1 Corinthians 15:19
If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is often combating false teaching and faulty thinking. From this passage, we find that there must have been some people in Corinth who denied the possibility of a person rising from the dead. Who knows, perhaps they were too sophisticated in Corinth to believe in such seemingly fantastic things.
Interestingly, I can think of people in my own past who have said similar things. I’ve heard people say, “It really does not matter if you live after death. It is worth it to be a Christian, because you will live a better life.” Of course, there is a sense to what such a person was saying. It is better to follow good standards like being a good husband, good father, and giving person. It is better to avoid drunkenness, adultery, and violence. So, maybe life is better following the rules that God has given.
But God disagrees with the sentiment that is put forth by the person who says that resurrection does not matter. The Lord inspired Paul to tell the Corinthians that, if Christ is not raised, we are most of all to be pitied. Earlier in the same chapter, Paul said that if there is no resurrection, our faith, Christianity itself, is vain—meaning empty and useless.
The resurrection matters. The fact that Jesus rose from the grave matters. The fact that we will live beyond death matters.
It matters that Jesus rose from the grave, as this is our hope. Somehow, the resurrection is the completion of the cross-work of Christ. We are not saved from sin if Jesus did not physically rise from the grave. The resurrection proves to be true all that Jesus claimed about himself and about how it is that we are to be saved by grace through faith. And, the resurrection of Jesus is the forerunner of our own resurrection to eternal life, a real and bodily resurrection.
Our resurrection matters too. Our resurrection reminds us that there is something beyond this life. There is a genuine judgment. God will ultimately and perfectly do justice. For those who are in Christ, God will perfectly and justly show mercy. There is a reason to let go of some seeming goods in the here and now for the same of infinitely greater rewards in the future. There is a way for us to say goodbye to believers who die knowing that this is a temporary parting. There is a way for us to face hardships and persecution in this life knowing that there is an eternal reward that far outshines the pain and sorrow we have faced in the here and now. Truly, our resurrection matters. If we are not to rise from the dead, our faith is useless, just as the Bible says.
"Does God Change His Mind?" Answering an Accusation of Contradiction
Jeremiah 18:8 (ESV) – and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
1 Samuel 15:29 (ESV) – “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”
I recently received a question asking how we reconcile the statements in the two verses above. Is there a contradiction in the Bible in the discussion of whether or not God changes his mind? How do we deal with this?
While these verses may appear contradictory at first glance, it requires a fairly aggressively negative reading not to be able to harmonize them. What we want to do is to interpret the statements of the text as they were intended. Differences between author and imagery account for what appear contradictory.
What are the two authors of the two verses intending to communicate? Jeremiah is helping those who hear him to understand that God will have mercy on certain people in a specific situation who are otherwise destined for disaster. God intends and has determined that disaster will befall a particular nation or group that continues to fail to hear his warnings. However, Jeremiah also communicates to us that God will not destroy the people if they will repent.
The Samuel passage is different. The prophet Samuel has just pronounced a certain judgment of God on King Saul. Saul will lose the kingdom to someone else for his refusal to obey the command of God. There is no going back on this. No matter what Saul does, another family will carry the kingly line of Israel. God is not fickle. He will not change his mind here.
Now, are those who thoughts contradictory? I would argue that they are not, as the authors are discussing different issues, even if similar words are used. One author is using the picture of changing God’s mind as a way to call people to repentance. God is all-knowing, and he most certainly knows what he will do. However, the threat of destruction for an unrepentant nation is real. Similarly, the promise of reprieve for a nation that repents is equally real.
This is not at all similar to the kind of mind-changing depicted in 1 Samuel 15. In the Samuel passage, King Saul will not be allowed a reprieve, even with repentance. God does not promise one thing one day and then go back on it. In this sense, he does not change his mind.
Reading the text fairly, we can see that two separate authors, in two very different situations, writing hundreds of years apart, writing from dramatically different social and political situations, use a similar type of phrasing to declare true things about God. In the situation with Jeremiah, the people can find mercy if they repent—thus God will change his mind from the destruction headed their way. In Samuel, Saul can do nothing to regain the blessing of God—thus the statement that God does not change his mind.
