Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

What was Peter thinking?  A detachment of soldiers, led by Judas, found Jesus and the disciples in the olive grove across the Kidron Valley, to arrest him.  Peter, for reasons that escape me, had brought a sword to the prayer meeting, and he swung it. Badly. Being a fisherman, not a soldier, the best he could do was lop off the ear of the High Priest’s servant.  Jesus told him to put away the sword, healed the servant’s ear, and presented himself to the soldiers, to “drink the cup the Father has given me.”

It would be easy to judge Peter if we did not so often emulate him.  He misunderstood the situation and reacted in the wrong way.  All Peter did by his sword-swinging attempt to help Jesus was become an obstacle to God’s work.

Peter failed to realize that the arrest of Jesus was part of God’s sovereign plan of salvation.  God was working through the tragedy, accomplishing his redemptive purpose.  It just didn’t look that way to him.  Peter was sure things had gone very wrong.  Somebody had to do something about it.  Peter took up his sword and went to work to make things right.

Because Peter forgot that God was still in control, he also forgot that human weapons and human ways do not accomplish the work of God.  He swung his sword in full confidence that Jesus would applaud his courage and bless his efforts.  But Jesus did not applaud Peter, he rebuked him.  In Peter’s attempt to “do something for Jesus” he only made a bad situation worse, and caused pain for others.

What If Peter Had Succeeded?

Consider this: what if Peter succeeded?  What if he had been able to fight off the soldiers and free Jesus?  What would have been accomplished?  He would have stopped the Cross!  His attempt to help could have doomed us all to eternal hell.   God would never let that happen, but it makes you think.  How often do we cause kingdom chaos in our efforts to help God?  We pick up human weapons of power politics, persuasion, control, manipulation, gossip, and strife, thinking we can do good.

Peter assumed that Jesus was unarmed.  But Jesus did have weapons.  Jesus was fighting with the most powerful weapon in the world – God’s love.  He was on his way to the cross to lay down his life for sinners.  By obedience, by submission, by sacrificial love, Jesus did what Peter’s puny sword could not.  Jesus, by laying down his life, conquered sin, and death, and hell.  He redeemed lost humanity and stepped on Satan’s neck.  He accomplished all of that without Peter’s sword.

God has made the weapons of Christ available to us.  “The weapons of our warfare are spiritual,” said Paul.  When we love our enemies, when we return good for evil, when we lay down our lives for the sake of others, we wield powerful weapons that God uses in mighty ways.

Peter, trying to do good, did evil, because he operated on his own judgment, by his own power, with his own weapons.  Jesus was operating on the Father’s agenda, by the Father’s power, with the Father’s weapons.  Peter messed up.  Jesus saved the world.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.  We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”  2 Corinthians 10: 4-5 

Frankly, I’m not sure that we in the Christian world understand this.  I forget it way too often.  We have weapons, but they are not the weapons of the flesh.  Anger.  Vitriol.  Scheming.  Political organization. Gossip.  Slander.  These are the weapons people in the world use to accomplish that which they desire.  But those are not our weapons.  We have different weapons – better weapons – weapons that actually accomplish mighty and powerful works.

I would like to point out three things about these weapons.

1)  Our Weapons are Not Worldly

We do not fight with the weapons of the world.  Power politics won’t get the job done.  Legalism is pointless.  Trying to follow the rules of religion in the power of the flesh is futile.  And we don’t do battle with anger and condemnation.  These fleshly weapons have no power.  They seem effective but they accomplish nothing of eternal significance.

2) Our Weapons are Spiritual and Powerful

When we use the weapons of God, we fight with “divine power.” Did you get that?  When I use God’s weapons, I fight Satan with God’s power.  Wouldn’t that wipe the smirk off the devil’s face?  We are so used to doing much and accomplishing little.  We jump in with a great splash but we are seeing little real spiritual transformation.  Could it be that we are using the wrong weapons, fighting with the force of the flesh instead of the power of the Spirit.

3)  Our Warfare focuses on the Mind

Satan works to spread lies and deceive us into defeat.  God speaks truth to our spirits and casts down the strongholds of Satan’s lies.   It is not religion that will change us, nor our good works.  We cannot try our hardest and succeed.  Victory comes when the Word of God casts down the lies of Satan in our minds and we begin to walk in the victory of God.

Our Weapons

Paul makes it clear what kind of weapons we have.

 ”By purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; ⁷ by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left.” 2 Corinthians 6:6-7

The purity that is produced in us by the Spirit, the knowledge that banishes Satan’s lies, the spiritual fruit of patience and kindness which replaces anger and vengeance, the truth of God applied to our lives – these are the weapons of warfare that the Spirit of Christ gives us that have real power to make a real difference.

May we stop fighting the right battles with the wrong weapons.

A Not So Subtle Allegory

Once upon a time, the nation of Homino found itself constantly under attack by the armies of Skotos.  Homino’s fighters were armed only with bows and arrows, swords and spears.  They fought the best they could, but were no match for the modern army of Skotos, whose soldiers were equipped with machine guns, artillery, even an air force of bombers and fighter planes.  No matter how hard Homino fought, they could not stand against the power of Skotos.

