Tag Archive for scripture at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'scripture'

The Political Economy of the Book of Judges

Published by Colin July 30, 2009 in Religion, Politics and Theology. 2 Comments

The famous phrase in judges is:

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (judges 21:25).

I have yet to hear a single sermon describing this phrase as anything other than a moral phrase - that is, interpreters have taken the phrase as making a moral statement about the hearts of men at the time - that they were particularly wicked, selfish or sinful.

This always struck me as problematic.

Theologically, we know that man is inherently sinful. He is not more or less sinful based on particular deeds he does or because of circumstances around him. But rather, sin comes from within a man as part of his natural condition. In this sense, Judges cannot be telling us that man was particularly sinful - as though sin were judged in shades of grey - rather than black and white, as scripture tells us. There is sin, and then there is holiness. There is no in-between.

But I think if we also take the bible at face value, we have to consider the context of the phrase, and the words surrounding it. Namely, that “there was no King in Israel.”

This statement is the qualifier of “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” In other words, this phrase is a political one, not describing men’s hearts, but describing the fact that man did not have secular authority over him. Man did not have a king bossing him around, so he could do what was right in his own eyes.

The bible does not make a moral statement about the anarchy during the period of the judges - it just says, this is how it was. And, ironically, man’s hearts were no different than was Israel had kings - they wavered back and forth between following God and indulging in sin. In other words, political anarchy had no bearing on the natural moral rebellion of man.

Part of my inspiration to address this comes from this article over at the Mises Institute, which, though theologically questionable, does a good job dealing with the political economy of this portion of scripture:

It was a conservative society; adherence to proven principles was the only way by which the pursuit of happiness could be furthered. That which was “right” in the tribesman’s eyes was “right” by custom, tradition and the laws of Yahweh, to the enumeration of which the Old Testament, before the Book of Joshua, devoted much space. Freedom is not license.

Nor was there lack of leadership before the coming of the kings. Someone had to plan strategy and improvise tactics for the wars the tribesmen engaged in during their march to the Promised Land, and someone had to adjudicate disputes so as to prevent the chaos of internecine struggles. So came the judges, men and women esteemed for their wisdom and integrity, the leaders provided by nature for the instruction of the rank and file.

The evidence leads to the conclusion that these judges ruled by natural selection and common consent, much like the chiefs of American Indian tribes. It was agreed that the authority of the judges was sanctified by God, but the proof of their anointment was the manner in which they exercised authority. They were leaders by virtue of their proven gift of leadership.

The important thing about the rule of the judges is that their office was not endowed with the power of coercion. “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” meant that no man was compelled to do otherwise; and, since “in those days there was no king in Israel,” it must be presumed that there was no constabulary to enforce rules of behavior. The sole enforcement agency upon which the authority of the judges rested was public opinion. “So said Yahweh” had the force of “so say we all.”

For man’s earliest beginnings, he has attempted to form secular authority on the model of pure, holy and all-knowing authority of God. This leads to the dangerous (both politically and theologically) thinking that Government should be obeyed as God is obeyed - that somehow such structures are always God-appointed and that advocating limits on government or even its abolition is something demonic and anti-God.

But, as Judges and the kingdom afterwards demonstrates, man will make an idol out of authority. God’s people, in their impatience to see order, justice and rightness in this life, attempt to help God out by making rulers to do good. But only God is good.

The Importance of Fellowship: Dealing with a Dead or Dying Church

Published by Colin May 28, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 14 Comments

This is part of an eight part series on the importance of fellowship. Read the other parts here:

Part 8: Unconditional Love
Part 7: Honesty
Part 6: Fighting Superficiality
Part 5: Sanctification
Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You)
Part 3: Dealing With A Dead or Dying Church
Part 2: Accountability
Part 1: Introduction

I have also had people ask me about cultivating fellowship in churches where leadership or members are ignorant of what fellowship actually is. There is no easy answer for this.

I spoke with one pastor about this recently who believed that it simply requires a couple or two to begin to affect a change in a church without biblical fellowship. I think that this is possible, of course, but I don’t think this is always going to be the case. I have seen churches where the leadership is not just ignorant of fellowship, but where their actions and words are actively (not maliciously, but through application in ignorance) thwarting fellowship in the church.

Obviously there are greater problems at work if the leadership is promoting a kind of “anti-fellowship”- where they themselves are gossiping, judging, shaming, being self-righteous or promoting their own image or pride. Where this is the case, I think the pastor(s) need to be approached humbly with some ideas on ways that the church can be improved in this area. A teachable pastor is going to look critically and carefully at these suggestions and hopefully will seek to implement them in ways that he sees fit.

Unfortunately, it may be likely that the pastor will reject these things - after all, it attacks his pride and his own view of his own authority, wisdom and importance. Some pastors are thoroughly convinced that they are actually performing a biblical function by engaging in and encouraging anti-fellowship. I have seen pastors stand on nothing but their own pride and authority before - even when scripture and reason have completely been abandoned. At this point, it may be best to shake the dust off your feet and move on - forgiving the pastor for being a human being, with the same kind of failings that you yourself have.