So, does God change his mind or not? It depends what you mean by the question. Is God dishonest? No. Does God know exactly what he will do in all things? Yes. Yet, we need language that will help us understand a situation like the one in Jeremiah. God honestly promises destruction for a people given their current direction and intent. However, God will also have mercy on them when they repent. Changing his mind is a humanly understandable and acceptable way to describe that mercy. Now, God also knows, before the situation ever comes about, whether or not the people will repent and thus whether or not he will have mercy. But he is not going to tell them the future. He is only going to give them the promise that they are destined for destruction unless they turn from their sin. Thus, from our point of view, it will look like he changed his mind.
Honestly, this comparison of the two verses helps to understand some wonderfully true things about what God tells us in the gospel. We are all dead in sin and destined for destruction. So long as we live, however, we have the opportunity to see that situation change. We can come to Jesus, seek his forgiveness, and give our lives to his lordship. If we do, we will no longer be dead in sins, but will have been made alive by God and forgiven. We will go from being objects of God’s wrath to being his children.
How should God speak to a person who currently opposes him but who will one day be his child? He should tell that person, “You are destined for destruction.” But, he can also honestly tell the person, “You can be forgiven in Christ.” When that person comes to Christ, God can say to that person, “You have always been destined for my mercy.” And in none of this is there a genuine contradiction. All the statements are true.
However, if a person dies without ever turning from their sins and trusting in Jesus, God can say to that person that he never changes his mind. Once they have died, there is a judgment that the person will face that is never going to change. God is not fickle. He does not change his standard. He saves those who repent and come to faith in Jesus. He commands all people to turn from sin and trust in Jesus for salvation. He does not change that standard, so it can certainly be said that he does not change his mind.
The logical fallacy of equivocation is to unfairly apply the same meaning to a term when that term is being used in different ways. For example, one might say that the game of baseball has evolved. To argue that the evolution of baseball proves that Darwinistic evolution is true is improper reasoning. In the two cases, the word “evolve” is being used to mean different things.
To argue that the verses above contradict is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. The situations are different. The intents are different. The authors and contexts are different. Yes, the same phrasing is used, but not to say the same things. The verses do not contradict in any fair, logical discussion.
Ordinary Spiritual Gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7)
1 Corinthians 12:4-7
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
One of the weaknesses in the Corinthian church was a love of the dramatic. Early on in the letter, Paul defended his apostleship as it was compared to other impressive teachers. It seems that the Corinthians were fascinated and deeply impressed when big things happened. The factionalism that Paul wrote against showed that this church loved to get behind the man who most showed them something great.
Here, we enter a section in which Paul will talk about the gifts of God’s Spirit in the church. It should not be a surprise that a church with a fascination with the extraordinary would mishandle the gifts. These folks were looking for a show, for power, for flashes of glory.
But notice what Paul says to the church right here at the beginning of the discussion. There are varieties of gifts, service, and activities in the church, but there is only one God. In each case, the power of God is given to individuals, not for personal empire-building, but for the common good. God gives some people one kind of gift and another gift to others. We are not to be overly fascinated by the more showy gifts. We are not to be ashamed of the ordinary gifts. Instead, God calls us all to use the gifts that we have been given for the good of the entire church body.
I’ve recently been reading Michael Horton’s book, Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World. In this book, Horton points out that we should not think that God only works through the fantastic. Sometimes the greatest work that God does is through ordinary people serving him in ordinary ways. We need to stop thinking that ordinary is somehow beneath us. We are ordinary people. God is great, of course. But part of the way that God does his work in a way that surely glorifies him is when he uses ordinary people in ordinary ways to change the world. It would glorify God less to make us all super heroes. It glorifies God more when truck-drivers, home-makers, doctors, plumbers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, pilots, cooks, waitresses, engineers, politicians, and every other type of ordinary person in the world serves him. God is not just wishing that the church was filled with more movie stars, oil tycoons, and professional athletes so that the work could be done. Of course, he will save such folks and be glorified by how they serve him too. But, the point is, God is glorified when those of us whose names will never be known outside of our little circles of friends are faithful to him and help the good of the local body of Christ.
This chapter reminds us that God gives a variety of gifts to his people. All people of God are gifted by God. You, if you are a believer, have been gifted by God to play a role in the building up of others in the church. There is something about what God’s Holy Spirit is doing in and through you that is supposed to make the church stronger. Maybe it is a gift to teach. Maybe it is a gift to care for others in a special way. Maybe it is a gift to help encourage people toward maturity. Maybe it is a gift of a heart that loves giving to others or showing hospitality. Maybe it is the gift of a nature to serve behind the scenes. Who knows? But God has gifted us all, and he wants us to use those gifts for the sake of his glory in the local church, the ordinary, standard, lovely, local church.
