Bring on the Wooden Spoon

It's humid today in Pennsylvania, downright soupy. In fact, the air's so thick, if God was minded to, he could drop a big wooden spoon out of the heavenlies and give everything a good stir. Maybe that's just what we need--a heavenly stirring! A whirling breeze exchanging the stale for the fresh, the energy of air on the move, roiling up the grace of new savors throughout the pot. As much as a change in the weather of wind and air would be nice, a change in the weather of Spirit would be even nicer.

Am I longing for revival? Perhaps, but there are some drawbacks that make me pause. Revivals have occurred frequently throughout the age of the church, so much so, that we can look at their characteristics and make some observations. There are some negatives!

Revivals fade. Generally speaking, they last for for about 3-6 years, and then, in about the same amount of time, whatever spiritual impact they've made on society has vanished, like the Titanic on the northern Atlantic. It might have been a big deal while it was afloat, but there wasn't even an oil slick marking it's passing shortly thereafter.

Revivals spoil the taste of their participants. Like candy does before a meal, revival makes everything else, even of substance, seem tasteless. The intensity and excitement of the revival experience hooks the desire of the participant like heroin does the addict. Afterwards ennui sets in, and the one revived becomes bored with, even critical of, the taste of life in the interregnum between revivals.

Revivals infect people with a self-centered spirituality. Participants become like kids in an amusement park. They bounce from one thing to the next looking for a bigger thrill. Experiences are compared on the basis of the thrill delivered. Preachers transform into carnival barkers, cheerleading about the rush to be felt at their meetings. Some turn into reverse-engineers trying to replicate and improve the thrill gotten at another venue. Spirituality riding on a roller coaster!

Revival displaces Jesus as the object of one's affections. Idolatry pure and simple: some of the "revived" relish revival more than they do friendship with Jesus! Their eyes on not fixed on the author and perfecter, but on the next possibility of revival.

Then, I look up from this soup, flicking my hands in frustration, spattering the world around me with sweat and tears, and realize just how badly we need a stirring. Our biggest thrill should be knowing the King of Glory personally, as a friend, rather than the gifts he lavishes on us, but we're thrilled with little if anything at all. Something's gotta change!

We could use some renewing:
A new start of obedience;
A fresh dedication to sharpening one another;
A new sensitivity to the Holy Spirit;
A new enthusiasm for knowing Christ personally;
A new hunger for making Him known to others.

All things being equal, I guess my hope is that God would bring out the big wooden spoon and stir up a revival.

How Not to Argue with Fellow Believers

How should Christians discuss their differences? There is a thought, not unpopular, and not without long historical precedent, that debate is the way. That's predicated upon the precept that someone is right and someone is wrong and that formal argument can get to the truth of which is which. I cannot disagree more. Not only may both be wrong, but even if one party is more right than the other, it does not necessarily follow that it even matters. If the argument is over something that does not undermine a believer's essential nature as a person born of the Spirit, it cannot possibly matter.

I think Calvinism is fundamentally a scripturally untenable system of doctrine. To my understanding, it assaults the character of God, says of him what he clearly does not say of himself, makes nonsensical most of the commands and entreaties in scripture, and misses entirely the ultimate aim of God in creating man. That may sound like a big deal, but I know a few Calvinists personally. They love the Word as much as I, love the brothers as much as I, serve Christ as fully as do I, and love the Spirit as much as I.

I am not likely to ever accept their approach to the "doctrines of grace," but I will heartily accept them. I may discuss our differences with them, but I am not looking to brand them as heretics or nonbelievers for their doctrine if they believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead and they are trusting him as their means of salvation. That would be a divisive spirit that refused to lay down itself for the brethren. Someone who shows other believers no grace is in no position to lecture anyone else on what grace is.

Debates are the means that heathens use to deal with opposing viewpoints. Christians operating in some field with heathens may need to debate those heathens, or even with other Christians also working in those fields, but Christians should not deal with matters of faith and conduct in the same way. Debates are rarely, if ever, about helping either side see the other's viewpoint better, or even helping someone see something clearer. Debates are about ego, about winning and losing, even suppressing a viewpoint if possible. How is such a format remotely acceptable to the Christian community? 