Aside from that scenario, reading a bible-based book together with a friend, another couple, or a small group is a good way to start. Most people won’t say no to this, and it enables you to begin to work together, sharing your thoughts about what you are reading and how you might apply this. I think this simple, no frills act can do amazing work in everything from a marriage to a small church.

Before we went to a church that taught and discipled us specifically in biblical fellowship - this is how we learned about it. My wife and I read books together, and also with our friends. Again, as long as the leadership is at least indifferent to this (most, I think, would be supportive) then this may very well start a positive move towards establishing fellowship.

On to Part 4: Why You Need It (Yes You).

The Gospel Is Everything

Published by Colin February 11, 2009 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 10 Comments

To many, the tile of this piece may seem obvious. Of course the gospel is everything - it is the message of salvation - the good news that tells us of what Christ has done for us and how we can be reconciled to God. Without the gospel, we don’t learn of this truth.

For some Christians, I fear that this is the limit of how the gospel has been applied. It is viewed as the means by which we are saved - a historical summary that is the beginning step of the Christian walk, which is soon departed in favour of more weighty and mature truths.

Many teachers lament how new Christians seem to be “on fire” for God upon being saved, but this passion soon dies out as Christians settle into their walk for the long-run. They go from being excited, grateful, evangelistic and passionate to developing a patient concern for other elements of the Christian walk - the church, serving in ministry, giving, studying scripture and so on. It seems that these things (which are tremendously important) are viewed as “advanced” or “beyond” the gospel - that the gospel is really a gateway to Christian life, rather than the Christian life itself.

Neglecting the Gospel
At times, I believe my Christian walk has been neglectful of the gospel. What do I mean by this? Was I not saved? What I not evangelising? Was I in idolatry? Not exactly. But I believe that the focus of my walk has sometimes drifted into a pursuit of the benefits of the gospel - a relationship with God, study of the word, fellowship, ministry, evangelism and spiritual gifts - rather than a consistent and steadfast application the gospel.

Applying the gospel is not merely an essential element of Christianity - one thing among others to enrich our relationship with Christ - it is Christianity. The gospel defines everything about God and his nature. It defines everything about man and his nature. It explains the purpose of all things: past, present and future. The gospel is the cornerstone of truth - from which all other truths are derived. Biblical truths do not compliment, define or shape the gospel - rather, the gospel is the genesis from which these truths spring.

Anger: A Practical Example
Let me speak about this practically. Imagine the problem of wrath and anger. The bible has a lot to say about wrath, and provides us practical steps, methods and warnings about anger. Proverbs 27:4 tells us that “Wrath is cruel and anger a torrent, But who is able to stand before jealousy?” In Colossians 3:8 , Paul tells us to “put off” anger. Many more examples and stories could be taken from the bible to help us deal with anger. There is no question that these truths are helpful.

However, without the gospel, these truths basically become biblical therapy, guidelines and can even become rules. They are correct and valid, but they lack the power of the gospel.

How does the gospel apply here? In many ways. For example, we know that God’s wrath and anger are completely just and fair. Yet he has suspended his anger, delivering us from his wrath by the death of Christ. God has shown that his mercy triumphs over wrath, even just and righteous wrath, for the sake of his glory and his purposes. If God has suspended his wrath against us sinners, who have been at war with God, then how much more so should we be quick to forgive and embrace patience and self-control?

I hope the difference here is clear. One set of truths (minus the gospel) provides means, mechanisms and guidelines for dealing with sin. But the gospel provides the power because it is rooted in the essence of God’s greatest and perfect act. By applying the gospel to our lives, we remove ourselves from the disappointing, often futile struggle against sin which results from using our own effort to to seek power to obey truth. How can sinful man, totally depraved, somehow find the power to change within himself? This is not possible. So why continue to struggle?

Perspective and Power
The gospel gives us comprehension of the “big picture.” It puts everything in perspective. It enables the church to serve one another more effectively. It minimizes us trying to be little psychologists, judges and police of one another and instead helps us to “stir up love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). We can minister, encourage, admonish, serve and pray for one another in the power and perspective of the gospel.

The gospel is not merely to convince people they are saved, it is for Christians to embrace their entire lives. When we praise God in heaven, we are not thanking him for teaching us about how to deal with lust, anger or to do our devotions more regularly. We are entirely focussed on praising him for the gospel - for redeeming us (Revelation 5:9). If this is our focus in heaven, should it not be our focus here on earth?

Some (Anecdotal) Notes on God’s Will

Published by Colin December 15, 2008 in General. 6 Comments

England is a difficult country to move to - especially when, despite living in the bottom 28% of your last country, you had a much higher standard of living. My wife and I have faced many challenges over the past four months in almost every aspect of our lives. I can’t imagine some of the difficulties people face when moving from the US to countries in Africa, South America or Asia.

It is inevitable that such dramatic life changes - moving, changing vocations, changing churches - create uncertainty and unpredictability in life. If we had done all this and everything seemed normal - then surely something would be wrong! However, how are we to interpret these difficulties and challenges? How is the Christian supposed to reconcile ideas such as peace, joy and hope in the face of fairly consistent difficulty in life’s circumstances? Is this really what God has in store for us?

