THE UNORTHODOX, YET POPULAR, THEOLOGY AND “SCIENCE” OF PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

 

     

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in 1881, and died in 1955.  He was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. But he was also a spiritual father of the New Age movements.  He was the fourth of 11 children of a librarian and naturalist, Emmanuel.  His mother, Berthe, was the great-grandniece of Voltaire, a famous Enlightenment writer and hater of Christianity. Pierre’s spirituality was awakened by his mother. When he was 12, he went to a Jesuit college, became a novitiate, and made his first vows in 1901. In 1902, the French premiership began an anti-clerical agenda. Religious associations were forced to submit their properties to state control, which obliged the Jesuits to go into exile in Britain. Teilhard did much of his early work on the island Jersey, but he was a world traveler, and Paris and New York were also his home bases later on.

He was Darwinian in outlook, and his early teaching on Original Sin was so unorthodox that he got himself banned by the Superior General of the Society of Jesuits in 1925.  But that didn’t stop him. He still prepared to teach in China on evolutionary geology, also a no-no—so he was fired by his Jesuit Superiors in 1926 from any teaching at all.

He still went to China and dove into paleontology.  He took part in the discovery of Peking Man in 1926.  The problem is, Peking Man did not confirm evolution.  The site contained fragmented skullbones, teeth and tools, supposedly from rock layers 750,000 years ago. This was trumped up as a missing link to apes.  But in a 1959 book, a Catholic Chinese missionary, Patrick O’Connell, accused the scientists involved with fraud.  He claimed that the actual skulls (which disappeared in 1941) were just baboons, but the photographs and casts and measurements were tampered with to make them appear more human.  This was from his observations of the site; his theory had enough evidence that it was circulated by Duane Gish, Christian creationist scientist in 1979.  (P.S. Neither Wikipedia nor Catholic writings have anything negative to say about the Peking Man.)  It is noteworthy that he was previously at the scene of Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912.  But this was also a fraud, and, since the evidence didn’t disappear, it was confirmed as a hoax in 1953. It was really an “altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined (there’s the fraud) with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.”  Shall we hint that the M.O. of the crime was very similar to the Peking Man, and both frauds were under de Chardin’s watch?  Both of these “proofs,” before they were proven hoaxes, were offered for the defense at the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925.  To show you how the U.S. has changed, Mr. Scopes, a science teacher in Tennessee, was sued because he taught evolution, when Creationist teaching was the only one legal in Tennessee at the time.  Scopes, with the help of the Peking and Piltdown exhibits, and the help of the famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow, was not guilty, and offered a new teaching contract—so, he got off easy, partly based on this “evidence” at the time.

Getting to theology, one of de Chardin’s controversial theories was a mixture of science and religion, seldom done at the time, since most “approved” scientists were agnostic.  He conceived of the “vitalist” idea of the Omega Point. Omega Point, to him, means that “everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification…the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos.” Logos is another word for Christ, but his version of Logos was quite different.  This theory was presented publicly in 1922.  This was also reflected in a book he wrote in 1919, “The Spiritual Power of Matter.”  Vitalism is the belief that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities (in that they) contain a non-physical element.”  That mysterious element he referred to as the “vital spark,” which some equate to the soul (he was cagey on this, but that was ultimately proven to be his intent).  Thus, plants have a conscious soul.  In the 18^th and 19^th centuries vitalism was discussed among biologists.  They tested the hypothesis but found no support (Benjamin Franklin and Franz Mesmer actually studied it).  It is now regarded as a pseudoscience. 

Perhaps his biggest works was The Phenomenon of Man, 1959 (English).  This posthumously published book set forth a sweeping account of the evolution of matter to attain humanity, then upward again to an ultimate goal of a reunion with Logos. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. Here is an example of such a false teaching:  Matthew 5:17 has Jesus saying:

 

 I have come, not to destroy, but to fulfill the law

Teilhard blasphemously re-interpreted His quote as: "I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill Evolution.”

Unlike other Darwinians, he believed that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. He believed in the following evolution procession: evolution of matter into a geosphere, into a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point).  No mention of the crucifixion, and no mention of our Rapture to get to that “Omega Point.”  Oh, yes, he does mention Salvation—but it’s a collective and universal one, as we all evolve to get there.  As he says, “no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else.”  Also, evolution was "the natural landscape where the history of salvation is situated.”  He uses two Bible verses to defend himself:  Colossians 1:17b: 

And He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things consist (KJV, “hold together”).