Our discussions should be respectful, aimed at edification not destruction, and if there is any prejudice, let it be on the side of deference and esteem. I have a prejudice of my own in this regard to this subject: when an argumentative, insulting, smug Christian looking for a fight rather than trying to help a brother, starts sounding off, everything they say sounds like nothing but a clanging cymbal to me. If one cannot rein in his tongue in deference to a brother, that person is at best an immature novice, and at worst a wolf in sheep's clothing. He understands nothing! 

I could care less how many degrees a person has, or how many books he or she may have written, or how many fans line up to see that person, if they mistreat a brother during a disputation, their words are empty. My suspicion is that so is their confession of faith. If we don't love a brother whom we can see, we certainly don't love God whom we cannot see. If you want to talk to me, talk to me, but leave your attitude at the door. Otherwise, we really don't have anything to talk about.

The Facts Behind Christianity

Everything about Christianity is dependent upon faith. I like to say that it's the currency of heaven. God's love (or grace if one's of the reformed persuasion) is foundational, but God saw fit to make either efficacious only through faith. Unfortunately, every believer seems to have moments when his or her faith is on the bottom of a dogpile, or languishing, or tottering, or under assault. What do you lean on when your faith is out of breath? Is there is spiritual safety net?

I have found such a safety net through experience, really a Dragnet that pulls me back to the safety and clarity of faith. I remember watching Sgt. Friday on TV deadpan, "Just the facts, ma'am," in my childhood and recall the settling affect it had on an excited witness. So when my faith is squishy, I deadpan to myself, "Just the facts, Steve" and with my response resuscitate my trust in God. So, what facts do I answer myself with? Just two, the second actually more important than the first:

1) Nothing makes sense if God isn't behind existence. I know that there is no way to explain, not only the cosmos, not only the presence and complexity of life, but also the abstraction of human thought apart from God's existence and creativity. Call it a Romans 1 moment. Fact one: God is.

2) Jesus rose from the dead. The tomb was empty, no one ever found the body. One of the most brutally pragmatic empires to rise upon the face of earth lost track of a body they truly wanted to keep their hands on. To a ragtag crew of bumpkins? No way! The Jews, who tried to deflect the force of eyewitness testimony by suborning perjury, wanted to confiscate the body more than the Romans. Their money perished with them, because they never got anyone to lead them to the body.

Despite the efforts of Roman and Jew, never was one eyewitness induced to recant, even in the face of torture. So a cabal of twits withstood the mighty and the artful. Why? There was no body, it was in use! It was not a spiritual resurrection, a mythological resurrection, nor a metaphorical resurrection--Jesus was finished being dead so he came back to life, bodily! Fact two: Jesus rose from the dead.

Christianity is not philosophical, it's not theoretical, it's not wishful thinking. It's founded upon a rock solid fact in history (Jesus arose) and an elegant bit of logic (God is). Those two facts inflate the life raft of my faith anytime it springs a leak. With the most salubrious effect, they are my answer back to myself whenever I've fallen into confusion or doubt and have to say to the mirror, "Just the facts, Steve" Perhaps they can do the same for you.

The Incompatibility of the Bible and Evolution

I find it very disturbing that so many folks identify themselves as Bible-believing followers of Christ and yet embrace evolution. The Bible and evolution are incompatible as is betrayed by the labyrinthine exegesis of Genesis those who attempt to syncretize them invariably use to do so. The Bible says that God created life, and death followed afterwards: the evolutionist says that life was created through death. The overarching concepts are clearly at odds with with one another, and the details assure immiscibility.

The syncretic approach to origins, Theistic Evolution, is a result of faithlessness not evidence. There is not now, nor will there ever be a slam-dunk case for a scientific approach to origins that stands in opposition to the Word. Evolution relies upon trust in a godless narrative, Creationism on a God-inspired one, to fill in the speculative gaps that will always be left in either approach. Faith picks a side, whereas unbelief rides the fence. Shaky believers who mesh atheistic and biblical viewpoints attempting to achieve some happy median create nothing but a mess that destroys both.