God’s Cruel Will
It would be a cruel thing if, aside from the explicit scriptural guidelines which God has provided, he also had authoritative “hidden” guidelines or a “hidden will” for each individual Christian which God expects followed, but refuses to reveal in plain terms. The idea that we must all follow secret feelings, inward impressions and the divinations of our circumstances in order to satisfy God and live abundantly is a tremendous burden that many Christians bear. Sadly, this is unnecessary.

Many Christians argue (because they have been taught this by men, not because they have seen anything like it in scripture) that we must interpret “God’s will for your life” by presuming that our feelings are authoritative. If we feel a “peace” about a situation or decision then it is from God. Some Christians so blindly follow this false doctrine that they can justify clearly unbiblical acts by their feelings and impressions (”I need to divorce my wife and God has given me a real peace about it”).

Imagine if a man like Joseph would have followed his feelings. He had dreams where he was in authority over his whole family - that God was going to favour him. Yet he found himself in Egypt, as a slave in Potipher’s house for ten years and later in jail. But Joseph didn’t second guess the sovereignty of God. His circumstances were screaming at him that he was clearly doing something wrong - a man of his talent and ability, to whom God had promised great things, was a slave and prisoner. But Joseph’s peace clearly was not in subjugation to his circumstances - it was above them. His peace was found in God, and kept in God - safe from the wiles of his feelings and machinations.

God’s Objective Authority Versus Man’s Subjective Interpretation
Our feelings and impression are just that - feelings and impressions. They might have divine authorship, they might be last night’s burrito. The fact is that these things are subjective. The advice we get from others is also subjective. Even words of prophecy in this age are subjective, and limited by the men who have received them. Christians tend to rely on a combination of subjective “signs” to somehow achieve a seemingly authoritative direction where God is leading them. This is 1) irresponsible; 2) a source of unnecessary confusion and fear; and 3) not biblical.

This includes the idea of a “calling” into ministry. The bible lays out clear guidelines for certain areas of ministry - these are objective and authoritative. The advice of leaders, feelings, dreams and visions are not - they are subjective. If a man is verbally abusing his wife and his children are rebellious - it doesn’t matter if Billy Graham believes he should be a pastor or that the man feels God wants him to be a pastor. He is objectively unqualified based on the bible. A “calling” is irrelevant. A man who can’t teach and doesn’t have biblical leadership skills is not qualified to be a pastor - despite what he or others might think he is “called” to do.

This applies in a myriad of other places. Christians who are in deep debt and refuse to work, but might feel “called” to go to unpaid missionary work in China should reconsider their desires in light of the bible. A man deep in debt but who feels “called” to give thousands of dollars to a church should reconsider his plans - as the bible says some hard truths about debt. A Christian who feels “called” to marry a non-Christian should reconsider whether this is biblically acceptable - regardless of their feelings.

Final Thoughts
I am not sure why this tradition has arisen in the church. I suspect it might be a combination of things. First I believe this emphasis on material circumstances is rooted in materialist philosophy as well as in the prosperity gospel. I think it also is influenced by the eccentricities of the charismatic movement. Lastly, it comes about by an emphasis on people-pleasing: unintentionally placing the value of leadership and Christian peers over scripture.

We have been able to deal with our own trials because God has enabled us to look past our circumstances for our peace. This doesn’t mean we don’t whine, complain and seek to change our circumstances - it just means that they don’t overshadow our joy that comes from knowing that God is in charge and has provided for our greatest need - salvation. We can rest in this, and be comforted in the midst of trials - passing through them with wisdom and peace because God has clearly told us in his authoritative word, that he is taking care of us.

Worship and Intellectual Property, Part II

Published by Colin December 10, 2008 in Religion. 10 Comments

Last time, I made a couple of points:

Worship songs are God’s gift to man, not the property of any individual or group
Worship songs must not be withheld from the church for profit
Any manifestation of God’s Spirit must be given away freely
It is the responsibility of individuals to give, not for worship writers to enforce obedience by requiring a fee

I would like to take this opportunity to deal with a few common objections to these points.

But these artists deserve to be paid for their work! - I am not disputing that worship leaders and songwriters should not be paid. Any Christian worth his salt should give to any minister who is providing spiritual nutrition to him - including worship songwriters. However, the songwriter has no right to withhold a gift from God for the church’s benefit (not his) unless he is paid. He must give freely, as he has been given, and trust in God to move in the hearts of those who receive. I would argue that a worship songwriter who does not provide his work free of charge has a severe lacking of faith.

Couldn’t you just argue that everything is from God and thus everything should be free? A person’s money, house, car, etc… is a gift from God. Isn’t private property in general just hoarding what God has given? - I think there are clear indications in scripture and in nature that the structure which God has appointed to order stewardship is private property. However, there is a nuanced difference between manifestations of the spirit and just general property in the bible. Things like land, food, wealth and so on are spoken about differently in scripture than spiritual gifts such as words of prophecy, teaching, faith and healing. Now, there is no question that all things belong to God - but this does not mean that God has ordered that all things be stewarded the same way. Some things he wants stewarded privately, others he wants used for the profit of the church, some for the poor, some for all men.

