Some Key Words (08/02/15)

Spiritual men (pneumatikois [4152]):

spiritual, as opposed to psuchikos, soulish or animalistic, or sarkikos, carnal. | non-carnal, ethereal, supernatural, regenerate. A spirit. | spiritual. Exhibiting the character and effects of the Holy Spirit. Supernatural.

Men of flesh (sarkinois [4560] / sarkikoi [4559] [see ‘fleshly’ below]):

fleshly, material. The inos suffix does not bear the ethical implications of the ikos suffix. | like flesh. Soft. | fleshly. Composed of flesh. Pertaining to the body – that which is earthly and perishable. If Paul is not just indiscriminately switching between these two terms, then sarkinos should be taken as emphasizing the idea of sarkikos, which is to say, being wholly given over to the flesh and rooted therein.

Babes (neepiois [3516]):

Infant. One not yet able to speak. Here, the implication is ignorance and simplicity in matters of faith – a beginner. | an infant or minor. A simple-minded person. An immature Christian. | an infant. A minor. One untaught and unskilled, lacking in understanding.

Milk (gala [1051]):

Milk, symbolizing the rudimentary teachings of the gospel. | milk. Used figuratively. | Milk. Used as metaphor for the less difficult truths of Christianity. Also used to describe the word of God as nourishment for Christian life.

Solid food (brooma [1033]):

| food. Used particularly for such foods as were ceremonially permitted or forbidden under Jewish law. | food. That which is eaten. Figuratively applied to instruction.

Able (dunasthe [1410]):

To have the power or ability. | to be able or possible. | To be able, have power to do a thing.

Fleshly (sarkikoi [4559]):

carnal, as opposed to spiritual. Akin to soulish. One ruled by the flesh. | pertaining to the flesh. Bodily, temporal. Unregenerate. | carnal. Having the nature of flesh, or pertaining thereto.

Jealousy (zeelos [2205]):

Zeal, although generally in a negative sense. Zeal can be positive, as one seeks to be like the desired model. But, it may degenerate into a tendency to strike out at that model. | zeal presenting as ardor in the positive or jealousy in the negative. May even express malice. | excitement of mind. Ardor. Fervor. Zealous pursuit or defense of a thing. Envious, contentious rivalry. Fierce indignation.

Strife (eris [2054]):

| a quarrel. Wrangling. | contention. Strife. Wrangling.

Walking (peripateite [4043]):

| To walk all around. Figuratively indicates how one lives or comports oneself. | to make one’s way, make use of opportunities. To conduct oneself, regulate one’s life. To live.

Mere men (anthroopon [444]):

man, as distinct from both gods and animals. NT usage applies this to sinful man as opposed to godly. While it may distinguish male from female, it is often used as encompassing both. | a human being. | a human being of either sex, as distinct from either animal life or divine life. Bears with it implications of moral weakness and a propensity for sin. As to the nature of man, it may indicate the distinction of body from soul. As to the moral state of man, it is the corrupt, rather than the regenerate.

Paraphrase: (08/03/15)

1Co 3:1-4 When I was with you, I had to teach you like fleshly men, babes in Christ.  I couldn’t teach you deep things yet, so I fed you spiritual milk rather than solid food.  But, even now you are unable to receive such things, for you are still acting as fleshly men.  Does this offend you?  Look at yourselves!  If there is jealousy and strife in your midst, how are you not walking like mere men?  When you have groups claiming to be disciples of Paul or disciples of Apollos, what else are you but mere men?

Key Verse: (08/03/15)

1Co 3:3 – Where jealousy and strife characterize the congregation, you are still fleshly, and walking like men of flesh.