Foundationally, I believe Jesus Christ, the Son the God, is without error in all he believed and all that he taught. He was, in fact, without error in every possible respect. If Jesus Christ was an evolutionist, he certainly gave no hint of it. Quite the opposite in fact, he believed in the biblical Creation Story and the Noahetic Flood. One can hardly cede authority to Christ as Lord and then take exception to his cosmology.

When it comes to God, it is always put up or shut up. Stand on the Word or confess to being a heathen at heart. Nothing in the scripture should cause anyone to blink if they also believe that Christ rose the dead. If one doesn't believe that, he isn't a Christian and has no basis for the forgiveness of his sins. If one does believe that, why blanch at Jesus' avowal of Creation and the Flood? Is it even possible to trust in the power of the blood of what would have to be an ignorant or duplicitous charlatan if evolution were true?

Every time the evolutionists have laid claim to a smoking gun, we have always found, after the fact, that they spoke too soon and overstated their case. Whether the claim is for missing links in the fossil record, abiogenic experiments, ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, "undesigned" nylonase, fused chimpanzee chromosomes, interchangeable genes for nanomachine parts, or junk DNA, it's always the same. So the arguments endlessly ratchet back and forth while, in the end, the realm of physical and theoretical science can offer nothing but doubt.

God chooses faith, not sight. Those who depend on sight seldom find faith, and those who depend on faith usually do just fine with sight. Why throw your faith in the Word under the bus for something that actually cast aspersions on Christ and which has nothing more as its greatest claim to fame than making a monkey out of you?

Let God Be the Smart One

What's in the heart of God? The simplest answer is also a biblical answer, God is love, but that answer is very difficult for mere mortals to believe. Not only because they die, but also the way they die-- disease, violence, predation, disasters-- love in the heart of God would never be posited by them as a reason for such. How could an all-powerful being, who loved us govern that way?

Then, there's the whole hell thing: everlasting torment, fire and brimstone, bulimic worms, and not so much as a tinge of pity from the God who's love. No matter how graphically (even at Mel Gibson levels) we paint a picture of Christ's vicarious sufferings, the idea of the lake that burns with fire is always going to trump that image and keep anyone from thinking of its imposition as arising from love. Is it any wonder that scoffers look at this subject with such incredulity?

But God either is or he is not. Even if our experience of life makes it difficult for us to believe that he is love if he is, there is no doubt that, if he is, he is incredibly smart! And yet, we who entertain the notion of God, constantly vie our intelligence against his, as if he, somehow, has to bow to our conceptions of sense and fairness. It's nothing new, we've been like that since the beginning of the human race. It's the very foundation of sin.

Christ said God was overjoyed to give us the kingdom, that he shares his secrets with the humble. Yet, we let our pride get in the way and argue with God, thinking ourselves capable of understanding what he alone understands. We glory in our own opinion, and it deafens us to God. We gain neither love or knowledge by it, only darkness. It's in the heart of God to love us and to share all his has and all he knows with us, but to receive it, we're going to have to get over ourselves and let God be the smart one.

What Does It Prophet?

God has demonstrated throughout history a desire and willingness to inspire people with his Spirit. From Adam in the Garden, to the Israelites in Sinai, to the prophets of the Old Testament, to the affirmations of Paul, the scriptures confirm God's desire to inspire his people with his Spirit. Only the separation of humankind from God due to sin frustrated that desire through the ages. As a result, only a few well-chosen people were ever inspired by that revelatory Spirit.

That is, until sin was dealt with broadly through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since Christ expunged sin and reconciled to God all who put their trust in him, God's desire to inspire can be pursued freely in all who believe (even if only in part). Ultimately, God's desire to inspire will be fulfilled at the end of time when the redeemed will share that revelatory Spirit fully. Then it will be said of us that we know [him] even as we are known [by him].

