other men’s virgin daughters.  A trade-off, I guess, for sacrificing your son.

Unfortunately a later Jewish king, Manasseh, did the same shocking thing. But he did even worse: he promoted it among the people! Many Israelites followed his lead. From II Kings 21:11:

“Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols)...

More on Manasseh’s sin, II Chronicles 33:2-3, 6-7:

But he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. 3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them...6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God…

All the sorcery was forbidden by God.  He did much more than Ahab in sorcery.  And it was unbelievable that he would set an image in God’s house. And don't forget; he publicized this in Israel.

God is also totally against mediums and spiritists, as you see in Deuteronomy 18:9-14:

“When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.

As you can see, making your children “pass through the fire,” a sacrifice murder of your own child (similar to abortion, my main point), was mentioned as early as Deuteronomy. This practice, and God’s hatred of it, had been known a long time. So these two kings, Ahab and Manasseh, were in direct violation of a plain command of God.

But let’s get back to our story. Manasseh’s sin (promoting it to the people, and doing it in God's house) was so great in the eyes of God that He promised His anger could not be quenched. The sad words are in II Kings 21:12-15, right next to verses above:

… therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 13 … I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies, 15 because they have done evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day.’”

Manasseh’s specific sin, again?  In the next verse:

Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides his sin by which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.

It was the innocent blood. Blood of little children. "From one end" of Jerusalem "to another" meant lots of people followed his lead. Now Jesus loves little children. Manasseh’s sin, being publicized, the murder of the innocents was that much greater. (But it doesn’t hold a candle to America’s sin thus far, 61 million souls!)

Now you expect a time of judgment, and--perchance, if there is repentance, God is OK again, right? Well, now you’re going to see a part of God you don’t want to see.  To do that, we switch stories:

We’ve all heard about how Jonah, after being burped out of a big fish, preached to the vicious Assyrians, you heard about their repentance—and how God changed His mind of His promise of judgment on them and rolled it back. Great story about God’s mercy. Yes, we’ve all heard of the Jonah story, and there are many kids’ books about it. But did you know that Manasseh repented, and had a great reformation? Have you ever heard what happened after that? Doubtful. Well, did you ever hear about how his grandson Josiah had the greatest revival in human history? What, you’ve never heard that one either? Not surprising, considering God’s reaction to this wonderful repentance is “unexpected.” Let me warn you:  We all just need to know more about God. We have imagined His mercy is unending— but for a nation, that might not be a true image. Kind of important since He has the keys to every nation's judgment.

First, Manasseh’s judgment and repentance. From II Chronicles 33:11-16:

And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.11 Therefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon. 12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, 13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God. 14 After this he (Manasseh)…took away the foreign gods and the idol from the house of the LORD, and all the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the LORD and in Jerusalem; and he cast them out of the city. 16 He also repaired the altar of the LORD, sacrificed peace offerings and thank offerings on it, and commanded Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel.

So, you say, the land was forgiven, right? Jerusalem was saved, right? Uh, no... Manasseh died right after that. Then there was a short reign of his son, who was killed. Then his grandson Josiah comes to power. During his reign, the priests find the buried Book of the Law, blew the dust off, and read it to Josiah. He tore his clothes in distress.  II Kings 22:13 records Josiah's great words:

“Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

Later, he does a “clean-up” operation like his grandfather, only better; and this is what joyous Scriptures record, from II Kings 23:1-10:

Now the king (Josiah) sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. 2 The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD. 3 Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.6 And he brought out the wooden image from the house of the LORD, to the Brook Kidron outside Jerusalem, burned it at the Brook Kidron and ground it to ashes, and threw its ashes on the graves of the common people. 7 Then he tore down the ritual booths of the perverted persons[d] that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the wooden image. 8 And he brought all the priests from the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba; also he broke down the high places at the gates which were at the entrance of the Gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were to the left of the city gate… 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech.