Thematic Relevance: (08/02/15)	To look up we must grow up.  As pertains to wisdom, growing in wisdom requires maturing in what has been learned already.  If, then, we would advance in faith we must first incorporate what we have been given already.
Doctrinal Relevance: (08/03/15)	Fleshly deeds are evidence of spiritual needs. We may not outgrow our need for the basics of faith, but we should outgrow our incapacity for anything stronger.
Moral Relevance: (08/03/15)	Jealousy and strife may be the two specifics noted, being as they are the underlying disease whose symptoms have emerged in Corinth’s factionalism.  But, the whole list of character ailments that Paul provides to the Galatians (Gal 5:19-20) ought to be seen here.  These are not given for us to weigh the progress of our brother.  They are given to weigh our own progress.  There is more than enough cause for concern to be found within, and cause for concerted effort to improve.
Doxology: (08/03/15)	At first blush, it is hard to find any cause to sing God’s praises in this.  The rebuke is stark and unrelieved in this short passage.  But, therein lays cause for praise.  God does not leave us to our error.  He does not let the disease continue unabated.  He brings rebuke.  He brings correction.  Most importantly, He brings change.  These things may be hard to hear, hard to endure, but they produce a wonderful fruit in us.  Praise God that He does not leave us in our ignorant infancy, but grows us up that we may be mature sons and daughters pleasing in His sight.
Questions Raised: (08/03/15)	An argument against denominationalism?

Symbols: (08/03/15)

Milk & Food

It is sufficiently clear that Paul is using these terms metaphorically rather than literally. Further, the context renders the meaning plain, if we back up to the preceding chapter. Milk is universally recognized as food for the youngest infants. That is not to say that it does not remain a part of the adult diet, which is worth noting in this setting. Neither is milk in itself a bad thing from the adult perspective. Bear in mind the description of the Promised Land as a land flowing with milk and honey. Meat is a term applied to all food generally. Here, the intended meaning is clearly to distinguish that which is suited to the infant to that which is suited to more mature diners. More directly, it is commentary on the recipient more than upon what is given them. One does not give meat to infants because they can’t possibly chew it or digest it. It would cause them to choke, and would prove dangerous to them rather than nourishing. On the other hand, what does it say of an adult that he is reduced to a milk-only diet? It is evidence of sickness, weakness. It is not the expected way. Paul applies this to the content of his teaching. When among these new believers, he could not be giving them doctrinal meat, for they had no spiritual teeth with which to chew upon such truths. They were babes in Christ and needed to have the basics well in hand. However, the fact that this continues to be the case some years later is unhealthy. It really does echo Hebrews 5:12 – You should be matured. I shouldn’t need to revert to sticking with the basics. Let me repeat that the adult diet does not eschew milk entirely. Neither does our spiritual maturity annul the need for the basics. It’s the problem of being fit ONLY for the basics that is at issue. What Paul is saying here is effectively, “You’re not growing.”

People, Places & Things Mentioned: (08/03/15)

Paul

I don’t want to spend too much time on the two men named, for that is rather Paul’s point here: You’re spending too much time on men and not enough on God. Suffice it to say that Paul’s experience was, to the best of our knowledge, unique among men. He did not accompany Jesus during the brief years of His earthly ministry. He was not called away from his labors to walk the wilds together with the other disciples. Rather, he was a zealous persecutor of this new sect that he saw as a threat to true religion. It required a blinding encounter with the risen Christ, a most thoroughly supernatural event, to shift him. The change was radical and immediate. And yet, the change was achieved almost entirely without the involvement of another Christian. His training, from what we can piece together, likely took the same three years that the others had received, and came by way of the same Master. But, he was given private tutoring in the deserts. In this he shared rather more with the prophets than the apostles. But, he was an apostle, and he was an evangelist. He was also the foremost theologian, and his letters reveal his skills in presenting the deep things of God as well as the basics. That he had the respect of the other apostles is evidenced by Peter’s comments in regard to his writing, as well as the degree to which Peter reflects Paul’s teaching in his own writing. These were not men at odds, but men of one common doctrine and purpose.