The prophets of the Old Testament had a job, but only for a season. Some of them had great and memorable gifts, some were attended by signs and wonders, and others were less notable in these regards. All of them spoke for God to a people that could not and did not want to hear from God themselves. They were relatively rare amidst the community of faith. As impressive a lot as they were, none of them had the experience of the Spirit that anyone in Christ's kingdom does.

They were selected by God for their labor as a necessary part of bringing all things to that ripe moment when Christ would appear and then they would no longer be needed. There are things that Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel (among others) prophesied that have not yet come to pass, so their work continues in a certain respect. When Jesus said they prophesied until John, he did not mean that their words suddenly fell to the ground, but that the function they served ceased (as did the law's).

The prophets of the New Testament have a different job, but only until Jesus comes back. Some have more noticeable gifts than others do, some even become church leaders. Moses' inspired longing is answered among them, for even though there are only some in the church that are actually prophets, all of God's people can prophesy. Prophets no longer speak exclusively for God to people who can't and don't hear from him themselves, now they speak that which others can confirm and everyone can affirm.

New Testament prophets are not meant to be rare, for their service is needed in the meeting of the saints. It is best to have a bevy of them for the purpose of weighing what is prophesied. To squelch this needed gift, or to make it so difficult to operate in as to effectively bar it, is just shooting ourselves in the feet. Quenching the Spirit by despising this gift can only make the church poorer and prophets nothing!

Christianity Is Selling Death

I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. When I hear someone ask, "What does your church have to offer me or my family?" it's about all I can do to not have my head explode. It's not like it's anything new, Jesus had to put up with the same kind of self-centeredness, but that doesn't make it easier to take. Church is not a supermarket.

What consumer benefits a church might offer has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is the place God desires a believer to be in order to grow and serve. God has a divine appointment for each of us, and finding it should be our goal. Then, with patience and grace, serving God and our brothers and sisters there should be our occupation until (and only if) God appoints us some place else.

We certainly have no right to treat our brothers and sisters as disposable and divorce ourselves from their fellowship because we've decided we can get a better deal somewhere else. God is the one who has made us parts of the body and he alone gets to appoint us to our place in the body. What business does any church leader have, then, of dangling a carrot, trying to coax a believer to make a decision about where they belong on a basis other than God's appointment? 

And evangelism is not soliciting suitors like Tamar enticed Judah. We can't initially camouflage the message of repentance and surrender only to unveil the truth of  obedience and sacrifice later. Can it be any wonder that when it's time to pay the piper, such converts are as a fickle and disloyal as the rest of our hedonistic, consumer-driven society. If we tickle the flesh to get folk in, we'll get nothing but a giggle from them when they're called upon to stand up and be counted for Christ.

The gospel is good news and every biblically legitimate means needs to be employed to get it to everyone, but the often unspoken stark truth about its message is that embracing it means buying into your own death. The old-fashioned notion of fire and brimstone is unpopular these days because it's just not marketable. I don't care for it myself, it doesn't reflect biblical preaching in my mind, but the biblical message isn't any more palatable. The message Jesus preached to potential followers: "deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me."

I'm dumbfounded amidst a church world that doesn't understand it's own message. I mean, really, how can such a thing as church marketing even exist? It's not just oxymoronic, it's plain moronic too! No, it's even worse, it's faithless, and it's ruining the heritage of God. Let the self-centered consumers and ravenous church hawkers beware, you will reap what you sow. 

So, we can build cathedrals of wood, hay and stubble, selling emptiness to the empty-headed and empty-hearted, but if we want to do what Jesus did, then we must come to terms with this: Christianity is actually selling death.

Keep Your Appointment from God

"Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.." (I Corinthians 12:27-31a ESV)

The ordinals used in this passage can be taken as an order of rank of importance or authority, or as a description of the timing of expression. The mention of "greater" (Koine: meizona) in the last verse could be seen as requiring the ordinals used before to be interpreted as ranking importance or greatness, but for me, the "thens" (Koine: epeita) seal the deal. The force of ἔπειτα is "thereafter" or even "only then." Very clearly, the thens impose the idea of sequence, or timing, into the list.