What about non-worship music from a Christian artist? - Lot’s of worship writers make other music as well. Since this music is still given by God, but not as a manifestation of God’s Spirit for worshipping him collectively - then the author may do whatever he wants as far as intellectual property. I would then argue with him as to whether intellectual property was a legitimate institution, but my argument would be rooted in natural law and secular reasoning - as we have effectively moved out of a spiritual manifestation and into private property.

If worship songwriters give away their music for free, this will disincentivise worship music from being created, spread and used in the church? There must be some profit or the worship musicians wont write songs! - This sentiment exposes a lack of faith and an over-dependence on men to accomplish God’s will. Sorry, but God does not need our help to worship him - he is more than capable of generating his own music and distributing it as he sees fit. Again, the bible specifically addresses this point: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (1 Cor 12:11 - emphasis mine). I worry that this kind of thinking ports marketing and capitalism onto Christianity - which is dangerous territory.

Is it just to use IP to make music free - that is, can one copyright their song so as to prevent it from being hoarded? Is this consequentiallism? - This is a profound question. I have argued elsewhere against using “evil” institutions to bring about “good” - how am I going to handle this? First of all, I don’t think IP is “evil” - I do think it is unnatural and non-biblical. However, unlike war, taxes etc… I don’t see it as an evil institution. I would compare IP more with a gun- it is not inherently evil, but almost all of its uses are evil. It is not unChristian to own a gun, but in many situations it is evil for a Christian to use it. I don’t see anything wrong with using copyright in defence of free distribution - I do not think however, that it should ever be used offensively - to prevent others from legitimate use of music, books, tapes, etc…

Hopefully, this clarifies my position a little. Secondly, I hope to encourage worship writers and ministries to take a moment and consider whether they are engaging in biblical behaviour by restricting the music which God has given to them for the church. Third, I hope that wider implications are considered - for example, whether other church events and products should bear a mandatory fee or charge.

Praise and Worship: What it Isn’t and What it Is

Published by Chris A July 24, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 45 Comments

In a Word, Silly
Last Sunday while I am at my church that I love very much, I noticed myself singing one of those unscriptural “praise and worship” songs. Disappointed with myself for singing something to God that was – well, stupid – I decided to refrain my tongue from lyrical heresy and instead focused on what my relationship with God is really like.

For Christians not familiar with praise and worship is in the popular vernacular, it is basically what “contemporary” Christians sing instead of hymns. If and when contemporary believers sing the old hymns, the tempo is usually changed so that one barely recognizes it as the original song. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to either brand of music and really see value in both insomuch as they are scriptural in their approach and actually magnify God. It’s just that some of these new songs are downright corny. I can scarcely sing them without laughing, thinking to myself, “Am I actually going to sing this song to the Creator of the universe?” Here’s an excerpt from a popular one:

A grateful heart I give
A thankful prayer I pray
A wild dance I dance before You
A loud song I sing
A huge bell I ring…

A huge bell I ring? I can’t even type that without wanting to reduce myself to embarrassing hilarity! Look, I’m not against thankful prayer or even dancing wildly. Heck, I’m not even against ringing huge bells if that’s your thing. But if I’m going to sing a song to the Lord and mean it, I can’t honestly sing stuff like this. It just brings up too many images of The Gong Show or Sanford and Son with Redd Foxx calling someone “big dummy” or Aunt Esther calling him a “heathen” or a “fish-eyed fool.” Then it isn’t long before my mind wanders even further and I’m singing the Welcome Back Kotter them song again – definitely not conducive to worshipping God. And just so we’re clear I believe in rejoicing “with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8). I just see a major difference between the joy of the Lord, and the comedy that results from letting my quirky imagination run wild when I sing cheesy churchy songs. I mean you might expect kids to sing songs like this (maybe), but when we are singing the adult equivalent of If the devil doesn’t like it he can sit on a tack (ouch!), I think we really have to evaluate what we are singing to God here.

Some Basic Standards
I don’t presume to be the world’s foremost authority on praise and worship, but I think the following guidelines would help us.

Worship songs should be scriptural. Technically it is not even praise to sing about our relationship to God. But if we are going to sing that, it just makes sense that such songs should reflect ideas consistent with the Bible.
Worship songs should be more truth than emotion. The truth never changes, but feelings are fickle. We may not always relate to the emotion the songwriter may have experienced when he wrote the song, but we should all be able to relate to a number of things related to our salvation for which we can be thankful.
Worship songs should ideally seek to minister to God rather than simply minister about Him or our relationship with Him. I don’t mean to say that there is no place for singing about Him, but that should not be the greatest emphasis.
If a song is going to sing about God or our relationship with Him rather than directly to Him, it should not minister condemnation. Condemning songs are NOT praise or worship! God is not impressed, and in fact is rather insulted, by songs that tell us how worthless we are. People who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ cannot be worthless. God never made a worthless new creation.
Praise and worship is not entertainment. Dance teams, streamers, and the like should probably be voluntarily retired. Dance as a way to praise is not unbiblical, but when it is choreographed as a means of entertainment it isn’t praise. If this kind of action demands your attention as a spectator, it isn’t praise.