Apollos

How exactly Apollos came by his faith is not well documented. He, too, was a man skilled in the arts of speech, rhetoric, and debate. He was also well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures when he first appeared on the scene in Ephesus. His knowledge was increased under the tutelage of Aquila and Priscilla, two who had worked with Paul here in Corinth. He was also known to Paul. It’s reasonable to suppose that he is with Paul and working with Paul at the time this letter is written. That is said by way of noting that what Paul says here is endorsed by both men. When he makes an example of himself together with Apollos, it is also Apollos making an example of himself together with Paul. The letter is itself an evidence of the point Paul makes.

You Were There: (08/03/15)

If anybody in that room had been feeling proud of themselves still, or had written Paul off as inconsequential, this must have come as a real slap in the face to them.  You who account yourselves so spiritual, so proud of those gifts and powers you display, look at yourselves!  If this is the result, this factionalism and name-dropping, there’s nothing spiritual about you.  You’re just men, acting like men.  You are still in that place I just spoke about, utterly incapable of understanding spiritual things, wholly unequipped for the task.  It may be that God has granted you to practice these supernatural things, but as it stands right now, they are nothing but magic tricks in your hands.  It’s not that the Spirit is degraded, nor is it that His gifts are diminished by your being the recipient.  It’s that you are diminished by what you have made of them.

It’s no different, in the end, then what Paul says of the Law when he writes to the Romans.  Nor, is the reason for saying it all that different.  Law was something of an idol in its own right to the citizenry of Rome; not Jewish Law, per se, but Law as a concept.  Mosaic Law was, of course, just as highly esteemed, if not more so, by the Jewish community.  The very concept of Law would carry great weight, then, with a church composed of these two groups.  And the Law, particularly Mosaic Law, was indeed good, for it was God-breathed.  But, what man made of the Law was evil.  It became a base of attack, the place from which sin sallied forth to assault men of God.

For the Corinthians, it seems the supernatural side of things was what got their attention.  The assumption seems to have been that the greater the supernatural gifting, the greater the man who got the gifts.  It was not taken as cause to be grateful to a gracious God.  It was seen as indication of deserving privilege.  It was all ego.  Look at me!  I’ve got these powers.  I am a man of consequence in this church, and you’d best recognize that.  Paul has just dashed that whole structure to the ground:  You can’t even eat meat yet.  You’re sick.  If you had matured at all, something has happened to make it all for naught.  You may have spiritual display, but you are utterly lacking in spiritual understanding.  Your ego may be inflated, but your spirit is bedraggled and starving.  You need milk again.

How would you respond to such a message?  Were this preached from the pulpit in your church this Sunday, would you be back the next?  Would you go home to lick your wounds?  Or, perhaps to stew in your resentment?  Or, would you hear the word of the Lord, repent, and seek to change and to grow?  The answer of the flesh is well known.  The answer of the Spirit is equally well known.  We all know the correct answers to provide to questions such as these.  But, what is the reality?  Can we hear the word of correction in our own day, or are we too convinced of our own righteousness?

Some Parallel Verses: (08/03/15)

3:1

1Co 2:15 – He who is spiritual appraises all things, but is appraised by no man. 1Co 14:37 – Anyone who thinks himself a prophet or spiritual should recognize that what I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. Gal 6:1 – Even if a man is caught in sin, you who are spiritual must restore him with a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you likewise be tempted. Ro 7:14 – We know that the Law is spiritual. But, I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. 1Co 2:14 – The natural man doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, but finds them foolish. He can’t understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1Co 2:6 – We do speak wisdom to those who are mature. But, it is such wisdom as is not of this age, nor of its rulers, for they are passing away. Eph 4:14 – We are no longer to be children tossed by the waves and carried along by every wind of doctrine. Trickery of men, and deceitful scheming should not alter our beliefs. Heb 5:13 – Those who only take milk, being unaccustomed to the word of righteousness, are babes.

3:2

Heb 5:12 – By now you should be teachers, but instead you need somebody to teach you the basics again. You have come to need milk instead of solid food. 1Pe 2:2 – Like a newborn, long for the pure milk of the word, so that you may grow in respect to salvation by its nourishment. Jn 16:12 – I have more to say, but you can’t bear it now.