The “high places,” in case you’re wondering, based on other Scriptures, seem to be where the religious prostitutes were. He eliminated that practice. He executed the priests of the high places, by the way. And he removed those who consulted mediums and spiritists. Josiah goes farther than his repentant grandfather, and he goes out of his way to defile the worship places of false gods—and he gets the populace involved with making a covenant to God. The main thing is that he stopped the sacrifice killing of children.

He goes even further yet. In honor of religious holidays that he’d just heard about, he institutes a Passover festival (memorializing God’s miracles which saved them from Egypt). We read this joyous event in II Chronicles 35:18:

There had been no Passover kept in Israel like that since the days of Samuel the prophet; and none of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as Josiah kept, with the priests and the Levites, all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

All in all, he was praised as a wonderful king—he gets higher praise than King David. Think about that! From II Kings 23:25:

Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him.

So, you say, God forgave the land, right? Jerusalem was saved, right? If God could give the vicious Assyrians a break with Jonah, He could give His favorites, the “apple of His eye,” a break, right? Uh….no. Only five verses after the great Passover festival, only four verses after the verses recording the reformation above, Josiah was simply…dead. Explanation? From II Kings 23:26:

Nevertheless the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath, with which His anger was aroused against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him.

So, great reformation and the greatest revival in history could not bring forgiveness. I remind you, what were the “provocations” that were unable to save Jerusalem? Killing the innocents.

Immediately after Josiah, it turns out that the Israeli kings, and soon the land, too, are in the hand of their enemies. You can see why this story is not in kids’ books, and not well-known. We don’t like stories with a bad ending. But kill the innocent—and your country gets a bad ending. Shouldn’t we expect the same for the U.S.--or even worse, since we have not even repented? A country who seems to lack the spiritual power to slow down or stop the status quo of killing a million innocents a year?  America could be another great power in the dust--which seems to happen to every great power in the past.

Now if any of my readers out there had an abortion, or encouraged one, that's a different subject than a country. We’re talking about your individual soul. You will have different consequences than Israel if you repent. Murder will, indeed, get you to hell—unless you repent and begin living your life for Christ, who came to die to pay for your sin. Become a “living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God,” as Romans 12:1 puts it. It’s never too late to confess and begin to have guilt-free living.

Acknowledgement: Ancient Paganism, Ken Johnson

Are Speaking in Tongues and Word of Prophecy for Real?

The Holy Spirit gives each of His children at least one of nine gifts, listed in I Corinthians 12:7-11:

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

Let’s discuss the most controversial ones: Healing, tongues, and prophecy, the so-called “sign” gifts. We’ll focus on tongues and prophecy the most. When the charismatic wave hit the U.S. in the early 1980s, much ink was spilled in controversy. You could say I’m 35 years too late on this, but the subject was raised in an excellent book I’m reading: The Supernatural Worldview, by Cris Putnam. So let’s have a go at it.

The biggest outcry against the use of the sign gifts was by conservative, supposedly Bible-believing churches. In the 1980s, I broke away from my Baptist roots and joined a charismatic church. My former pastor didn’t have a kind word for me after that, saying that what I was hearing in a tongues-speaking was from the devil. I must say, though, I learned much in the new setting—particularly in small groups, where we were encouraged to be accountable, and to listen to what people were saying to us, who on occasion were hearing from the Lord. I learned about my weaknesses, my strengths, my gifts--and found mine. Used it a couple times, and was respected. The educational emphasis was unexpected, since the charismatic churches have been accused of emphasizing emotion instead of intellect. But from what I observed, tongues were followed by interpretation, prophecies were judged to be Scriptural; it seemed to be an orderly setting.