This encourages me. I need not look for the spectacular gifts in order to matter. I do not need to be given an extra-biblical revelation of future events to matter. I do not need to experience a miracle of speaking in a language I do not know. God may gift me however he wants, and it will all be for the sake of his church. However, if God wants to do the miracle of growing Christians through the ordinary work he does in my life, through the gifts that he has given me that will not make me a person anybody remembers in a century, that is to his glory and for my joy.
Yours the Day and the Night (Psalm 74:16)
Psalm 74:16 (ESV)
Yours is the day, yours also the night;
you have established the heavenly lights and the sun.
Like many of the Psalms, Psalm 74 is a prayer of deep need. The psalmist has experienced hardships, and he is asking God to intervene for the glory of God’s own name.
Verse 16 caught my attention this morning because of its contrast. God owns the day. God owns the night. The surrounding verses show God’s sovereignty over land and sea, over beasts and men.
The reason that this verse grabs me is related to how men have often imagined deities. Read ancient myths or even modern fantasy fiction. False gods often have very clearly circumscribed powers. There are gods of the hills and gods of the valleys. There are gods of the seas and gods of the mountains. There are gods who are strong in the day and gods who are strong in the night. Only the true God of the Bible, however, is God over all.
Consider how great it is to know that God is unlimited by any boundaries. He is God over the day. He is God over the night. He is God over the sea. He is God over the land. He is God in the mountains. He is God in the valleys. He is God in the first and third worlds. He is God when we are sick and God when we are healthy. He is God when we are rich and God when we are poor. He is God over summer and winter, over heat and cold, over light and ark. There is nothing that stands as a limiting factor before our God.
The God of the Bible would not have been imagined by men of old, because men could not handle imagining a God sovereign over all. God is bigger than human imagination. God is greater than our greatest dreams. As Anselm’s Ontological Argument tells us in a simple paraphrase, a being that is the greatest possible being, one upon whom no improvement can be made, must exist, because existence is part of the perfection of the being. Anselm aside, the fact that we see here a description of a God beyond any human imagining, a God over day and night, heat and cold, is a picture of the true God over all, the real God who made us.
How encouraging this all is. God is over all. My life does not limit him. My will, my weakness, my failures do not limit him. Neither does my strength, my power, my rightness improve upon him. He is perfect. He is over all. How great it is that he would allow me to be called his servant and that he would call himself my God. How much greater still that he would call himself my Father and call me his child. Truly, to know him is an honor and a joy. And even when life is hard, God is still over all, perfect and right.
The Beautiful Structure of the Flood Narrative
Sometimes the structure of a biblical passage helps us to better understand it. An interesting structure leads us to grasp that there is design and beauty behind the transmission of the account. The account of Noah and the flood in Genesis 6-8 is an example of a passage that has more design behind it than we might realize.
The flood narrative is in the form of a chiasm. This structure is a common ancient pattern in which items repeat in reverse order—think 1-2-3-4-3-2-1 or a-b-b-a. It is called a chiasm after the Greek letter chi, which looks like our letter x. Readers often find chiasms in the Psalms, as this device was often used in biblical poetry. See the verses below with my notations added:
Psalm 95:4-5 (ESV)
A 4 In his hand are the depths of the earth;
B the heights of the mountains are his also.
B’ 5 The sea is his, for he made it,
A’ and his hands formed the dry land.
Notice in the A lines, the psalmist is repeating thoughts about the hands of God and the land. In the B lines, we see reference to the mountains and sea, clearly creations of God that are not the typical land. Thus, the 1st and 4th lines parallel each other while the 2nd and 3rd lines parallel one another.
While it is interesting to find these structures in the texts of Hebrew poetry, it is also interesting to find them in a more major text. Scholars have claimed for years that such a structure is to be found in the narrative of the flood in Genesis 6-8. Not all scholars define the chiasm in exactly the same way, but the presence of the structure is clear. See the following examples:
From: R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing in Preaching the Word Commentary (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), Genesis 6:9.