And I Corinthians 15:28:  

Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

In one speech, he asserted that these Scriptures were “pan-Christicism.”  This is now two re-definitions of Christ and His purpose.  His tinkering with Christ to achieve his ideal should engender a fear of God in him, but it doesn’t. He wrote further that Christ, to him, does not have two natures:  He has three. He says Christ is not only man and God; he also possesses a third aspect—indeed, a third nature—which is cosmic." The Body of Christ is not simply a mystical or ecclesial concept for Teilhard; it is cosmic. Teilhard describes this cosmic amassing of Christ as "Christogenesis." I.e., according to Teilhard, the universe is engaged in Christogenesis as it evolves toward its full realization at Omega, a point which coincides with the fully realized Christ. It is at this point that God will be "all in all."

You can see where he is taking this:  pantheism.  God/Christ is in all things, now and in that perfect future; in human and even plant, since ALL living organisms have “vitalism.”  This is multiple blasphemy, but it is politically on point for the extremes of the environmental groups.

Since all evolution involves mutation, he has a warped thinking on that score as well.  As Martin put it, “From his correspondence, it is clear that Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, and regarded violence as necessary to Evolution, and seemed to have enjoyed war--what he saw of it. Death, bloody or otherwise, was what he called a "mutation." As he said, "it would be more to my purpose to be a shadow of Wagner than a shadow of Darwin." That means he prefers G6tterdiimerung (i.e., world-altering destruction marked by extreme chaos and violence), than ordinary Darwin.  I might add, here, that many cults speak in this apocalyptic way, hoping that at the end of the violence, a new and better society awaits. In some cults, its disciples die in suicidal events to, in effect, hurry-up this better end.

Teilhard rejected all fundamental Christian beliefs, since believing it means he must accept that mankind’s evil and violence has erupted from Adam and Eve’s Original Sin—not the things that he wants to blame (below) for these depredations. When he saw the famous cyclotrons (atom-bomb accelerators) at the U.C. Berkley campus, he was filled "not with terror but with peace and joy" at these tremendous "wombs of change." It was apparently not the specter of Doomsday he saw there, but the possibility that Doomsday would be the womb of the Omega Point—which would give us a new, better world. 

Yet always and everywhere he spoke and behaved as the visionary with a rock-solid sureness about the future. But, for all of that, there is not one line of his that indulges the same infectious enthusiasm for things the Jesuits were trained for:  celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass; for making reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; for shriving sinners of their sins; for teaching children their catechism; or for consoling the oppressed. All of him was wrapped up in his version of the "winsome doctrine," in the impersonal glory that would come to every man with the arrival of the "Ultra-Human."  He bemoaned that "no religion explicitly and officially offers us the God we need."  (As if what “we need” has any bearing on Him or His sovereignty.)  He asserted that no faith should be placed any longer in the supernatural, but only in man becoming more than man by his own innate drives. He was critical of God’s revelation of Himself in His Word: he called such a God a "monstrous idea." He also derides the church:  she needed to abandon "juridicism” (this is very modern PC, considering the current Bible phase most quoted, “Thou shalt not judge”), along with getting rid of moralism, and all things “artificial” in order to live in the very function of the call to love, by a (created) God who so elevates our energies. I don’t know how, but he even perverts the meaning of the Cross: he says that the Sign of the Cross was not suffering and death transformed into eternal life and glory, but the Cross is Evolution's triumph. I don’t see the connection. And he had a swipe at marriage and family in his day, too:  He thought God's order to Adam and Eve "to increase and multiply" no longer applied. We should now use eugenics to aim at the optimum in birth, not the maximum in reproduction. Eugenics was later found to be fake science, and in fact, racist.  Hitler passionately believed in eugenics.  Teilhard was a man ahead of his time in not only also prophesying birth control, but asserting that we have "the absolute right to try everything to the end--even in the matter of human biology (sexuality, euthanasia, conception in vitro, homosexuality).” His ahead-of-time PC was right on for a couple of those, too—though I hope, not euthanasia (I’m old).  Another of his comments that was scarily dead-on for today was this: he wanted to offset the excessive "masculinity of Jehovah."

It’s hard to believe that he wrote most of this in the 1950s.

Teilhard, as you can imagine, has had a profound influence on the New Age movements as well.  To quote Henry Morris, CEO of Institute for Creation Research: “Although New Agers have a form of religion, their "god" is Evolution, not the true God of creation. Many of them regard the controversial priest, Teilhard de Chardin, as their spiritual father.”  You would not want to be father of this bunch.  New Agers have been around for decades, stomping on Christian fundamentals, but that is the subject of another whole paper.