The theology that the non-believers in sign-gifts came up with to support their view was called “cessationism.” They maintained that (1) the Holy Spirit’s purpose for the sign gifts was finished in the first century; (2) the sign gifts were given exclusively to the twelve apostles; and (3) the gift of apostleship no longer exists. One of their favorite proof texts is I Corinthians 13:8-11:

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

The cessationists believe tongues and prophecy are ways “progressive” churches want to hear “new” doctrines from the Lord, but then become open to deception and manipulation. My personal experience wasn’t that way—although it’s possible it did happen elsewhere that way. (They also loved to say, the tongues they heard about are “gibberish” and we need to “put away childish things.”) But getting down to theology, their real Scriptural “proof” is insisting the word “perfect” in the above verse refers to the arrival of the New Testament canon. Once that happened, they say, all these sign gifts “vanished away,” and what happens now is not from the Holy Spirit, since there is no new “hearing from the Lord.” They say the Lord is heard from in Scripture, period—not through tongues or prophecy, they say.

But these verses are not saying what they want them to say. Let’s hear from John Piper, conservative theologian and author, speaking about the word “perfect” in verse 12:

 “It says ‘Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.’ Is it more likely that Paul is saying, ‘Now before the New Testament is written, we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the New Testament is written, we shall see face to face’? Or is it more likely he is saying, ‘Now in this age we see Him in a mirror dimly; but then when the Lord returns, we shall see Him face-to-face’?”

The latter version, as Piper implies, is much more likely correct--especially since there are several references in the Old Testament, and at least two in the New (Revelation 22:4, I John 3:2), that our desire is to see Jesus face to face. Thus, cessationists have lost their main "proof" verse as support.  Perhaps all the gifts are still active, still Spirit-inspired, until Jesus has His second advent. Then they will vanish away.

The non-believers give this further argument: The arrival of New Testament canon, and its wonderful general guidance, meant “hearing from the Lord” through miraculous signs is not necessary any more--so we “don’t need” the sign gifts; we should just read Scripture to get general guidance, and rely on feelings from the Holy Spirit for specifics. They’re assuming that charismatics, looking for prophecies and tongue interpretations, are easily deluded in swallowing an anti-Christian idea that might creep up. Well, it's possible that there are probably tongue-speaking charlatans trying to delude. But think of this:  don't those who "rely on feelings" from the Holy Spirit (I'm speaking to the cessationists), could ever be deluded into thinking that only God is talking to them?  Satan's emissaries are around to put a thought in your head too.  One answer for all that--that many people default to--is to assume that God does not offer any specific help on specific issues--so they rely on their own logic, figuring their Scriptural knowledge will keep them from deviating from God's overall will.  Or, they'll see circumstances as God's answer.  Now, some circumstances, yes, God is saying something--but they may be stretching circumstances to be "God's will"--and it isn't--but they make it what they want because they want it too much.  There's a Bible verse on that. 

Well, how do you keep the sign gifts when there could be deception?  The answer is, the most spiritual men should do increased discernment.  This is better than doing a sweeping dismissal of the entire gift. Throwing out all of it—baby and bath water—is the lazy choice, and not the best one. Paul is concerned about charlatans:  he talks about performing intervention if possible deception like that goes on (I Corinthians 14:32,33).

Now let’s talk about counter arguments. Those who believe in sign gifts argue that the “power” in Mark 16:17 refers to a Holy Spirit gifting:

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

But this power is for the purpose of globalizing the gospel to “the end of the earth," right (Acts 1:8)? Well, that goal hasn’t quite happened yet. So, we still need the gift. To argue that the purpose of sign gifts expired in the first century's apostles (or in the fourth century, when the canon was completed) is bogus.

Plus, the argument that it was limited to the apostles doesn’t hold water. Stephen had it, Acts 6:8, and so did Philip, Acts 8:13, and neither one was an apostle:

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people

Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

And then there are Paul’s detailed instructions on these gifts. In I Corinthians, three chapters are devoted off-and-on to this difficult subject—three chapters means it’s important--but pastors still stay away from this rather than figuring it all out. In all those chapters, he says nothing about these gifts ceasing.