Title: “These are the generations of Noah.”
Introduction: Noah’s righteousness and Noah’s sons (6:9-10).
A God resolves to destroy the corrupt race (6:11-13).
B Noah builds an ark according to God’s instructions (6:14-22).
C The Lord commands the remnant to enter the ark (7:1-9).
D The flood begins (7:10-16).
E The flood prevails 150 days, and the mountains are covered (7:17-24).
F God remembers Noah (8:1a)
E 1 The flood recedes 150 days, and the mountains are visible (8:1b-5).
D 1 The earth dries (8:6-14).
C 1 God commands the remnant to leave the ark (8:15-19).
B 1 Noah builds an altar (8:20).
A 1 The Lord resolves not to destroy humankind (8:21-22).
From: Lee Anderson Jr., “A Deeper Understanding of the Flood—Making the Most of the Message,” (Answers in Genesis, April 1, 2014); Accessed 25 May 2016, available from https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/making-the-most-of-the-message/; Internet.
A. Transitional Introduction: Noah and His Sons (6:9–10)
B. The Corruption of All Flesh (6:11–12)
C. God’s Resolution to Destroy the Earth by Flood (6:13–22)
D. God’s Command and Noah’s Response: The Entrance into the Ark (7:1–10)
E. The Beginning of the Flood: The Inundating of the Earth (7:11–16)
F. The Rising of the Waters (7:17–24)
G. God’s Remembrance of Noah (8:1a)—central theme of the account of Noah’s Flood
F’. The Recession of the Waters (8:1b–5)
E’. The End of the Flood: The Drying of the Earth (8:6–14)
D’. God’s Command and Noah’s Response: The Exodus from the Ark (8:15–19)
C’. God’s Resolution Never Again to Destroy the Earth by Flood (8:20–22)
B’. The Covenant
A’. Transitional Conclusion: Noah and His Sons (9:18–19)
Besides the way that these authors see the events as parallel, readers can catch clues of the structure in the repetition of numbers. Noah gets 7 days warning before entering the ark. The rains come for 40 days. The waters prevail for 150 days. The waters recede for 150 days. The land dries for 40 days. Noah sends out the dove for 7 days at a time. The pattern is certainly there.
Now, why would we care about the presence of such a structure? Is this all just for Bible nerds who like to see things others don’t? On the one hand, this is not necessary for someone to see on their own in order to gain the truth of God from the flood narrative. At the same time, seeing the chiastic structure of the flood account shows us at least two things.
First, the chiasm shows us the hand of God and the wisdom of Moses in the composition of this event. Moses was reporting history to us. Yet, as he wrote the account, he also chose to structure the telling in such a way as to make the passage stand out, especially to those who were accustomed to this kind of poetic device. There is a sweet and subtle beauty to what is written here, a hint of the artistry of God in the pages of holy Scripture.
Also, in many chiastic structures, the central point or central two points are the keys to understanding the passage. IN this instance, the statement that God remembered Noah is the very center, the turning point of the passage. God did not leave Noah to the flood. God was faithful to his promises. The reason humanity exists and that God’s promises did not fail is because God remembered Noah. The mystery of the flood narrative is not the question of why God would flood the world, but rather why would God allow anyone to survive. The center of the chiasm shows us that the reason that God allowed the survival of humanity is that God has remembered, been faithful to, his promises.
Some Reasons to Believe the Flood
If you have ever been around religious skeptics, you have probably heard attacks on the biblical account of the flood. One such opposition to the flood narrative is an argument that other religions have similar flood stories. Clearly, the skeptics will argue, if multiple religions have the same sort of flood story, we can understand that all religions are the same with all the same sorts of myths.
I believe that there are three responses to this sort of skepticism. First, I would argue that it makes perfect sense that multiple ancient religions would have a flood story. If a global flood actually took place around 2300-2400 BC, one would expect that this story would have been passed down through more channels than inspires Scripture. After all, both American and British history books tell of the war of 1776 even if they might call it by a different name or have a different opinion of its causes. Thus, the existence of flood narratives in other religious texts is no argument against the Bible.