One day, an emissary from the great king of Ouranos came to visit Homino.  “I can help you,” he promised.  “If you will swear your allegiance to our king, he will take you as part of his kingdom.  He will protect you and give you weapons more powerful than any your enemies have.”  The people of Homino wanted that very badly, so they agreed to swear fealty to the King of Ouranos, and became part of his kingdom.  They were excited to see the new weapons they had been promised.

The king was as good as his emissary’s word.  Each soldier in Homino received body armor that would protect them from all the weapons of Skotos.  The king sent them the most modern weaponry.  He supplied them with an air force; with fighters that could evade Skotos’ fighters and shoot them down.  The new bombers had the most sophisticated smart bombs which could target the enemy and destroy them.  The people of Homino were amazed at the arsenal put at their disposal by the King of Ouranos and were excited to see what a difference they would make in their battle.

The next day, they were attacked by Skotos.  The army of Homino quickly gathered its bows and arrow, its swords and spears and went out to battle.  They were soundly defeated.  Day after day, the same thing happened.  They went to battle against the army of Skotos armed with their primitive weapons while the powerful weapons given them by the king sat idle.  Day after day, they returned from battle in defeat.

Some of the commanders of Homino’s army gathered to confront the emissary of the king of Ouranos.  “Nothing has changed,” they complained.  “Since we gave our loyalty to your king, we have not won a single battle.  All of your promises are empty.  In spite of all you have promised us, we are still defeated.”

The emissary shook his head slowly.  “My friends, the king’s weapons do no good unless you use them.  He has given you body armor, but still you face the armies of Skotos unprotected.  He gave you powerful weapons to fight them, but still you use your swords and spears.  You have an Air Force with the most sophisticated warheads in the universe at your disposal, but the only thing that flies is your bows and arrows.  The king has given you every weapon you need to defeat the forces of Skotos but you do not use them.”

Suddenly, it clicked.  They were supposed to use the king’s weapons in the battle.  The next day, when Skotos attacked, the people of Homino took up the weapons of the king.  They were shocked at what happened.  The armor the king gave them deflected every bullet fired by their enemies.  They bounced off harmlessly.  Their new weapons overcame the enemy and their bombers strafed them until they fled in terro.  For the first time, the forces of Skotos were defeated.

Today, in Homino, the battle still rages but the outcome is very different.  Sometimes, the people forget themselves and pick up their old weapons.  When they do that, they are defeated.  But more and more now, they are remembering to take up the weapons given them by the Great King of Ouranos.  And when they do, the bullets fired at them bounce off harmlessly.  Their weapons send their enemies fleeing every time.

And every time, they stop to give thanks to the king for the weapons of victory.

Dear My Friends Good But Sadly Suffering With The Sickness,

For years now so many I have been in receipt of communications varied from strangers and people I have never yet the meeting opportunity being mine. As you can see from broken English mine so easily, this email is of the truth and coming from someone with good intention of nobility and to be generous.

My attention has been coming to the astounding conclusiveness that people of means substantial, which is to say possessing considerable wherewithals, from nations abroad that no banks must availability be to them all, have expressiveness to me that their desires is a gift monetary to me in the SUM of MILLIONS of dollars US. My messages to you is three things important.

One, let me first tell of my apology and sympathetic about your croaking soon to occurring in the near future deadness and below ground in the cold gravestone. I know what a sadness and thing to know this is being bummer truth.

Second, I hope you will trust in Jesus, believe in His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of your sins, sincerely repent of those sins, including especially identity theft, and place your faith in Him as your Lord and Savior, that your name might be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and that you might live forever in heaven with Him, where I will meet you one day and we can laugh about this.

Finally, I am having a propositions for you. Although never give to you my banked accounting numeralizations nor my Secured Socially identifier, please know that my name and address being in the phone registry public book and mailing me the check can be best methods for me getting compensation and treasury you wishing for receipt of mine having.

If you pleasing find acceptability to this, my hoping is for you would postage the check to me right away before heart stops beating yours and lungs stop breathing to you. After deadness you have come over you, your hand will not have penmanships to be writing legal documentations and signing your identification. Please, please do not postponement until you are kicking the buckets.

Thanking Gratefulness,

Rick

Politics—I’m not much of a fan.  The two party system we run rarely affords me a candidate I actually agree with across the board.  If I dare say I’m more interested in a third party candidate, I have heard the rebuke come, “A vote against person X is a vote for person Y.”  Really?  So I should just sell out what I believe in order to get person Y out of office when I have a lot of issues with person X?  It’s complicated.

I think sometimes we as Christians are guilty of not really delving deep enough into how the gospel should inform our political activism (and by gospel here I mean the full story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation—if it all points to Jesus, then it is all a part of the gospel about Jesus).  At the core we need to realize that America is not God’s chosen nation and never will be.  God had a chosen nation once.  Its entire purpose was to bring about the Messiah who would create a unique people from among the nations and not of a nation.  All legislation, to a degree, is legislating morality it is legislating somebody’s belief system.  Laws of the land should be protective, but we must remember that laws passed in Washington or our state capitols will have the same success of changing people’s hearts as a law written on stone tablets.

We as Christians should realize that people’s greatest need is Jesus, and we cannot legislate people into believing in Jesus.  So what do we do then about the whole same-sex marriage debate?