Read his words in I Corinthians 1:7:

so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ

That clearly indicates that he wants to see everyone possessing all the gifts, all the way up to the last days, “the revelation of our Lord.” So he was teaching the opposite of cessation. Consider, too, what he "bragged" in I Corinthians 14:18:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all

Well, that speaks a good word for tongues, does it not? Now in all honesty, Paul has restrictions on tongues—and he figures another gift, prophecy, is more important. (Of course, love is the most important of all). He wants an interpretation to each tongue, because otherwise no one could understand it (I Cor. 14:2). By the way, this by itself dismisses a frequent cessationist argument that tongues, if they operate, should all be like Acts 2, in a known language—so someone gets usefulness out of it. But here Paul is flat-out saying, if you don’t have an interpreter, no one will understand your tongue. So he’s definitely saying that it’s an unknown tongue to everyone. But with an interpretation, it becomes useful. That idea is further confirmed in I Corinthians 14:15:

What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

To give this contrasting statement “I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding,” suggests they sang or prayed in an unknown tongue (which means without understanding, unless there was an interpreter; in a private prayer, you wouldn't have an interpreter). Having a gift of tongues, even operated quietly by oneself, is still a spiritual uplift.  So there seems room in Scripture for a private unknown tongue as well as in public--a church meeting. In public, of course, they would need an interpreter.

Pastors nowadays hang on to cessationism, I fear, because all this “gibberish” in public would turn most of the congregation off (especially the older ones, who are the biggest givers in offerings).  But in those days, the church still grew even with these strange gifts. Are people that much different today? I say, no; the pastor should not fear a disappearing congregation of true believers.  That's because, the lives of those giving utterances have indeed changed.  I didn't say, changed because of the utterance. I'm saying their behavior changed in the new birth, and they are helping others, etc.  The church should still grow because of its outpouring of love.

A couple serious words of warning: Do not try to force yourself to speak in tongues through an altered state of consciousness, brought on by chanting, breathing irregularly, “emptying your mind,” drugs, or any other way. There is no Scripture backing you up, and you may indeed be inviting demons to come in for residence. I must confess, though I am in favor of all gifts, from Scripture, I have never spoken in tongues.

Paul also said that tongues in a church service were for the unbelievers; i.e., to have them see that God is at work in this service. I Corinthians 14:22:

tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers

But don’t get the idea that tongues have to be limited to a Billy Graham crusade tent in Africa where the "unbelievers" are. We showed their further usefulness above; it could still be in the U.S. And here’s a short testimony by a noted church father, Irenaeus, in 202 AD. “… .we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God…they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit.” This says, first of all, that tongues and prophecies didn’t die with the apostles—since Irenaeus was 100 years later. (Augustine, a great (but controversial) theologian in the fifth century, had kept a record of a long list of miracles in his day as well, tied to gifts). Secondly, this implies that tongues, when interpreted, are also useful in church in revealing a sin that became a convicting rebuke to some unbelievers. (Rebuking unbelievers in their sin: there’s a concept.)

Finally, Paul writes, not just for the church at Corinth, but for everybody, I Corinthians 14:39:

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

The second half of the verse is exactly what many “Bible-believing” pastors are doing, forbidding it, breaking this command from God.

Speaking of miracles: Miracles go on today, but hardly ever in the U.S. There are constant mission reports of many miracles in South America, India, Asia, and Africa. Many involve healing. Where demonic activity is visible, God steps up the supernatural and makes Himself more visible. But not much of this happens in the U.S. My suspicion? Satan can see that the U.S. churches are weak because they can’t overcome people’s materialism. We are lukewarm. (Are we the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-18?) So why should he “rock the boat” that is swinging us to sleep? The author, Cris Putnam, quotes a Barna poll that indicates that 59% of the U.S. “Christians” do NOT believe there is a real Satan! Satan is fine with this; he hopes we all lull ourselves into hell. Shades of C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters! We must remember that Jesus would not work miracles when faced with stubborn unbelief (Matthew 13:58). We cannot let this lack of miracles be a self-fulfilling prophecy—in other words, if the lack of miracles increases our cynicism—this would lead to even fewer miracles yet.