Biblical Praise and Worship
Aside from what is commonly known as “praise and worship” there is a such praise and worship from a biblical point of view. What is praise? Here is a basic dictionary definition: the offering of grateful homage in words or song, as an act of worship. Beyond this basic agreed upon meaning, Hebrews 13:15 gives us a good description.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

We could paraphrase this by saying praise is verbal thanksgiving to God done through Christ. However, I think we could even extend the definition of praise to include other instruments besides the human voice. Psalm 150:1-5 expands the definition for us.

1 Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,

4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,

5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

Praise as a Lifestyle
I think to most Christians, praise is something done in church on Sunday morning. Certainly corporate praise is biblical, but God never intended that praise should be limited to a weekly exercise. Let’s examine Hebrews 13:5 again.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

Notice the word continually. Praise to God should be continual. How can one do that? The answer is in the opening phrase of this verse: Therefore by Him… Many of us have conditioned ourselves to think of this sacrifice as something hard to do continually. Why? Because we have failed to realize that we do it by the power of Christ and not sheer human will. I think a little more meddling will help to illustrate this fact. Let’s look at more of the lyrics to the song I quoted earlier.

But I will not forget you
You are my god, my king
With a thankful heart I bring my offering

(Okay so far, but watch out because here it comes)

And my sacrifices are not what you can give
But what I alone can give to you…

I don’t think most people realize it, but believing and singing this will absolutely cripple a person. The “I alone” phrase is particularly troubling to me. You may think that I am being too critical here, but I have to ask - why the emphasis on independence here? Someone may ask, “But aren’t we supposed to offer ourselves as a sacrifice to God?” Yes, but even this we do not do apart from the awareness of God’s mercy. Consider Romans 12:1:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritualact of worship.

Rather than saying “in view of God’s mercy” the King James and New King James versions render it, “by the mercies of God.” So for us to say that we are offering a sacrifice to God in and of ourselves is just false. It is only because of His grace and mercy that we have been reconciled in the first place. Our approach to God in all respects is based on this principle. Have we who begun in the Spirit perfected by the flesh? I think not.

The Personal Effects of Real Praise
Praising God should affect us in a number of positive ways. Not only should our praise bless God, but it should also bless us. The word magnify is often used in the Bible in connection with praising God. Of course this word means to cause to seem greater or more important. So when we are magnifying the Lord we are enlarging our capacity to see God as greater than any adverse circumstances we may encounter, and generally brings us into a greater consciousness of God’s presence.

Many people run into a problem and immediately begin to magnify the problem; it becomes the sole object of their attention to the extent that it robs them of the one sent to indwell them and counsel them on the matter. Although He hasn’t left them or forsaken them, they feel as though He has because they have actually robbed themselves of God consciousness by focusing on “the wind and the waves”. Paul and Silas had a perfect opportunity to do this in Acts 5 when they were beaten and thrown into prison, but instead they took a different approach.

But about midnightPaul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16:25).

Paul and Silas knew that things never can get so bad that you cannot praise God. In fact, the worse things get, the more we should praise him. We’re not praising him because of our trouble but in spite of it. Paul knew very well the power of praise, instructing the Ephesians to cultivate a lifestyle of thanksgiving while conveying to them how to maintain consciousness of the Holy Spirit.

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:18-20).

Where Do We Go From Here
First of all, we should acknowledge that many people are ignorant about praise. You may fit into that category. I know I once did, and still don’t claim to know everything about it. People only know what they’ve learned, and someone probably (ignorantly) taught them that singing unbelieving songs was somehow praise. I feel that many songs are being sung from a pre-Christ perspective, not a righteous perspective. This is the result of not knowing one’s identity in Christ. Personally, I refuse to sing songs like this – not because I’m being rebellious or defiant – but because I understand that the purpose of singing songs is to praise God. If it isn’t accomplishing that, then what good is it? However, it doesn’t help the situation to try and make the worship leader appear to be wrong or to criticize him personally.

The best thing Christians can do is to begin to cultivate a life of praise themselves. Begin your day by saying, “I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth” (Psalm 34:1). In this way, they will never be unfulfilled by any songs your church sings that are weak, and you’ll never have to rely on your worship leader to uplift you by selecting the right songs.

I’ll be honest, there are some “worship” songs that I absolutely detest, but I’m not upset at people for singing them. Nor will it affect my fellowship with God one way or the other. I think it is perfectly right to judge songs that exalt human experience and feelings above the knowledge of God; we just shouldn’t judge people, especially when their actions result from legitimate ignorance. If you have knowledge they don’t have, that just makes you more responsible to act on what you know; it certainly doesn’t make us better than others who do not know.