Sometimes we like to be pithy.  It has been echoed recently, “Only God has the right to define marriage.”  This is true—only God has the right to define morality, and we will ultimately be judged according to God’s moral standards not according to any government’s.  But how should this idea actually apply to our political polices?  When we use this line in terms of the marriage debate, we are typically speaking of the one-man-one-woman idea, but is this the only definition God has given to marriage?  What about Ephesians 5?  What about Malachi 2?  Places which speak of marriage being a covenant infused with the Spirit of God…places which speak of marriage being a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.  Are these also not a part of God’s definition of marriage?

Yet how does this work in terms of the civil laws concerning marriage?  Non-Christians are not able to live out the Christ and church aspect of marriage.  They fail to meet the standard which God has established.  Should we as Christians support initiatives to prevent non-Christians from being married, civilly, under the laws of the government based on that same rallying cry that only God has the right to define marriage?  Or should our main concern be about protecting churches’ rights to perform and recognize marriages according to their own standards?

The other day I heard someone say, “Gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, because what they’re doing is just not natural.”  I agree, homosexuality is not natural in God’s design, though it is a “natural” effect of the fall into sin.  But if our greatest concern as Christians is the gospel, why don’t we take a similar stand against non-Christian heterosexual couples adopting children?  By keeping silent on such an issue, we allow children to be adopted into homes where the gospel will not be shared with them, the Bible and prayer will not be valued, and church will not be attended.  Even more, though the couple practices the same standards of man-with-woman sexuality as we promote, might they not have corrupt standards in other avenues of sexuality?  Might they not be okay or even promote pre-marital sex and pornography?  Are these sexual perversions not equal in their sinfulness to homosexuality?  And what about these couples’ potential views on abortion, the environment, drugs and alcohol?

I am by no means saying that we as Christians should be taking a stand against non-Christians marrying or adopting.  Most of us probably think such a stand would be silly.  But some of the arguments we apply against the ideas of same-sex marriage and adoption are not far removed from arguments against these things.

So what should drive our political views here?

First, I think we need to remember that church and state are separate entities.  This, of course, does not mean that we should set our moral values aside when we vote—that is impossible from any side of the equation.  How we vote and what we believe are intrinsically tied to our values.  But it is not through the state that we save people.  When a country is diversified in belief, sometimes the laws of the state need to be broader than what we would find comfortable in terms of the morals of the church.  If we want to see a revolution in marriage and people being free from the bonds of their sins, no matter their orientations, then our focus needs to be more on prayer, service, and sharing the gospel than on laws and constitutional amendments.

Second, I think we need to be willing to extend grace outside of our comfort zone.  Part of the marriage debate is over some of the civil aspects of such unions.  The legal definitions applied to a couple affect things such as health insurance, certain rights of “families” in terms of hospitals, the way we pay our taxes and so forth.  What do we gain for the sake of the gospel when we look at a person and say, “I don’t agree with your decision to have a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, therefore you cannot share health insurance with your partner”?  Though we may not verbally say that, it is often a result of our opposition.  Would it not be an act of love and grace to say, “I believe your decision is a sin, but I think you should still have the rights I have when it comes to (fill in the blank) benefits.”  Is it not possible to both take a stand for marriage and righteousness and yet extend such civil benefits to same-sex couples?

Third, we need to speak more loudly to our own sins than we do to the sins of others.  Paul deals with an issue of sin in 1 Corinthians 5.  He concludes it by saying, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church who you are to judge?  God judges those outside.  Purge the evil person from among you.”  Granted, Paul wasn’t really writing to people who had the potential to vote on issues such as we do.  But Paul is clear where our primary concern should lay when it comes to being judgmental against sin.  Paul is more concerned with what goes on inside the church than what goes on in society outside.  This does not mean we keep silent about sin in general.  We obviously have to speak to people and let the Word inform them they are sinners desperately in need of Jesus.

We should never back away from the truth that homosexuality is a sin before a holy God, just as we should never back away from the truth that heterosexual immorality is a sin before a holy God.  Both equally condemn a person to hell, as does any sin, unless there is repentance and a turning to Jesus in faith.

But we downright tend to get angry about things like homosexuality and speak of a homosexual “agenda” like it’s some great offense to us that is going to ruin our children.  Yes they have an agenda—to live life according to their values and promote them.  Our agenda is the same.  It’s just that their values are not informed by the grace of the gospel.  Why does that anger us?  Why does that offend us?  Why does that make us afraid?  The Bible says, “Expect it!  They’re sinners!  That’s the way they act.”

I don’t think the great threat to our children, to our country, and to our way of life is the morality and sin of the lost.  Their agendas won’t destroy our church and families.  The real threat is our own blindness and refusal to deal with our own sin.  We are supposed to be the holy people of God.  Yet how many of our churches fail at accountability, discipline, and restoration?  How many of us are a part of churches that have people on our roles who live together and are not married?  Who divorce for ungodly reasons?  Who buy alcohol for their high school children’s parties?  Who cheat on their taxes?  Who hold grudges against other church members?  Who backbite and bicker?  Who don’t even show up?

And our problem’s with the sinful world?