It’s possible people are using gifts without knowing in advance about them. There is a story about the great preacher Charles Spurgeon—a Calvinist and likely cessationist, by the way, who stumbled into miracles of his own. In his autobiography he tells how he interrupted a sermon to point at a young man in the audience, telling him that the gloves he was wearing were stolen from his employer! (A bold move). Later in his office, the dumbfounded and convicted young man confessed his sin. Spurgeon further wrote, “I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person .…except I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it.” Whether he knew it or not, that’s the gift of knowledge in operation. We’re often ignorant of our gift, or don’t want to use it, or afraid to use it. Mr. Spurgeon’s faith door must have been opened a little more after that supernatural event.

And this gets to the reason for the author Mr. Putnam mentioning this subject. His book is about the supernatural. But cessationism is a refusal to believe in certain kinds of supernatural. Putnam calls this cessationist doctrine a “sanctified form of unbelief,” and believes we are discounting the supernatural in American churches. Sermons are not exposing or attacking Satan, or educating people on demons, for instance. They are also dismissing the power of the Holy Spirit by marginalizing three of His nine divine gifts--that is not a good thing. Mr. Putnam calls it “demythologizing the Holy Spirit.” Since the Holy Spirit is God, denying His power may lead to His judgment on the cessationist.

According to Joel 2:28-31:

“And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants will pour out My Spirit in those days…And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

What if many churches, dismissing the supernatural, then dismisses these prophecies, visions, and dreams that may happen in their church in the end-time days?  God wants to warn us of the upcoming End Times tribulation, and maybe provides these signs. If we react stone-faced to information God wants us to know, if He presented it to us in this "distasteful" way, and we ignore it, we won’t be ready for the antichrist—and could then be easily manipulated and even fall into apostasy. That temptation will be greatest among those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture—when they see that that belief was wrong. (I have other blogs on that subject). Unfortunately, many of the “pre-trib” churches are also cessationists. A double-punch is coming to their faith. Not getting a rapture, then not believing the warnings, they will be blindsided by Satan. The resulting demoralization will mean they are not ready in the face of persecution. So it's possible to conclude that many people could fall into apostasy simply because they walled off God’s use of supernatural gifts (Matthew 24:24).

Finally, let’s read about the church in Acts 2:40-47:

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Or, how about I Corinthians 14:26:

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification

This was a church that had great power, so we should desire to copy it as much as possible, right? But I’ve never heard anybody express any desire to follow that simple “copy the best” idea. Our churches are lacking in many of the areas you read in those two verses above, are we not? The fact is, young people are abandoning their parent’s churches—perhaps because the services seem to be just “going through the motions.” Not much evidence that God is there. Young people see this as hypocrisy.

I want it alive like it was in the early church. Maybe we won’t get this feeling of participation and togetherness that they had until we get persecuted like they were. But cessationism won’t get us into those blessings, that’s for sure.

Acknowledgements: Cris Putnam, The Supernatural Worldview

Is Adam's Guilt Transferred to Us?

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred When We are Not Righteous?

Hopefully you read our first article on two theories about atonement. We put forth the idea that the "Classic" view, followed for the first 1000 years of the church's existence, was superior than the currently popular “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm, a Catholic church theologian. Reasons for the superiority of the Classic view were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God.

Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” let's have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what went on with the word “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first article, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.

First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account;” “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view believes are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty before we have done anything; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Christ; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory's definition of "impute"  also means a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).

Let’s look at their idea of imputations one at a time. On the first one, believed by Satisfaction theorists: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? Satisfaction theorists say "yes."  Well, I think their flaw is this:  it looks like a gigantic cross-generational curse that God has attached to Adam's descendants. By each generation receiving his guilt, we're all hell-bound from the day we become accountable because of Adam.  However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity.  The guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture from Ezekiel above?