You can try to educate fellow believers about what worship actually is, but without the proper approach this could blow up in your face. People can be very sensitive about these things, and if you come off as judgemental it could really do damage to your relationships. And it probably isn’t worth that. Forums such as these are non-confrontational and can function as a teaching tool or as a place for civil (well, most of the time) discussion and debate, but people participate voluntarily. People can read it or not read it. And even if someone strongly disagrees, we will probably never meet face-to-face.

Some Important Questions On The NT Canon

Published by Bryan April 15, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 3 Comments

When one sits back and really thinks about the NT canon, several important questions should come to mind that are not often addressed. Too often, one jumps to questions such as; what was the criteria for including a book, why was book X not included, and why is the canon closed, before actually considering the concept of canon. That is, one starts their investigation of the canon before considering if there should be a textual canon or not.

To question if there should be a canon or not may seem strange, since there has been some kind of NT canon for much of the history of the church, and perhaps it is a silly question since nearly every Christian alive today would agree that there should be a textual canon. But to start an investigation of the NT canon with this question will force us to examine what we believe the place of the canon is in the Christian life, and to look deeper at why it was formed, even if we all agree on the answer already. Much like in math where you are required to show your work on a test to prove you have thought the concept through and are not simply copying what you have memorized, I think this question will force a person to think through beliefs that they may otherwise take for granted.

I am not sure my answer to the question of why we have a textual canon is correct or not. I think it would be difficult to definitively give an answer to the question, and I think more then one answer may be correct. What I will do in what follows is then only lay out my thoughts on the question of the necessity of a textual canon and invite the discussion of canon to make this question one of it’s starting points.

Who Created the Cannon: God or the Church?
Unlike a great majority of Protestants, I believe that the church created the textual canon. The canon of scripture is above all things a book of the church, the book of the church. The authority that scripture has in the life of the believer comes from God, but not directly. God set up the church as His instrument on the earth, and it was through this instrument that the textual canon was decided. This is in opposition to the view that the church merely recognized the books we have in the textual canon as scripture. I believe this view is neither historically nor theologically defensible.

If the church only recognized what was obvious, then why was there the contradicting lists, the debate, and the need to set a textual canon? Would it not have been so obvious to the church that one would not need to set a list? No, there was discussion and disagreement, true there was also much agreement that certain books needed to be included, but it was not simply because a book had some innate quality that made it scripture, but because it was a true and trustworthy account of what happened that agreed with the teachings of the church.

The textual canon did not come down from heaven like the Ten Commandments did, but it was the authority that Christ gave to the church that allowed it to come into existence. The commands to watch over and feed the sheep/flock (John 21 Acts 20:28) gives the church a general authority. The creating of a textual canon, something to hand down among the sheep to keep them on the straight path after the first few generations begin to die out, can be seen as one way (among many) the church has attempted to fulfill this authority. There really is little other command or prediction to produce such a book.

Defining “Inspiration”
The response to this line of reasoning would be to affirm that although there was not a prediction of scripture, or a command for the church to create a canon, the fact that it is inspired by God (pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16) places it in a category not unlike a gift to the church, but definitely not decided upon by the church. The argument ignores the historical context of the creation of the canon, but also relies on a very specific understanding of what the word “inspired” means.
Continue reading ‘Some Important Questions On The NT Canon’

Governmental Ministers of God

Published by Colin January 30, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

Editor’s Note: This article is written by zealfortruth.org contributor Chris Austere.

In my previous two articles, Axis of Evil: Disembodied Rulers? Parts I and II, we discussed how governments are sometimes used as agents of Satan’s kingdom. This should not be interpreted to mean that any present-day government is purely evil, however. In fact, scripture teaches that governments and militaries are God-ordained institutions.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing (Romans 13:1-6, KJV).

In order to understand the role of governments and militaries, we must answer this question: what function does Paul say governments are to fulfill? Simply put, the role of government is to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” We could paraphrase this by saying governments are agents of God’s judgment.

In part II of Axis of Evil we looked at Ezekiel 28. This chapter speaks about the prince of Tyre, who was lifted up in pride because of his own wisdom. He thought of himself as a God rather than a man. What was the penalty of this sin?

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 28:6-10).

The agent of God’s judgment was a foreign army. This should alert all American Christians to the fact that even God’s chosen people were not immune from such judgment. Although I do not necessarily agree to the Christian leaders who said the events of 9/11 were the result of God’s wrath, such a scenario is not outside the boundaries of biblical possibility.

How Should Christians Respond to Government?
First of all, Christians should obey the law as long as such obedience does not interfere with one’s faith. Since Paul makes it clear that resistance of governmental authority is akin to resisting God himself, failure to submit to such ordinances violates Christian conscience. Secondly, Christians should honor governing bodies by paying taxes. And thirdly, Christians should pray for those in authority.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour (I Timothy 2:1-3)

This is where partisanship must be set aside. Yet in a society where people have a say in who is appointed to office, this is perhaps one of the hardest things to swallow. If we are not careful, we will neglect prayer for our leaders in favor of criticism. Heavenly citizenship is to be preferred over earthly citizenship, and those of the household of faith must realize that the exercise of the privilege of prayer is a much more effective tool in God’s hands than our vote. In the event that God is set to judge our nation, intercession could prevent it. If God would have suspended his judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people, how much more would he extend mercy to those who can boldly access his throne through Jesus Christ?