Do we need to say to sinners, “Your ways lead to hell and you need Jesus”?  Absolutely.  But equally as much, if we are going to speak to people’s sins in a way not to judge but to persuade them to Christ, we need to keep our own house in order.

With these things in mind, I try to shape my political beliefs.  And it’s much more complicated, I think, then how we popularly speak about it.

I must admit, as a whole I am still working through my views.  On the one hand, I do think homosexuality is a sin and I do not think same-sex marriage fits anywhere under the umbrella of God’s design for marriage.  I don’t think any faithful church or pastor will promote same-sex marriage.  On the other hand, I don’t think such a view demands the exclusion of a civil union or recognition where a same-sex couple is granted certain legal rights (as mentioned above) which they do not currently have.

I think we try to make this a black and white issue, and in terms of sin and salvation it is.  But I also think the issue has a lot of gray area when it comes to certain laws of the land.  To me, at least, it’s complicated—and I don’t think we can find the answer in pithy statements.

The point of this article is to carry some of the arguments made by others in favor of same-sex marriage to their consistent end. Some in favor of same-sex marriage use one-liner arguments, as if this issue is cut-and-dry. They’ll make a one-liner argument and act as if it settles the same-sex marriage debate. This issue is not cut-and-dry, and should be thought about deeply by those in favor of same-sex marriage. I hope this article at least encourages you to think.

WARNING: This article is extremely sarcastic.

Here are 5 Reasons Why I’m in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage (Not Really):

1. Homosexuality is natural among many animal species. Since homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom, it should be considered natural in the human kingdom as well. Furthermore, since cannibalism, infanticide, murder, etc. are also natural in the animal kingdom, I believe these should be accepted in the human kingdom as well.

2. Homosexual marriage is a human right, defined by humans. Marriage is in the eye of the beholder, defined by each human being. If two homosexual people love each other and want to be married, then they should be able to do so. Also, if a human and an animal love one another, they should be permitted to marry; as should a man or woman be free to marry a consenting child.

3. Homosexuality is natural because homosexuals are born homosexuals.  Since homosexuals are born this way, they should be allowed to do what they were born to do.  Also, since some believe psychopaths are born psychopaths, they should be allowed to do what they were born to do as well. Some even argue that pedophiles are born with a natural sexual attraction to children. Everyone should be allowed to pursue happiness as defined by his or her own natural desires.

4. The apostle Paul was a bigot, and Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Since the apostle Paul was a bigot (Rom. 1:26-32; 1 Cor. 6:9), I reject his writings in the New Testament as Scripture: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Also, since Luke details Paul’s conversion, Christ’s commissioning of Paul as an apostle, and the various miracles Paul did, while never diminishing his ministry (even though he was a bigot), I reject Luke’s writings as well since he approved of a bigot’s (Paul’s) ministry. As a result, The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles must be rejected as Scripture. Furthermore, since the apostle Peter called the apostle Paul’s writings “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15-16, I reject all of Peter’s writings since he approved of a bigot’s (Paul’s) ministry. As a result, I reject the Gospel of Mark (Since John Mark wasn’t an eyewitness of Christ, and thus, probably recorded Peter’s eyewitness account) since he detailed the eyewitness account of a bigot-approver (Peter), and since Mark was a companion and friend of Paul the bigot (Acts 13:5; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24). Moreover, since Matthew recorded the words of Christ in affirming Peter’s (a bigot-approver’s) ministry in Matthew 16:18, I reject the Gospel of Matthew as well. Also, I reject James’s letter since he approved of a bigot’s (Paul’s) ministry in Acts 15 and Gal. 2:9. Jude, as well, the half-brother of Jesus, approved of Peter’s ministry (Acts 1:13), even though Peter approved of Paul’s (a bigot’s) ministry; therefore, I reject the letter of Jude as well. Furthermore, since the book of Hebrews was either written by a bigot (Paul) or a bigot-approver (Apollos or someone else who approved of Paul’s ministry, since all Christian leaders we know of in the New Testament church approved of Paul’s ministry), I reject the book of Hebrews as Scripture. Finally, since the apostle John approved of both Peter’s (a bigot-approver’s) (John 21; Acts 1, 3) and Paul’s (a bigot’s) (Gal. 2:9) ministries, I reject his writings as well: The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation. The entire New Testament has been corrupted by the apostle Paul’s bigotry! Thus, since Jesus approved of Paul’s ministry according to Luke in Acts 26:14-18, and since there is nothing written by Jesus’s hand in the Bible, and since we only have Jesus’s words written by those who approve of Paul the bigot’s ministry, I reject all the words in the Bible that have been previously accredited to Jesus Christ in historic Christian orthodoxy. *Even if I grant that some of these men approved of a bigot or bigot-approver prior to his sin, we still have no record of them recanting. Better to just be intolerant of the Bible in the name of tolerance.

5. Homosexual marriage doesn’t hurt anyone. If two consenting adult homosexuals want to marry one another, that’s no one else’s business. Their relationship doesn’t affect anyone else. Also, consensual sex in public between a married couple doesn’t affect anyone either. Ratings on television, movies, and books are foolish as well, since witnessing the “morality” or “immorality” of others affects no one, not even children. Moreover, it would be beneficial to the federal financial struggle if educated convicts, while serving their prison sentences, were required to teach in their local public school systems. The “morality” or “immorality” of these individuals wouldn’t affect these children one way or the other.