Since, then, this roster of gifts puts them into sequence, the issue being addressed is their development and extension, not their comparative value. Paul is trying to help eager Corinthians understand not only the what, but also the how and when of ministry gifts. Notice that in the sequence of erupting gifts, the miraculous sorts arise throughout-- near the beginning, in the middle and at the end as well. It seems the biblical pattern for chuch growth embraces the miraculous from start to finish. 

Paul, in effect, said that the body starts with the ministry of an apostle. As the body grows, up rises prophets. As it continues to grow, then up rises teachers. As it continues expanding then all kind of gifts arise. Being an apostle is no more about being in authority than being outside in spring is about being a dandelion. And being a cessationist is nothing but a surefire way to miss half of what God would like the body to grow into.

We have been concentrating on leadership gifts in this series of posts, but this passage doesn't restrict it's scope to leadership as does Ephesians 4. Leadership is part of the body, but so too are the led. Each of us is part, each of us is gifted, not just leaders, to serve the body and the gifts by which we do so are assigned, or appointed, by God. Just as a finger on your body wouldn't do any good attached to your elbow, so also God has the prerogative of appointing us to the spot he knows we belong.

I must admit, I've grown tired of both the church shoppers and the church marketers of our day. What consumer benefits a church might offer a "shopper" has nothing at all to do with divine appointment. Neither does a carrot dangled on a line by a "marketer" have any place in God's assignments. Such shoppers and marketers don't have the slightest clue about what church actually is!

But if you do, then grow where God sprouts you, stay unless God moves you. Embrace your giftings, and rise into however God is causing you to function and do so for the benefit of the body. There are folk in the church world, leaders and followers alike, who are clueless and in total disharmony with what God is trying to do in his body. Don't let them get you down, do what you know is right from the Word. 

God has made an appointment for you and he expects you to keep it!

Your Gift Makes Room for You

The discussion started here concerning church leadership gifts continues... 

If an apostle is the founding leadership gift of a church in an area or in a culture, as I have purported in an earlier post, we could well say that the fledgling church is pastored by an apostle. To be technically accurate, that leader is and should be called an apostle, but he would also be acting as the pastor of that start-up congregation. It seems to me most places today would just call him "pastor."

We could make a case that once a congregation is established it would be more correct to call the leader of that church an elder or bishop, but then Acts 20 indicates that the terms bishop, elder, and pastor are largely interchangeable. Can an apostle even be designated a pastor-- wouldn't that be a confusion of terms since both apostle and pastor are listed in Ephesians 4? It may seem so at first glance, but a few verses (2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; Galatians 1:19; & Acts 21:8) make me think otherwise.

If one takes the Apostle John to be the author of all the Johannine epistles (as I do) and understands James, the brother of Jesus, to be the first Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as many do, a biblical case for seeing any of the five-fold leadership gifts as capable of exercising the presiding office begins to emerge. The long and short of it: the office of elder or bishop does not describe the gift that is expressed by the individual occupying it.

Sometimes the elder/bishop will be an apostle (as in the formative stages of the church in a culture or geographic area), sometimes a prophet, or an evangelist, or even a pastor/teacher. I think the same kind of thing is true for the diaconate.

For leadership in the church, it's the function of preparing God's people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up rather than the type of gift leading that matters. Any of the five-fold gifts is capable of leading that preparation. It will be the case that some folk in any given church will be gifted in similar ways to the church leader, but that will not automatically qualify them to be church leaders. Church leaders are gifted and full of the Holy Spirit, tested in service, of good reputation with all, and good managers of their own families among other things.

In any church some will be more gifted than others, and if some folks are given to their gifts (i.e. "full-time"), it follows that some folks will not be. But whatever the situation is with any person's gifts we can be assured of this: when a tempered individual has been gifted in the ways leaders are gifted, his gift will make room for him.