The Inspired Word of God?

Published by Hungry Sasquatch September 12, 2007 in Religion. 74 Comments

Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.

I’m currently reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, a fascinating study of hidden incentives, unasked questions, and unexpected realizations. This particular quote stood out to me:

It was John Kenneth Galbraith, the hyperliterate economic sage, who coined the phrase ‘conventional wisdom.’ He did not consider it a compliment. ‘We associate truth with convenience, with what mostly accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life…We adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.’

I’d like to shift the focus of this principle from an economic field to the realm of Christianity. Faith in the unseen is at the core of Christian doctrine; by its very nature, much of Christianity cannot be substantiated. However, this has not stopped us from developing our own conventional wisdom, and the church’s response to those who challenge the norm has been unpleasant, to say the least. Questioners are socially ostracized. We used to brand them as heretics and excommunicate them…or burn them at the stake. We develop a comfort zone of beliefs which we don’t want anyone messing with, and then wrap it up all nice and neat, stick a bow on it, and call it faith. I call it conventional wisdom, and like Galbraith, I don’t think highly of it.

The Bible
One of the most obvious manifestations of this phenomenon is our insistence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is it really? Who says? I know my church history. I know about the great church councils and the canonization of the 27 books which comprise the New Testament. I know all the self-authenticating Bible verses, such as 2nd Timothy 3:16 (“All scripture is God-breathed…”). Undoubtedly, we have a huge number of witnesses spanning two millennia who help shape our conventional wisdom; unfortunately, while the magnitude of testimony must weigh heavily, it doesn’t conclude anything.

The Bible claims, on many occasions, to be the Word of God. Well, so does the Qur’an, and I find it to be inconsistent, self-contradicting, and extremely non-progressive. I would think God can do better than that. Or take the Book of Mormon, which claims to be the final (as in, more authoritative) revelation of Jesus. I find it overly fantastic and completely incongruous with subsequent scientific and archaeological discoveries. Should I not apply the same critical analysis to my own scriptures as to those of other faith traditions? And when I do, what happens when I discover self-contradictions? What do I do with prophetic messages that clash? What do I do with rules that demean women? How do I respond when God acts in a way that is in direct conflict with the testimony of Jesus? As I see it, we have three choices: 1) Change our view of God, or 2) Change our view of the Bible, or 3) Not think about it and use the “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand it so we should just believe” intellectual out-clause.

Conventional Wisdom
Christian conventional wisdom tends to take the third option. It’s safe. For one thing, it’s what the community is supposed to believe, so we don’t risk rocking the boat. Besides, if we don’t ask questions, God will surely be pleased with our faith and so he won’t throw us in hell. The other alternatives are scary, so we stick with what we know, doing everything in our power to avoid uncomfortable disequilibrium. This is human nature. I don’t want to downplay the cost of questioning; it is enormous. If we are truly Christians, then our spiritual beliefs form the foundation on which we build our lives, and if those are wrong, then what does that say about everything we’ve worked to accomplish? If we are wrong, then the apostle Paul is right, and we are to be pitied above all persons.

My Choice
I chose to change my view of the Bible. I now view it as the most fascinating collection of ancient theology ever assembled. It is writers like me trying to make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in. It is myriad voices blending together to proclaim that God is up to something in this world, and it’s worth our effort to be on board. So although I’m not convinced Abraham was a historical figure, I still embrace his story as my story. And though I don’t believe the exodus happened as described, I celebrate my deliverance from bondage along with the ancient Hebrews. And while I don’t believe Revelation to be a literal end-time vision, I celebrate God’s eventual triumph over evil with all the white-clad saints.

Moving Forward
I challenge Christians everywhere to let God out of the book. Over the centuries, humankind has made exponential progress in areas such as science, medicine, government, economics, philosophy, agriculture, and psychology. Is it so blasphemous to think moral understanding didn’t peak over nineteen hundred years ago? I think not. The council of early Christians in Jerusalem decided a vast majority of Torah—the Law of God—was irrelevant to gentile converts, a decision which must have been excruciatingly difficult to come to. Let us have the courage to do the same, when necessary. I absolutely believe the Bible should be the first thing we turn to for answers to moral dilemmas; it is our story and our tradition, after all. But is it God’s end-all, be-all Word? Not unless it’s a sin to trim your beard.

Women in Church Leadership: A Brief Defense of the Evangelical Egalitarian Position

Published by Jasen Tracy June 25, 2007 in Religion. 6 Comments

Given such passages as 1st Timothy 2:8-15, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and 1st Timothy 3 where the assumption is that candidates for the office of overseer will be men, it might seem that the complementarian position is unassailable.There are reasons to think otherwise however.