Looking to the other side of the coin, I would argue that the second thing that we need to grasp here is that the flood narratives from these other religions is not at all the same as the Bible’s telling. For example, the Bible is quite clear that it is the sin of man in the face of a holy and just God that is the cause of the global flood. But, as we read in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament:
According to a related flood story, the Atrahasis Epic, twelve hundred years after man’s creation his noise and commotion has become so loud that Enlil starts to suffer from insomnia. Enlil sends a plague to eradicate boisterous humanity, only to have his plan thwarted. Next he tries drought and famine, which are also unsuccessful. Finally a flood is sent, which Atrahasis survives by building a boat. To call this noise moral turbulence or, to understand the clamor of mankind as man’s chronic depravity reads into the text far too much. The problem is simply that there are too many people, with the result that there is too much noise. There is a limit on Enlil’s auditory capacities. It really should not surprise us that in a system of thought where the gods are not necessarily morally superior to human beings, and where the line between good and evil is blurred, there is no recording of the fact that man is to be drowned because he is a rebel and a sinner.[1]
Others compare the ancient myth of Gilgamesh to the Noah account. But there are significant differences. Gilgamesh survives the flood floating in a vessel that is a perfect cube—a shape unlikely to float or to remain upright. The biblical ark is shaped with perfect ship’s proportions. In Gilgamesh, the flood was a week-long event whereas the biblical account takes over a year.
In Scripture, God is clearly sovereign over the world. He is fully in control of the flood and its horrors. But see the following descriptions of how the flood terrified the false gods of the Gilgamesh tale (:
The gods were frightened by the Flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
‘The olden days have alas turned to clay,
because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
than they fill the sea like so many fish!’
The gods–those of the Anunnaki–were weeping with her,
the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
their lips burning, parched with thirst.
Six days and seven nights
came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war–struggling with itself like a woman
writhing (in labor).
The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.[2]
A fair look at these accounts says that, while there are understandable similarities, there is no way to see the Bible’s account as just the same as other ancient myths. Noah’s account is far less fantastical, far less confused, and far more simple and logical.
The third response, the one which is most important, is that the flood narrative is part of Holy Scripture, a Bible which speaks for itself of its own inspiration. Jesus believed in the flood. The witness of the Holy Spirit throughout the generation speaks of the truthfulness of the flood. The tone and feel of the Bible’s narrative has a far more realistic and honest smell about it. Thus, for the simple truth that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) is why we believe the truth of the flood of Genesis.
[1] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17 in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), Genesis 6:5-10.
[2] The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, Accessed 25 May 2016, available from http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm; internet.
A Sign of Spiritual Immaturity (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
Paul is here continuing to chide the Corinthians for their factionalism. They are quarreling among themselves because each little group is more fond of a different leader. Paul has already told them that this is a wrong way to behave, and he will continue that argument through chapter 3.
Here at the beginning of the chapter, Paul talks about the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians. He says that he did not feed them solid food, but only milk for babies, because they were not ready for it. Here he says they are still not ready for solid food; they are still spiritual infants. How does he know? He knows because of the way they are quarreling about which leader is the best. When they fight about following Paul or Peter or Apollos, they display that they are immature.
I wonder, from this section, how often local churches are beset with immaturity of the sort we see here in the Corinthian church. How often do we fight and quarrel more over the personalities of leaders than over the message of the gospel? I fear it is far more than we would like.
We want to be wise here as we call on the church to follow faithful elders. Faithful is key. If a man is not given to opening the word of God and exposing to the congregation the actual meaning of a text, he is not faithfully handling the word of God. If a pastor is teaching or pressing an obscure and doubtful doctrine as if it is central to the Christian life, he is not being faithful. If a pastor will not care for the congregation, he is not being faithful. If a pastor is not a person of character, but his life is marked by moral compromise, he is not faithful. You cannot ultimately follow such a man if that man will not repent of such faithlessness.
Is your pastor faithful to the word of God? Is your pastor loving toward the people of God? Is your pastor a person of character? If he is, follow him. Follow him, even if his personality is not exactly like yours. Follow him even if he is not as dynamic as somebody you download from the Internet or as the guy at the church building down the street. Follow him as he follows Christ.
Drawing the Line Between Toloration and Division (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)
1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
As Paul opens his letter to the Corinthians, he quickly calls for unity in the Corinthian church. It appears that the church has become factional around the favorite teacher of the different groups. But Paul wants the church to stop such division, understanding that Christ is not divided.