3:3

Ro 13:13 – Let us behave as befits the day, not in carousing, drunkenness, promiscuity, sensuality, strife, and jealousy. 1Co 1:10-11 – I exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be agreed, with no divisions among you. Be made complete in the same mind and judgment. For, I have been informed by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you. 1Co 11:18 – For one, I hear that when you meet as a church divisions exist among you. And to some degree, I believe it. Gal 5:19-20 – The deeds of the flesh are evident: Immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, angry outbursts, disputes, dissensions, factions, etc.

3:4

1Co 1:12 – Here’s what I’m talking about: Some of you claim to follow Paul, others to follow Apollos, and others Cephas, or Christ.

New Thoughts: (08/04/15-08/06/15)

As Paul has revisited the record of his time in Corinth, and his approach to ministry among those he now writes to, it’s easy to imagine a bit of an emotional roller-coaster ride among them.  Paul seems almost defensive in how he presents his efforts, and this talk of spiritual men versus natural men could almost be taken as evidence that these spiritually gifted readers were on the right track.  See?  He just said we were to be appraised by no man.  Paul is a man.  We are spiritual.  We have nothing to fear from this letter after all.  If this was the way their thoughts were traveling, then an abrupt U-turn is about to be taken.

Paul continues on this matter of spiritual man versus natural man, and at first it might seem he is merely continuing to defend his choices.  “I couldn’t speak to you as spiritual men, for you were yet babes in Christ.”  That’s really no more than a statement of fact, isn’t it?  When he arrived they were not even that.  They were yet to be reborn in Christ, and honestly, eighteen months was not a long time to grow them up.  Under the circumstances, nothing could have been more right than that Paul should stick to the basics.  But, then comes verse 2:  Even now you are not yet able.  It strikes me that the wording of that implies something worse than a relapse.  It’s more a failure to even get started on the path to maturity.  He’s assessing this church as something akin to what we speak of as adult children in our day; physically grown up, but mentally adolescent at best.

But, let’s back up just a moment to the initial contrast Paul draws; that between the spiritual and fleshly man.  We have pneumatikois on the one hand, and either sarkinois or sarkikois on the other.  Later, the contrast is more clearly sarkikois, but this first comparison has some textual questions associated.  Let us accept the sarkinois reading as correct.  What we have on the one hand is that man who exhibits the character and effects of the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand – and this is where the difference between ikos and inos might matter – we have one not just exhibiting the characteristics of sinful man, but one wholly given over to the flesh, wholly rooted in pursuit of fleshly pleasures.  That is to say, there is not the least trace of the Spirit.  There is no evidence whatsoever of regeneration, no trace of sanctification in progress.  Wuest actually applies the same strength to the spiritual man:  He is one ‘dominated by the Holy Spirit’.  That goes farther than merely exhibiting some characteristics.

What do these two sorts of men look like?  We can look to Galatians 5 for an idea.  The man of the flesh, that one wholly given over to its ways, will be characterized by the fruits of those ways:  Immorality, impurity, sensuality form the first group.  These all bear on sexual pursuits, promiscuity.  Then follow idolatry and sorcery.  Idolatry might be seen as the common lot of fallen man.  As Calvin said, we are pretty much idol factories, producing them faster than we can dash them to the ground.  But, sorcery?  Surely that’s an extreme charge.  Or is it?  What else shall we call it when we confuse faith and fate, when we treat the Spirit like our personal genie, when we construe our prayers as ways to constrain God to our will rather than submitting ourselves to His will?

But, the list continues (Gal 5:19-21).  Enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions; you can see the theme here.  All of this stands opposed to the unity of the Spirit and to the Prince of Peace.  It’s one thing to stand firm for sound doctrine.  It’s another to fall into angry argumentation at every turn, to split over inconsequential trivialities, to divide God’s house into cliques.  And notice the inclusion of factions in that list:  The very thing that Paul addresses first and foremost in dealing with the Corinthians.