What are your thoughts?

**Regardless which side of this issue you are on, if you decide to comment on this article, please be kind. There’s no reason why we cannot love one another as we participate in this debate.

There are a few places to go and find good solid wisdom.  The first of course is scripture.  We then have wise individuals in our midst, we have some wisdom in books and then there is the Jedi Master.  For being a little green guy, he is very wise in some of the things he instructs, and we would be wise to take them to heart.  At the end of his muppet life (In Return of the Jedi, there was no CGI), he told his young student Luke Skywalker to “pass on what you have learned”.  Luke couldn’t just keep the information to himself, he needed to train a new generation of Jedi.

I’m not a Jedi, I’m a pastor.  I’m not even a real pastor, I’m an associate pastor . . . sorta like a diet coke.  Anyway, one of the things I am learning in my role is that I have learned a lot.  I have a seminary degree, some certifications, a few awards and lots of hours of classes, conferences, and lots of books.  I have learned a lot, but what do I do with that information?  Do I just use it and become the expert?  Sure if I want everyone to come to me to be discipled, but that doesn’t seem like the model Jesus left at all.  I must pass on what I have learned.

I have to make sure the people I disciple not only know how to disciple others, but actually do it.  That I am teaching them to be coaches, disciple-makers, teachers and shepherds.  They have to know how to share their faith, teach some scripture, how to study their Bible and show others how to study the Bible.  I need to make disciple-making disciples.

Is the Church in general doing a good job at this?  I don’t think so.  We have set the office of Pastor too high and the people in the church too low.  We are teaching them like you feed a 1 year old.  You want them to get the food, but you’d rather not let them have the spoon or the jar of food.  We need to let our people not only learn to feed themselves, but to begin to feed others.  Sure, sometimes it’s messy and you get strained peas in your hair, but it’s worth it.  When disciples make disciples who make disciples, then we have exponential growth.  Something the early church had, but we lack.  Just like Yoda would say,”rethink our methods we should.”

I have asked the question in previous posts, “Is a divorced man disqualified from ministry?” (or variations of that question).

The answers have proven the difficulty of framing the question as I did.  It implies that there is a yes or no answer, a single blanket policy that covers all men everywhere.  I do not think that is accurate to the scriptures or fair to the people involved.

Bart Barber asked me a question in one of the previous discussions that gets at the heart of the problem I am writing about now.  I said that I did not believe that being divorced was an automatic disqualifier for service as a pastor or deacon, based on the “husband of one wife” requirement in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  Bart asked me this question (currently comment 59):

Dave,

Suppose a man has been married and divorced fifteen times, and is now married to his sixteenth wife. He’s had opportunities (boy, has he!) to learn a thing or two about relationships, and now, in his sixteenth marriage, he is the IDEAL husband.

Is he qualified to serve as a pastor?

I think Bart was using an absurdity to point out what he believed to be the flaw in my argument.  But it seems that in much of discussion people have assumed that there are only two positions in the debate.

1. All those who have been divorced are precluded from service as elders/pastors or deacons by the “husband of one wife” requirement.
2. The “husband of one wife” requirement does not specify “never divorced”, so all divorced men are eligible to serve in these positions.

I not only reject both of those positions, I reject the idea that there is a blanket policy that can be applied here.

We love blanket policies – they cover all circumstances, all situations, and they relieve us of the stress of having to make a hard call.  If we have a policy (all divorced men are ineligible) or what amounts to no policy at all (all-comers are welcome regardless of the past) we don’t have to make difficult judgments and defend them.

Hey, pastor, Wilfred is divorced and he gets to serve, how come you are saying that I am not qualified?

To avoid these hard choices and the accusations of inequity that would follow, we adopt blanket policies. They are easier on us, but I do not believe that they are biblically justified.  Obviously, if you take the position that “husband of one wife” means “never divorced” then a blanket policy is biblically justified (or in the case of Bart’s univirae concept which is even stricter).  I do not believe that the phrase was intended to mean “never divorced” (I’ve opened that discussion, but I’ve got more coming on that).  But that doesn’t mean that I believe that every divorced man is qualified to serve or that there is no divorce standard.  I will argue these more in future posts, but in this post I only want to argue the vanity of blanket policies.

Is there not a difference…

• Between a man who leaves his wife for another woman and a man whose wife is unfaithful and leaves him, even though he does all he can to forgive, restore and rebuild his marriage?
• Between a man (or woman) who is divorced before he is saved and one who is divorced as a believer in disobedience to the Bible and to the work of the Spirit within?
• Between a man who was divorced once many years ago and has a 25-year marriage to demonstrate the he is faithful, devoted, and perhaps, “the husband of one wife”  and a man who has had three or four divorces?

We want to treat all situations alike and develop a blanket policy.  And that blanket policy not only does not reflect scripture as I understand it, but it has several other problems.

Blanket policies lead to gross inequities, even hypocrisies when applied.

Here’s a situation that is not out of the realm of reality.