The reason that this struck me this morning is that it is the other side of the coin from the last quiet time reading I did. Last time, I considered Paul’s command for the Romans to watch out for promoters of false doctrine and to avoid them. There, Paul was clearly calling for a division in the body when dangerous doctrine was involved. But here, Paul calls for the people to pray for unity in the body and to avoid dividing over little things that are not important.
In the modern church, one might see the same sort of factionalism. With the popularity of authors, bloggers, and Internet preachers, it is no surprise to see groups drawing lines in the church—I follow Sproul, I follow Piper, I follow Mohler, I follow MacArthur, or I don’t like one of the above.
So, we see, especially in comparing this to Romans 16:17-18, That there are valid and invalid reasons for division in the church. When the issue is doctrine of an appropriately high level, division is necessary and right. When the issue is personality or when the doctrine is not of significant importance, division is inappropriate.
Again, I go back to the fact that we need real wisdom. Where is the line? I would guess that, depending on your personality, the line is either lower or higher than you realize. If you are the kind of person who wants to separate from every believer who does not see every doctrine as you do, you probably need to calm down, to exercise grace, and to have mercy. If, however, you are someone who only wants unity, I would guess that there are issues over which you should be separating from others, but which you are not for the sake of a unity that does not honor Christ.
I still find Albert Mohler’s three levels of theological triage to be helpful in this discussion. There are first level issues which are doctrines that, if you do not believe them, you are not saved. There are second level issues which may prevent us from being a part of the same local church, but which would not make us believe that one another is lost. Then there are third level issues which are issues on which believers in a local body can disagree and still be in happy fellowship.
An example of a first level issue would be the resurrection of Jesus. If a person denies that Jesus rose from the grave, literally, physically, bodily, and eternally, they are not saved. Paul makes that abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15. To deny the resurrection is to deny the entire Christian faith. If someone denies this issue, you cannot call them a brother or sister in Christ.
A second-level issue could be the issue of baptism. For many, it is impossible to be a member of a local church body where the practice and teaching of baptism differs from your view. Thus, a Baptist is unlikely to join a Presbyterian church, even though faithful Baptists and faithful Presbyterians can respect each other greatly. We will often worship together and learn from each other at conferences and other such events, but our practice of the ordinance of baptism prevents us from being in the same local body. And, this makes sense, as Baptism is a big issue in the life of the local church, having much to do with who is or is not considered to be a believer or who is allowed to be a member of the congregation.
A third level issue might be the age of the earth. One person in a local body might believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old while another believes modern scientists who argue that the earth is billions of years old. Both may believe in creation and oppose any type of macro evolution. If these believers are kind to each other, they could be members of the same local body. This is not to say that the age of the earth debate is unimportant—I think it to be significant—but it may not be a doctrine that should separate us in the local body.
The hard part, of course, the part that requires wisdom, is determining what level a doctrine is on. Some are easy. Some are harder. Examining your personality here is important. Are you the kind of person who makes everything a second or even first level doctrine? If so, you probably are too harsh. Do you think everything is a third level issue? Then you probably are not doctrinally serious enough.
A Call to Division (Romans 16:17-18)
Romans 16:17-18 (ESV)
17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
As Paul wraps up his letter to the Roman church, he offers some final pieces of counsel to the church. He sends greetings to them from people they should know, and he asks them to greet friends in the city. But, in the middle of this closing, Paul reminds the Romans to carefully avoid the kinds of people who cause them trouble.
The reason that this grabbed my attention is that I do not know that this is the most natural course of action for many Christians. Paul tells the Romans to watch out for people who cause divisions based on doctrine that is not what they learned from sound teachers. Then Paul simply says, “avoid them.”
What makes me wonder this morning is whether or not we avoid those who are selfish and who teach against sound doctrine. In general, I find that Christians who come across somebody teaching falsely or opposing sound doctrine will, for quite a while, make that person a project for reclamation. Or, the same Christians might simply ignore the false doctrine, hoping that it will not come up in polite conversation about the weather, the kids, or sports.
But, go back and take note. The warning is strong. We are to be on guard against “those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught.” That means that biblical doctrine matters. It means that we are to be guarded regarding doctrine. And, it means that, when we find those who cause division over contrary doctrine, we are to get away from them.