He further posits that creation would not be complete until each "participated being is totally united with God through Christ in the Pleroma (don’t you just love all the new words?—very intimidating).  Pleroma is defined as the “totality of divine powers.” (Gnostics like to use the word too.  Gnostics have been around for thousands of years, stomping on Christian fundamentals.  But that is the subject of another paper).  Note that we are all going to have these divine powers at the Omega Point; we are all going to be like God.  (Satan’s favorite lie, Genesis 3).  At that Point, “the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established.”  In one of his conferences, he said that Mankind will acquire “the sudden appearance of a collective humane conscience. 

Further, he said “spiritual development is moved by the same universal laws as material development.”  Since evolution, our material development, is “indisputably” moving us up, he has the same optimism of our spiritual development.  He expresses that God is “pulling” is to the Omega Point.   Further evolution will eventually provide us with “a unification of consciousness.”

Let’s not forget his ideal of unity in another way too:  His alienation from capitalism and his orientation to "the people" meant that evolution should also apply to social justice in the distribution of goods, an equalization of property that capitalism made impossible (he says). "Human society has been more and more caught up in a yearning for true justice ... a liberation from the bonds [of poverty and dependence brought on by capitalism] in which too many people are still held,” he wrote. The Society of Jesuits have always been in favor of social justice.  Jesuits led the way in liberation theology after his time.  That’s a big part of salvation to them. As Martin says, “both the Jesuit and Dominican Religious Orders had allowed some of their members to become worker-priests. These men ate and slept, lived and worked in the very same conditions as the ordinary workman. If their fellow workers joined Communist cells, they joined. If their fellow workers rioted in the streets or demonstrated in front of a government building, the worker-priests did too.” They were later forcibly recalled from this, but half the worker-priests refused to obey the recall order, and opted for membership in the Communist Party instead! As the future Pope John XXIII put it, they had “not gained one soul through this extensive output of manpower, but the Communist and Socialist parties had benefitted enormously.”  The idea of backing a socialist revolution was not repulsive to this Pope—just not gaining new souls for the Church—or keeping the ones they had.  

Teilhard showed his true leanings when he was distressed at Rome's intervention: "Under the circumstances, and in a capitalist world, how does one remain a Christian?" he asked. "Priest-workers find in the face of a humane Marxism not only justice but hope and a feeling for the Earth which is stronger than 'evangelical humanity. '" For Teilhard, Marxism presented no real difficulty. "The Christian God on high," he wrote, "and the Marxist God of Progress are reconciled in Christ." (I did not know that Christ was so political).  Little wonder that Teilhard de Chardin is the only Roman Catholic author whose works are on public display with those of Marx and Lenin in Moscow's Hall of Atheism!

It seems that accepting this theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism/Christian. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus's death on the cross of Calvary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace-even the existence and the freedom of God-all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.

But none of that stopped him from being championed by many cardinals and even several recent Popes. He scoffed at superiors’ many attempts to muzzle him. Despite the amazing freedom with which he spoke and published, Teilhard thought of himself as belonging to the "brotherhood" for whom "thinking freely in the Church these days means going underground. Come to think of it, that's what I've been doing for thirty years." In the early days, Church vigilantes were working overtime.  In 1962 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Catholic institution, condemned his works (see their quote below), based on their ambiguities and their doctrinal errors.  Pope Pius XII monitored him.  However, despite being banned several times from further writing, he still wrote.  But, after all, none of his works were placed on their Index of Forbidden Books.  Though his warped theology was loved by several priests and cardinals early on, they kept their views private.  He did get one favorable public mention in those days—an influential French priest, Henri de Lubac, in 1962 affirmed the orthodoxy of his works.  It was finally decided that his home base should be in the United States, not Europe, because of our feeling, I believe, that freedom should be more important than dogma.  But recently, with the degradation of Catholic vigilance (which suggests, to me, that they have lost somewhat of their mission and purpose), the encomiums have come thick and fast.  He has been honored by Boston College, by Villanova University—both Catholic schools, the former a Jesuit school—and by passing mention in several plays and movies.

I should point out that scientists are not excited by all this. To quote one: “ideas that were peculiarly his were confused, and the rest was just bombastic redescription of orthodoxy."  Another called him a “charlatan.”  But he is loved enough by the Episcopal Church that he is honored with a feast day on the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church on 10 April (the day of his death). 