Two candidates apply for service at IMB, which has such a blanket policy. Horace was a good boy and eschewed sexual immorality right up until he married at age 20. Just 18 months later, something changed in his bride who got involved with some folks at her workplace, started drinking heavily, and left her husband for another man.  He did all he could to win her back, to offer forgiveness and a fresh start, but she was adamant and the marriage ended.  A few months later, he met another girl and they were married. Mortimer was a hellion who bedded half of the girls at his school.  After high school, he moved in with one girl, then cheated on her and moved in with another.  At the age of 22, he was saved and gave his life to the Lord.  At church, he met a young Christian girl, one who had a past not unlike his before her conversion, and they were married.

Now, both Horace and Mortimer sense God’s call to missions and apply to the IMB.  Horace has slept with two women in his life – his first wife and his second – and that only within the boundaries of marriage.  Morty has been with dozens of girls, lived with a couple of them, but now, is redeemed and a faithful husband to his wife.

By our current standard, Mortimer is “qualified” because he never married any of the women he slept with or lived with.  Because he “lived in sin” instead of getting married, he is still eligible to serve in the church or on the mission field.  Horace, who has never had sex outside of marriage is disqualified.

Am I the only one who thinks that stinks a little?

Let’s try another situation in which the inequities appear.

Two men are seeking pastoral positions.  Ferdinand was married, divorced and remarried by the time he was 26.  At that age, he and his wife come to Christ and develop a deep interest in the Word.  He serves as a volunteer in church, leads out effectively in ministries, goes to seminary in his spare time and lives as an exemplary husband and father – a role model for all.  At age 40, over 15 years removed from his divorce, he decides to seek a ministry position.  Then, we have Xavier.  He was saved as a young man, grew up in the church, went to college, to seminary, and went into the ministry.  He was an effective servant of God’s church until age 30, when a young lady joined his church and came to him for some counselling.  One thing led to another and he left his wife and kids and moved in with and eventually married the new wife.  He is now 40 as well and is deeply repentant of his sin.  He has repented to the church he served, to his ex-wife and kids, to his current wife and is growing in grace.  He, too, would like to go back into ministry.

Is there one policy that can cover both circumstances?  One man was divorced before he was saved and the other betrayed the sacred trust of his family and his church.  I’m going to deal with situations like this in future posts – reflecting on how God’s grace and high standards mesh together.

But my only point here is that having a blanket policy that covers these just seems a little silly to me.

Here’s one to think about.

 What if my wife leaves me and I do not remarry?  I’m still the husband of one wife, right?  Doesn’t that mean that even though she might have gone, I am still qualified to serve in ministry positions, as long as I do not remarry?

Blanket policies lead to conundrum.

Prohibitionist Inequities

David Brumbelow (below) asked a question that led me to make this edit to the post.  He asked about the blanket policy many of us have about women in ministry – based on the scriptural admonition.  Both David and I believe that the Bible restricts the role of pastor to men (I have some issues about deacons, but they aren’t significant here).  So, I endorse a blanket prohibition on women in ministry, but not relative to divorce.

There’s a reason for that.  The teachings in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 seem clear to me, as well as the qualifications passages in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  Pastors (and deacons, in the Baptist sense) are to be men.  But, the teaching on divorce is not clear like the teaching on men and women.  ”Husband of one wife” is not synonymous with “never divorced” and so I do not think blanket policies are warranted here.

And, as I mentioned in my comment, there are some issues the prohibitionists (divorced are prohibited from all service as elders/pastors/deacons) have to face as well.

• The prohibitionist oftens holds a man accountable for sins committed prior to conversion if the divorce happened before a man comes to Christ.
• The prohibitionist elevates divorce above other sins.  A man can be a murderer, get saved, and go into the ministry (if he gets out of jail).  He can be an alcoholic, get clean and go into ministry.  A homosexual who gets saved and renounces his sin can go into the ministry.  Someone who pays for his girlfriend’s abortion can get saved and go into the ministry.  But someone who was divorced, even before salvation, can never enter ministry.
• What about a man who has only ever been married once, but his wife was divorced?  He is clearly “the husband of one wife” but is he qualified to serve under the prohibitionist view?
• What is a wife leaves her husband, they divorce and then she dies?  What happens then?
• What is a man and wife divorce, then remarry each other? Does the remarried and reconciliation nullify the divorce?

Things are never quite as black and white as we’d like them to be.

Conclusion:

If you understand the requirement “husband of one wife” as I do (or as anything less than a strict prohibition of divorce) you are going to have to make some tough calls. You cannot simply take the other extreme and allow all divorced men to serve.  That would ignore scripture.  We have to take every life, every divorce, every man case by case and scripturally analyze their qualifications for service.

To fall back on a blanket policy is lazy and ultimately, unbiblical.

He makes some really good points.

Everyone knows the keyboard worship leader is passe.  And he is right, of course.  No one wants to incur Piper’s wrath.

My problem is that I’m not sure they make “True Religion” jeans in my size.

Watch this video:

It occurs to me that the difference between an “attractional” church and a “missional” church is the same as the difference between an Old Testament view of mission and a New Testament view of mission.  This is not to say that one is wrong and the other is correct.  It is simply to say that one is past and the other is present.