This all requires wisdom, as there are multiple levels of doctrine. Do we avoid the person who has a different view of the order of end-times events? I suppose that depends. If two believers disagree as to whether or not Jesus will return before a thousand year reign or just return and show us that the reign was metaphorical, I’m not sure we have to avoid one another. However, what if a believer is telling us that Jesus came back in the late first century and he is not coming again? Well, we probably have an issue, as one view requires a dramatic reinterpretation of entire books of the Bible.
Consider the truth of the verse above. Doctrine divides, and it should. We should avoid those who deny significant biblical doctrines. And it will require real wisdom to know what those are.
So, when do we divide? I would argue that we divide when the person’s doctrine is the kind of doctrine that causes division among believers—obvious-sounding, I know. We divide when a person develops a doctrinal issue that they attempt to bring into the body that turns us from the genuine gospel or from faithfully following the Lord. We divide when a person’s issue hinders congregational unity or worship. We divide when a person’s doctrine could do harm to young believers in the body. We divide when the doctrinal issue is of a significantly important level, or when the person causing the division, even with a lower-level doctrine, has become so pushy with their doctrine that they disrupt peace in the body.
But note again, the command is to avoid them. The command is not to make a giant project out of them. I think this implies church discipline, but it does not include making the disruptive person the center of church life. We urge them to repent, we pray for them, we encourage them, but, when they will not repent, we let them go.
Lord, we need wisdom and grace to know how to help when doctrine differs in the body. I pray for our church that you will protect us from division and divisive people. Help us to have wisdom to know when doctrines are of a level requiring division. Help us to value you, your word, and the gospel enough to be willing to divide if necessary. Help us, in all this, never to be proud or harsh in anything we do. Help us, I pray, to honor you by being loving and honest, kind and strong, merciful and faithful.
Controversy and the Beth Moore Article
I will often post articles on my Twitter feed and Facebook page which contain ideas or arguments I find interesting. Seldom will I post an article with the intent to stir controversy. And, truthfully, I often do not post articles I know will annoy people. However, from time-to-time, it is worth it to pass along something I read which, though controversial, contains some thoughts that we should at least consider.
Recently, I shared the following on Twitter: Another controversial one–thoughts? – Why Your Pastor Should Say “No More to Beth Moore” – http://tinyurl.com/hwymypy. In the piece, as the title suggests, Josh Buice recommends that pastors of churches not endorse the use of Beth Moore resources in the church’s women’s ministries. The author suggests that Beth Moore and her studies should be avoided because of three reasons. First, the author argues that Beth Moore violates biblical commands regarding women teaching men. Second, he suggests that Moore utilizes faulty hermeneutics (standards of biblical interpretation). Finally, Buice believes Moore to be an ecumenical charismatic.
The post received several comments on my Facebook page, including some pretty offended folks. Since I’m not one who is out to offend, I decided I’d like to reread the article and actually offer my opinion of the author’s arguments.
In general, I believe that Buice has some very valid points that need to be considered by pastors and laypersons alike. How could I say that? Lots of people love and are inspired by Beth Moore’s teaching. How dare I attempt to invalidate their experiences? While I mean no disrespect to Moore or those who have greatly benefited from her studies—which I certainly know many have done—that does not mean that Buice’s points are totally invalid.
Addressing the three arguments Buice makes is the only way to fairly evaluate his article. Any other reaction to it is going to be one based on emotion—I like her so Buice is wrong or I don’t like her, so Buice is right. I have no use for either opinion based on emotion.
One more disclaimer is needed. The three points that Buice makes are based on three significant theological positions. If a person disagrees with those theological positions, they will disagree with Buice’s evaluation of Moore. If one is egalitarian, they will disagree with the first point out of hand. If one is given to mystical or allegorical interpretation, they will disagree with the second point out of hand. If one is open to charismatic gifts or more ecumenical in their theological bent, they will dismiss the third point out of hand. In actuality, I believe that most of the strongly offended commenters on Buice’s post are people who disagree with at least one of the three theological positions, and thus are not going to go along with Buice’s argument regardless of whether it was made well or poorly, cruelly or respectfully. Add in those who will reject Buice’s article because of personal experience and fondness for Moore’s studies, and he faces long odds against being well received.