Paul’s list of fleshly ills concludes with envy, drunkenness and carousing.  That first might better remain connected to the previous group, but if our envy is for those around us who remain in the flesh, then we are likely to pursue a course that leads to the other two.  Oh, those pagans.  They have all the fun.  We’re so bound by these rules of righteousness that we never get to let loose.  It’s just so unfair, God.  But, see where it leads.  “Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”  Really?  Anger issues might keep me out of the kingdom?  All the rest of these, I could perhaps convince myself I could manage, but this?  It’s a frustrating world we live in.  Of course I get angry at things.  I’m overworked, under-rested.  I have to deal with unbelievers day in and day out.  I have to deal with misguided fellow believers day in and day out.  I have to deal with my own failure day in and day out.   How can I not be angry at times?  Exhaustion alone is enough to get there.

Ah, but look at the things that characterize the spiritual man:  Love, joy, peace, patience.  Patience?  Here in America?  Sorry, that wouldn’t be right.  Why, from the day I came to Christ I was warned against praying for that.  Anything else I might consider fair game, but never that.  Yet, it’s what God would have, apparently.  Kindness, goodness, faithfulness are things that continue the list.  But, isn’t God the only one who is good?  Yes, and if indeed you are a spiritual man, He is the very one working in you, abiding in you.  Recall Paul’s words elsewhere:  It’s not me living anymore, it’s Christ in me.  How about gentleness and self-control?  These are the marks of the maturing Christian.

If I look at the two lists and ask myself which describes me more accurately, I can only sorrow at the answer.  If I ask which describes the sort of person I would prefer to be around, the answer is painfully obvious.  Which would you prefer?  Angry, argumentative, jealous and envying; or patient, gentle, kind, and faithful?  Which is going to contribute more to your own sense of well-being?  Being with those who are on a drunken tear and chasing after sexual fulfillment, or being with those who are loving rather than lustful, self-controlled rather than carousing?  It’s a reasonable assumption that if these are the characteristics we would prefer in our companions, they are also the characteristics our companions would prefer.  What sort of companion are you?

I’ll let that hang for now, and ask myself the same.

Meanwhile, these two contrasting lists certainly give us a sense of the stark contrast Paul has in view as he considers the folks in Corinth.  Here’s what you should be and there’s what you are.  As he proceeds, he actually draws from that list of fleshly traits:  Look at you!  Jealousy and strife are becoming the defining characteristics of your church.  Factions?  You’ve got ‘em in spades.  Immorality?  We’ll be getting to that point shortly, but let’s deal with the factions first.  If jealousy and strife define you, what does it say about you?  Your lifestyle is still one of base, fallen man.  If this is what your leadership style looks like, how can you expect the church to mature and grow?

Follow Paul’s development here.  You are so thrilled by these spiritual gifts.  You are so proud of yourselves for your spiritual insights.  You’ve left old Paul behind for higher ground.  You’re so impressed by grander bits of wisdom, but you can’t digest them.  You hear the pretty words, but you can’t grasp the meaning.  You’re unequipped.  The natural man can’t accept the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually appraised (1Co 2:14).  And, by your character you loudly proclaim that you are still natural men.  You want the meat, but you’re barely handling the milk.  It sounds almost like something we may have said to our children in their teens.  You want to be treated like a grown up?  Start acting like one.  You want to be seen as spiritual?  Be spiritual.  Set aside the ways of the old man in favor of the new.  Enough with jealousy and strife!  Enough with the factions and name dropping.  Don’t boast of your advancement, show it.

Now, it should be said here that the milk of the Gospel is not something to be enjoyed while young in the faith and then set aside.  No, the adult diet does not leave milk behind.  It adds meat to the diet, and reduces its dependency on milk, but milk remains.  Just so with our spiritual life.  We may grow to understand deeper matters.  We may develop the ability to delve into some of the deeper, more challenging theological issues.  We should, certainly, discover ourselves growing in understanding and insight of what we find in Scripture.  We should find that our understanding is forming within us some form of a system of theology.  We should discover that our prayer life has become more sincere, more outwardly focused in its concerns.  We should note a growing love for our fellow believers, and also for the lost.  We should, hopefully, arrive at all of this without being dragged back into the dead end of seeking salvation in our own works.  How do we avoid that?  By keeping some milk in the diet.  We return again and again to the simple truths of the Gospel, the notes of God’s grace, and the themes of His all-powerful, all-wise, all-encompassing involvement in our redemption and our sanctification.  We remind ourselves from His word, over and over again, that it’s all about Him.  It is God who is working in us.  We do not make of it an excuse to sin, but we do find in it the answer to every anxious thought about our progress.  Unless the Lord is building, I would be laboring in vain to do it myself.  If the Lord is building, I would be foolish to get in His way.