It is only in the presence of death did that confident optimism and surety that was the personal mark of this man seem to fade. "Now what does he 'see'? I wonder," Teilhard wrote after the death of a friend; "And when will my tum come?" On the occasion of another friend's death: "What shall I 'see'?" That he put the word "see" in quotes showed no persuasion that he would see Jesus and the Father and the Saints. It was an uncertain sentiment for whose lack of faith ordinary words are not sufficient. But he still said, “Dying and death were just the means of becoming one with the universe.” But one wonders what sort of shock Teilhard experienced when on that Easter day at last he "saw" the God of his eternal tomorrow, the God-man who by dying had not become "part of the universe" but remained its sovereign Lord.

To bring this story right up-to-date:  Here is a summary of the article published in Catholic Culture (November 2017):  Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the widely influential Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher whose writings were cited with a “warning” by the Vatican in 1962, may finally have that blot removed from his record.

Participants at the recent plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture that discussed “The future of humanity: new challenges to anthropology” unanimously approved a petition to be sent to Pope Francis requesting him to waive the “monitum” issued by the Holy Office in 1962 regarding the writings of Father de Chardin. The participants, which included top level scientists as well as cardinals and bishops from Europe, Asia, America and Africa, applauded when the text of the petition was read.

They told Pope Francis that “on several occasions” during their discussions “the seminal thoughts of the Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, anthropologist and eminent spiritual thinker, have been evoked.” They said, “we unanimously agreed, albeit some of his writings might be open to constructive criticism, his prophetic vision has been and is inspiring theologians and scientists.” They mentioned that four popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis—had made “explicit references” to his work. Paul VI, in a Feb. 24, 1966 speech, while expressing some reservations, praised a key insight of the Jesuit’s theory on the evolution of the universe, pointed to it as a model for science and quoted the author’s statement: “The more I study material reality, the more I discover spiritual reality.”   John Paul II, in 1981, through his secretary of state, wrote a letter to Monsignor (now cardinal) Paul Poupard, head of the Institute Catholique in Paris, in which he praised the French Jesuit in words that were widely interpreted as a sign that his rehabilitation was on the horizon. Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, “spoke glowingly of Teilhard's Christology” by tying it into the Mass, no less: “the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization (too close to divination, no?) of matter in the christological "fullness."  (A partial translation in English: We will all become divine.) Further, in a homily during Evening Prayer in the cathedral in Aosta, in northern Italy, on July 24, 2009, when he was Pope, he commended an aspect of the French Jesuit’s vision when he said: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Francis (the current Pope) became the fourth pope to have something positive to say about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did so in 2015 in his encyclical in a footnote, in which he speaks about the French Jesuit’s “contribution” to the ultimate destiny of the universe. Moreover, the petition, seemed to find receptive ground in his address to the plenary assembly last week. 

      They concluded by expressing their conviction that “this act not only will acknowledge the genuine effort of the pious Jesuit to reconcile the “scientific” (my emphasis) vision of the universe with Christian eschatology, but will represent a formidable stimulus for all philosophers, theologians, theologians and scientists of good will to cooperate towards a Christian anthropological model that fits naturally in the wonderful warp and weft of the cosmos. 

My final word:  Let’s hope they don’t cave in to another false doctrine by giving this guy credibility.  Let’s be vigilant to obey II Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Note:  The Warnings issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office

On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth" Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

 

Bibliography

The Jesuits:  The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Malachi Martin, 1987 (He was a Jesuit priest and paleographer who asked to be released from certain of his Jesuit vows, seeing that he wrote extensive criticism of their works. He died in 1999).

America, the Jesuit Review, specifically:  www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/21/will-pope-francis-remove-vaticans-warning-teilhard-de-chardins-writings

www.catholicculture.org/search/searchResults.cfm?querynum=1&searchid=2083717&showCount=2

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial

https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-new-age

www.biblegateway.com

www.wikipedia.com/pierreTeilharddeChardin

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-27

Title:  Peking, Piltdown, and Paluxy:  Creationist Legends About Paleoanthropology https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-false-teachers

YouTube: Posthumanism, Omega Point, Noosphere Theory, and Teilhard deChardin

The Holy Bible

YouTube:  POSTHUMANISM, OMEGA POINT, NOOSPHERE THEORY, AND TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

 

 

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.

Jonah vs. Manasses: God's Repentance vs. God's Judgment

 I want to tell you a Bible story that will illustrate clearly 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 that killer decision.  We still allow just short of one million babies to be killed in the womb in the U.S. every year. We tinker with abortion by not allowing it in later trimesters, etc, by 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.  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 worshipping Baal and Molech 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 (a Jewish country) 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 God 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. 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” that he tore down, 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? I mean, two repentances, two reforms.  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, after bloody defeats in battles, 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 if you kill the innocent--your country is eventually wiped off the map. 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 have happened 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. Now 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