I will not attempt to make an argument in general for complementarianism, conservative hermeneutics, or cessationism. Someone who disagrees with these out of hand will disagree with the article. I think, however, that Buice is writing for pastors who actually agree with the three theological principles he lists, but who do not understand that Moore, in Buice’s opinion, could lead church members to the opposite side of each position. Thus, the article should be evaluated, not on whether or not you are complementarian, non-allegorical, or Cessationist, but whether or not you believe that Buice actually has a point that Moore’s teaching could lead church members away from those beliefs.
When I read the piece the first time, ,I was disappointed with the sweeping and unqualified statements Buice made in describing the complementarian position. Buice writes, “The point of the Bible is clear, women are not permitted to have authority over men, and how is it possible to teach the Bible without authority?” While many complementarians will agree with Buice here, the statement is less nuanced than is helpful. Does Paul mean that a woman could not teach a class on church history, which will inevitably include the Bible, in a small group, mixed setting? Does Paul mean that a woman cannot teach the Bible in writing that will be read by men? Is this about only the pulpit? Complementarians have thought these issues through, and sometimes disagree among themselves, but Buice does not have either the time or inclination to help clarify that this is a more complex issue than it might appear at first glance. Unfortunately, his lack of nuance here prevents Buice from being persuasive to those struggling with a desire both to be fully biblical and to value the wisdom and gifts that God has granted many women in the church.
With that all said, Buice has a point. Complementarians should be concerned about some of the actions of Moore. Her willingness to attend Lakewood church when a female friend of hers was preaching to a mixed congregation must be seen as a tacit approval of the action. Moore’s influence is so great, especially among women in the Southern Baptist Convention, that she rightly should be challenged for publically affirming a woman acting as a preacher.
The author’s second point is that Beth Moore employs a faulty interpretive framework for Scripture. Buice argues that Moore often uses an allegorical method of Bible interpretation. He also suggests that she practices Lectio Divina, emptying one’s mind in order to allow God to speak directly to the individual during Bible meditation. Sadly, Buice does not cite examples of these allegorical interpretations as proof of his point. The Lectio Divina practice is easily documented from this Youtube clip.
The level of agreement that one will have with the second point of the article, then, will be divided into two parts. Is Moore really guilty of improperly allegorizing texts? Is allegorizing texts improper? If a pastor is a proponent of historical, grammatical exposition, he will likely find himself uncomfortable with some of the ways that Moore handles Scripture. No, it will not be the case in everything she teaches, as very much of what she teaches will be sound. But, if a pastor is concerned with church members finding meanings and allegories in texts that may not have been intended by the author, they must check Moore’s work carefully in order to see if she is engaging in this type of interpretation.
The third point has to do with ecumenism and charismatic practices. Again, a pastor who embraces the continuation of spiritual gifts such as divinely given words of prophecy will have no problem with the charismatic side of this discussion. However, a pastor who is not interested in his people being taught by a person claiming to be given personal visions from God will want to recommend his church members not follow Moore, who has clearly claimed that she has visions given to her by the Lord and who has claimed to have others speak to her words from the Lord that are not words of Scripture.
In one such vision that Moore claims to have been given from God, she expresses an ecumenical desire. Of course many believers want the church to be united and for denominational differences to disappear. However, many pastors know better than to mislead their congregations by acting as though denominational differences are unimportant. The truth is, the church must be divided over issues such as the use of charismatic gifts, baptism, or the doctrine of the atonement. So long as groups believe diametrically opposed things regarding central doctrinal issues, there will be differences in congregations and denominations.
So, what do I think of Buice’s article? I wish he had written it better. I wish he had been able to cite more of what he claims. I wish he had expressed an understanding of the need for nuance and kindness in the complementarian discussion. But none of those things invalidate his concerns regarding Moore’s ministry.
As a pastor, I have not, for a long time, recommended Beth Moore studies to our women. This is not out of any sort of personal rancor. I simply would far prefer that our women learn from teachers who are more faithful to exposition, who are less open to the charismatic, and who are less emotionally driven in their presentation. I do not condemn anyone who has loved a Beth Moore study in the past or who will happily buy the next one out there. But, I would suggest that concerns about Moore’s interpretative method, her recounting of visions and words of knowledge, and her association with false teachers like Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen as well as her embrace of the Roman Catholic Church—a group which denies salvation by grace alone through faith alone—are valid reasons to think twice before starting that next group study.
Pastor Travis Peterson 