1) Passages that show examples of women exercising teaching and/or religious authority over men

Deborah - As a judge in pre-monarchical Israel she wielded considerable power, both legal and religious (Judges 4). She settled disputes, told a male leader what the will of God was, and together with Barak lead the people in a hymn of celebration (Judges 5). Some of those hymn lyrics were very flattering of Deborah. Verse 7 - “The peasantry ceased in Israel, Until I, Deborah, arose, Until I arouse, a mother in Israel.”

Some might object that Deborah’s role was allowed only because of lack of male leadership (especially on Barak’s part), but it should be noted that scripture only raises that issue concerning Deborah’s role (or more accurately, Barak’s lack of a role) as military leader, not her position as judge and prophetess. If there were anything wrong with Deborah’s role she could have judged along side her husbandLappidoth , and have him give the decisions (thus ensuring male authority). In addition, there was another judge and military leader at the same time, Shamgar, who could have assumed Deborah’s position (and especially Barak’s military role) if a male leader was strictly necessary.

Huldah - King Josiah (one of the godly kings) sent a delegation lead by the High Priest to her in order to inquire about a scripture passage (2nd Chronicles 34:14-33). Huldah provides an authoritative application of the passage to the High Priest and thus to King Josiah. If a male leader was needed for an authoritative application of scripture, contemporaries ofHuldah, such as Jeremiah and Zephaniah could have been sought.

Priscilla - Along with her husband Aquila, she helped Paul establish a church in Ephesus, making her a co-leader in evangelism and church planting (Acts 28:18-28).They also instructed the male leader Apollos “in the way of God.”The fact that Priscilla is listed before her husband in the teaching of Apollos, when she is not in some of the other passages where she and her husband are mentioned, could imply that she was more prominent in the teaching field than her husband. In any event, there’s no doubt she had some teaching authority in religious matters over a man.

Junia - Along with Andronicus is called “outstanding among the apostles.”(Romans 16:7). It’s not certain exactly what this position meant, but it’s certainly a position of some leadership. In 1st Thessalonians 2:6 - Paul calls himself and his co-workers apostles and notes that they have “been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” and that “as apostles of Christ we might have exerted our authority.”

Phoebe - Paul (Romans 16:1) calls her “a servant” of the church of Cenchrea. Some translations render “servant” as deaconess, which might be a good translation given Phoebe’s gender. However, it’s the same word that is translated as deacon or deacons elsewhere, such as in Philippians 1. That’s a mixed signal to say the least if male leadership is required.

Women prophets - In 1st Corinthians 11rules are given for women’s dress while they are prophesying in mixed gatherings. But what is a prophet (other than one who prophecies)? It can mean someone who speaks for God, especially revealing future events. However, according to Crosswalk’s Greek Lexicon a prophet is defined as, “in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate, their hearers.” Thus, Paul here assumes a measure of authority for women.

2) Elements within the complementarian proof-texts and other passages are dismissed as cultural

Looking at 1st Timothy 2 again, it certainly seems that verses 13-15 (including the baffling statement that women will be saved through child-bearing) that the prohibition of women teaching men can be taken as a trans-cultural absolute command. However, it would also apply to verse 9’s command against braided hair. If verse 9 can be taken as applying culturally, then it’s likely verse 12 can be as well.

In 1st Corinthians 11it’s stated that “nature itself” is said to show that long hair is a disgrace for a man and that women must pray with their head covered. Paul says that “if anyone wants to be contentious about this about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.”This is condemnation in the strongest possible terms, and the reason given “nature itself” certainly does not seem to be a culturally specific reason.

So why do most not following these commands today? Perhaps a part of the reason is examples in scripture of men having long hair, such as the prophet Samuel (something he would hardly do if long hair being a disgrace was an absolute).It seems we must take the hair commands in 1st Corinthians 11 to be cultural, or we would have a contradiction in scripture.

There are other examples of passages that everyone takes to be cultural, such as the “holy kiss” passages. Is there a reason to think that the passages that limit the role of women in church leadership are such passages? There were many practical reasons to limit women in leadership. Women at the time were less educated and in some places it’s clear that the women the N.T. letters address were quarrelsome and spoke out of place. More seriously, society largely was not ready for woman leaders, and having such would have been a hindrance to the evangelistic mission of the early church.

Given the passages about women leaders in scripture, including some that exercised teaching and religious authority over men, there arises an apparent contradiction with passages such as 1st Timothy 2. Either “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and passages that assume male leadership have to be taken as limited to situation the passage was addressing, or it has to be explained why it wasn’t wrong for women leaders in scripture to exercise the authority that they did. There is a clear cultural application for some related passages (long hair for men, head coverings for women, braided hair prohibition, etc). We also have the examples of women such asHuldah and Priscilla. The best approach then to the whole witness of scripture, is to assume that the passages limiting women’s leadership possibilities in the church are for the specific situations addressed by those passages and are not absolutes.

[They are other topics that would need to be addressed for a complete understanding of the issue, such as the effect the creation, the fall, and new creation has on leadership.They’ve been omitted for space reasons, but I can write about those some other time of anyone is actually interested].

Zeal For Truth