  Well, you might ask, what did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, in the Classic theory, what was transferred was (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption--he leaned toward sin; these were imputed to later generations.  Let's look at the first item, mortality being transferred to everyone. It was necessary for God to put that on us, because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to sin will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought.

 His corruption, his tendency to sin, was also passed on.  This is not the same as his guilt being imputed to us.  Yes, we often choose to rebel before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. (But that doesn't put a small child into danger of hell--only when he is old enough to be accountable).

Despite our inheritance of corruption, we decide--on our own--whether to sin in a situation or not.  No cross-generational curse; we are responsible for our sins.  Thankfully, God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins.  From all that wonderful love and mercy: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly reasonable minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean that we inherited guilt.  And the tendency does not mean we’re beyond getting saved.

But there are other favorite verses presumably backing the Satisfaction theorists that we need to deal with. Such as Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? As the verse says, because “all sinned.” Thus we are only responsible for our own sin.  We can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

I should point out that the Satisfaction theory can lead to an evangelism problem. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin,” it's tougher to reach them with the Gospel.  But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement and God's forgiveness in that theory, as you will see, the easy tendency to blame God for unfairness is dispelled.

The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

In the phrase “as in Adam all die:” does it say, well, we all die because we have his sin guilt on us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on.

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Now I don’t have any argument here at all, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement article; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher.) But it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good--because thereby we are saved.  A different question is, Why did God allow sin and suffering?  That is beyond the scope of this little paper.

On to the third claim of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a classic conservative evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other articles know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. The Satisfaction theorists sometimes also say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, seems to teaches us that, For instance, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments. Just like that one. Then google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include twisting the word "righteous." God expects His children to behave righteously.  His demand for righteousness after we accept what Jesus did does not mean He expects perfection, praise Him.  But He does commend people to strive to make their lives a righteous living for Him.

To be thorough, we have to explain more of Anselm's favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This contempt for righteous behavior seems to try to contradict over a hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here?  In context, it is a prayer of penitence and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with Isaiah's version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times?

Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

I commented above on the last 26 words ("visiting the iniquity of the fathers," etc.), but you see the two sides of God. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.  As long as we don't give up trying to behave to please the Lord.

Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

Through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” seemingly says works are not a part of ultimate salvation, so you can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works as a part of salvation. But I have many blogs on this apparent contradiction about works and faith, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this idea over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.

Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? He has a different idea of the word "works" than James.  The key is in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. That word gives us a clue about his context:  This whole section of verses is an argument against the need to circumcise the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” that he hates are those who try to attach Moses' law, or Jewish works--such as circumcision, to faith, upon initial salvation. Abraham exercised faith before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his initial salvation. So, he asks, how are you ahead with God by circumcising the Gentiles,or forcing them to do Jewish works? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.”

Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Moses' law doesn't have a part in salvation. It's like he's saying, "Adding Moses' law doesn't get you any more saved." But he never says obedience to Christ (things He said in the Gospels, like the Sermon on the Mount) has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—that means their behaviors should be righteous. Keep in mind,  someone striving to sanctification—keeping their bodies clean (of sin)--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. Believers in Martin Luther can “call” someone washed when they aren’t behaving clean at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia is affirming, without saying so? There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian strives to be holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for ultimately going to heaven.

We thus conclude that of the three imputations, the Satisfaction theorists invented two of them--by emphasizing one or two Scriptures, and ignoring many other ones.  And they teach cross-generational curse, as well as the cheap grace of ignoring the necessity of a godly life to maintain salvation.The Classic theory doesn't have God loading us with guilt for Adam's sins.  Nor does it ignore the need for righteous behavior.

Read my other blogs to get more on this picture.  Or read Scripture!

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.