Before Christ the place to find the presence of God was found almost exclusively in the temple.  If you desired an experience with God then you had to “come and see”.  The primary mission of Israel was to draw people to Zion.  Micah 4:2 is a great description of the attractional hope of Israel:

and many nations shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.”

In the New Testament, however, the presence of God is no longer mostly confined to a temple.  The Spirit of God indwells believers.  The church–the community of blood-bought redeemed sinners–is now the dwelling place of God.  Therefore, the missional imperative has changed.  It is no longer “come and see” as much as it is “go and tell”.  People do not need a building to experience the presence of God, they need Spirit-indwelt believers proclaiming the Spirit-empowered message of the Kingdom.

Questions change

This is not to say that those who have a more attractional model do not care about souls.  Most churches would be nervously and excitedly welcoming to “them” coming to church.  In fact that is what most churches are aiming for:   they want to reach “them”, whoever “them” is.

And so the questions that you ask with an Old Testament mindset are centered around what we can do to attract them.  When the church begins to decline or not grow as desired you begin asking questions of your programs, building, preachers, etc. under the framework of whether or not they are attracting and keeping members and reaching them.  Success is measured by whether or not people are coming to church because that is the means that we use for them to see God at work and hopefully come to a knowledge of Christ.

These questions change in the New Testament.  As your read through Acts and consider Paul’s missionary journeys you will be hard pressed to find examples of the early disciples trying to figure out how to get people to come to them.  They were mostly concerned with how to get the message to them.  And this is the fundamental difference between an OT “church” and a NT church:

OT: How do we get them to come to us?
NT: How do we get us to go to them?
or
How do we go to them?

Changing that question will change the way that your church thinks about missions and reaching people that do not know Christ.  And it also identifies whether or not you fundamentally think like an OT “church” or a NT church.

Watch it tomorrow at 2 PM (CDT) at edstetzer.com.

Chris Roberts blogs at “Seek the Holy” and is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Panama City, Fl.  

Or: how we get from the glory of God to the gratifying of man.

One thought frequently burdens me as I seek to pastor faithfully and raise my children biblically: how is it that we have seen a generation of young people who have been raised in solid, conservative Christian churches either plug into ministries and methods that take a decidedly postmodern, pragmatic turn or abandon the church outright? How is it that 21st century young people, and often their parents, have pursued the gospel of moralistic therapeutic deism when they have been raised in the teachings of an inspired, inerrant Bible?

It has not happened overnight.

Let me first note that I am writing a blog post, not a book. I will be oversimplifying some things and leaving other things unsaid in an attempt to stay semi short. I also apologize for my generalizations: I know they are present in this post, but they do not diminish my overall point, and they are, I believe, fairly minimal.

The Westminster Catechism includes the following question and answer: “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” In other words, our reason for being is found in God: to glorify him, to enjoy him. Men like Jonathan Edwards have been tireless in promoting this message, calling for Christians to glorify God and to find in God the root source of all enjoyment and delight. We are created for pleasure – not worldly pleasure, but those pleasures which find their source, their stream, in God himself.

All the activities of a church flow from its central focus. From its worship services to its evangelistic practices to its discipleship, how a church “does ministry” says something about what it believes to be most important. The church that is focused on God in his glory will have a worship service which highlights the mighty works of God, the holiness of his character, the perfection of his Word, the delight of his presence with his people, the mercy of his grace to his enemies. God is at the center. The evangelistic work of this church will flow from the two priorities given by Jesus: love God, love people. On the one hand, in evangelism we show love for God by spreading the gospel which points to the glory of God in Christ. On the other hand, in evangelism we show love for people by directing them to the only source of true satisfaction and rest. When it comes to discipleship, the God-focused church will seek to build believers who live their lives with a love for God and a desire to shine the light of his glory. Discipleship would not seek to address individual perceived needs but would pull the eyes of the believer off of self and onto God with the goal of seeing saints live in joyful, intentional submission to God’s sovereign authority. In such a setting, “I” am not the focus of discipleship – God is. It is said that when driving a car, one reason for being careful when looking around is that the hand naturally steers the direction the eye moves. In a church focused on the glory of God, discipleship would seek to fix the eye of the believer on God, his glory, his Word, his ways, his commands, so that the Christian naturally follows God in all things.

Early in the 20th century (if not before), the focus of the church began to shift. It was not a dramatic change, but over time a new answer was given to the question, “What is the chief end of man?” People began to say that the chief end of man is to bring souls to Christ, to evangelize, to be soul winners. Revivalism in the 1700’s-1800’s and the ministry of men like Charles Finney created a culture in which much of the focus went to the individual salvation experience. The purpose of the church was not so much to exalt God as it was to save the lost. This changed the nature and life of the church. Instead of magnifying the glory and splendor of God, attention shifted to the spiritual needs of the sinner. There was no active, intentional move away from God-centered church services, but God was no longer lifted up in the fullness of his being. Emphasis shifted to God’s love for sinners and his desire for sinners to be saved. In the church focused on God’s glory, God’s desire to save sinners was by no means ignored, but it was seen as part of the greater picture of the goodness of God. With the shift to emphasizing salvation, many changes came to church services and activities. Worship services did not so much teach who God is as call sinners to recognize their need for salvation. Many, if not most, of the ministries of the church became means of reaching out to lost people. Even when a church’s activities sought to build the saints, the purpose was often to help saints do a better job of sharing with the lost. Evangelism was not so much about spreading God’s glory as saving lost souls. Discipleship was not centered on a desire to grow believers in their knowledge of the glory of God and his intentions for his creation but emphasized equipping the saints to reach the lost. Where the former church focused upward on God, the church of the 20th century focused outward on the lost world. They did not forget about God, per se, but they did forget that there is more to God than just his desire to save the lost. They forgot that the greatest commandment is not “love your neighbors” but “love God”. Rather than seeing God in the fullness of his majesty, he was seen in his relation to sinners. In the former church, the end goal of salvation was bringing sinners to see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. In the church of the 20th century, the end goal of salvation was keeping sinners out of Hell.

Today, things are shifting (and have shifted) again. From the church that emphasized God’s glory with an upward focus, to the church that emphasized the salvation of sinners with an outward focus, we have the church of the 21st century which emphasizes the satisfaction of the individual with an inward focus. Highly influenced by the skepticism of the modern world, educated in a culture that puts a premium on self-esteem and psychological well-being, and raised in a church culture that often seemed to speak more about the personal experience of individuals than about the Word of God, today’s church focuses on the feelings and experiences of individuals. God has completed his transition from the center of creation to the means to an end. Worship services are not meant to highlight either the glory of God or the individual need for salvation but are crafted to generate a euphoric emotional experience which leaves the individual feeling recharged and ready for more. God has become someone who helps us find personal satisfaction and accomplishment in our own lives. Christian Smith’s term for America’s #1 religion finds its meaning here: moralistic therapeutic deism. Moralistic in that some things continue to be held to be right and wrong (though morality is not so much determined by what the sovereign God has said as by what we determine to be best for ourselves). Therapeutic in a heavy emphasis on helping people overcome psychological struggles (anger, depression, anxiety, etc). Deistic from a view of God which minimizes him to the role of a distant helper: he is out there somewhere, but largely separate from us. When the rubber meets the road, the emphasis is on what we have to do to create satisfying life experiences for ourselves. The motivation for evangelism is not so much to help lost sinners find salvation, avoid Hell, and have eternal life and a relationship with God (the 20th century purpose) nor to guide fallen creatures to see the glory and worth of the eternal God, but to help hurting people find peace and healing in their lives. Satisfaction is not found in the knowledge of God’s goodness and grace but in community where we join with others to affirm our mutual brokenness and help one another achieve our individual goals in order to find fulfillment. In such a church, God becomes a garnish, a cosmic genie who adds a bit of color and helps us do what we want with our lives.

The condition of the modern church is a natural evolution from the 20th century church. Once the church turned its eyes away from the fullness of God and onto the need of individual sinners, it sent a message that the individual experience is of greater importance than God, that God exists to do us good rather than us existing to bring God glory.

The 20th century church was right to desire the salvation of the lost. The Bible overflows with the message of God calling sinners to his mercy and grace. Our own lives should reflect God’s desire to save the lost. But this desire comes as one part of our greater passion: our love for God, our marvel at his glory, our rejoicing in his grace, our wonder at his holiness, our fear of his wrath and power, our love for his creation, our desire to desire what he desires. While God clearly desires the salvation of sinners, this is not his greatest desire. God’s chief end is to glorify God. We see this in Isaiah 48:11 when God says his motivation to save his people is for my own sake and that he does it because my glory I will not give to another. Again in Ezekiel 20:9when God says he showed mercy to the Israelites in the wilderness for the sake of my name. Again in Psalm 25:11 when David seeks God’s mercy for your name’s sake. We see it in the ten commandments when we are told to have no gods before God – that nothing should take God’s place as the central focus of our lives. We see it in Jesus who in John 12:27-28 prays for his Father to be glorified in his suffering. We see it 1 Corinthians 10:31 when Paul instructs the church So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Every atom in creation exists for the glory of God. When we lose that focus, we slide into moralistic therapeutic deism, finding ourselves in the 21st century where God’s existence is reduced to a kindly gentleman who wants each person to feel good about himself.

The remedy for the dilemma of the modern church is to move our focus back to the vision and task God has given us: the pursuit of God’s glory. To do this we must cling firmly to his Word. We must not see the Bible as a collection of anecdotes useful to lead sinners to salvation, nor as a self-help book with some parts more useful than others at helping me build a better life. We must take the fullness of Scripture, learn it, know it, and live by it, knowing that in this Word we have what God wanted us to know about himself. We must return to a church culture where God reigns supreme, where all is given in submission to Christ, where all our words, all our teachings, all our prayers, all our songs resound with the light of the glory of God.

As long as today’s church continues to emphasize individual, subjective, psychological experiences, today’s church will continue in sickness and decadence. We will not see sinners become saints, we will not see the church speaking prophetically to the world, we will not see God’s glory magnified. Quite the opposite! We will continue to find ways to justify lifestyles contrary to Scripture (homosexuality justified because surely God wants all people to be happy in their life choices!), the church will look more and more like the world, and true, faithful, biblical Christianity will find itself increasingly marginalized and even persecuted within western society. It has already started and we are already far along this road. May God have mercy on his church, reviving us and returning us to our first love.