The trap of a works based self-righteousness is to one side of us when we lose sight of the cross.  To the other side we find self-righteousness again, but it is pride based.  We will seek to find cause for pride in ourselves.  We may hold out whatever bit of growth we have achieved as clearly demonstrating how we have advanced beyond our brethren.  If I am a prayer warrior, I shall discover myself holding in contempt all those who are not.  If I am a student of the Word, I shall consider those who are not as lesser beings, and possibly incompetent.  If I am an evangelist or a missionary, I shall look with sad wonder upon those who remain in the church, as if they are an offense against heaven.  But, it’s all pride.  It’s all, as Paul describes it elsewhere, one body part presuming to measure all others by its own function.  The ear rejects the nose for not hearing.  The nose cannot comprehend the foot failing to take note of the aromatic aspects of life.  The same applies in the life of the church, if we are not careful to cling to the cross, and to return regularly to hear the simple truth of the Gospel.

All of this, all of Paul’s advice to the Galatians and all of his advice to the Corinthians, presupposes that they (and we) are indeed among the elect.  If they (or we) are not, then by his own comments, it is clear that what he writes will be to no avail.  “They cannot understand, because these things are spiritually appraised” (1Co 2:14).  I cannot overstress how strongly that message informs this whole discussion.  With that firmly back in mind, hear what he has just said to these believers.  “I couldn’t speak to you as spiritual men then, and I still can’t.  Even now you are not able.  By your thoughts and by your deeds you clearly demonstrate that you are still fleshly men, not spiritual.”

That’s the message of these four verses in brief.  Now, I would ask you to consider:  What if this message were delivered from the pulpit in our church this Sunday?  When was the last time you heard so stern a rebuke from that source?  Have you ever?  I cannot think of a time.  Oh, sure, we get the occasional gentle nudging about being more welcoming to newcomers.  We may catch the undertones urging us to action of one sort or another, probably about spreading the Gospel to unbelievers.  We may even hear some prayers offered that seek for God to stir up such things in our hearts.  But, they’re all eminently ignorable, and we can go home and get on with life.

Paul’s message here doesn’t allow for that.  This is absolutely insulting!  It brings into question whether we are even believers.  Put it together.  If the fleshly man cannot understand, and we cannot understand, then what are we?  We are fleshly men.  If that which defines the spiritual man is the Holy Spirit abiding within, and we are not spiritual men, what does this say?  The Spirit is not present, and if He is not present, we are not the elect.  Now, I’ve got trouble, don’t I?  Now, I’ve got just cause for offense, don’t I?  Unless, of course, it’s true.  But, if it’s true, I probably won’t take offense, because I don’t get it, and as far as concerns the bit I do get, I don’t care.

But, for the believers, this is stunning.  This is a blow to the knees.  I dare say if this were tried in our churches today, the majority of the church would up and walk out then and there, not waiting to find out if some antidote to the issue was going to be offered.  It’s too easy for us to simply pack it in and go to the next congregation down the street.  Even for those who have firmly held doctrinal positions that make the search for a new church home rather more difficult, it’s not so difficult as all that.  Whatever your doctrine, changes are pretty good you can find multiple churches in a thirty mile radius that are sufficiently aligned to your views.

For the Corinthians, this really wasn’t an option.  There was no Second Church of Corinth.  That’s not to say there weren’t plenty of competing religions.  One could always go back to Judaism or whichever of the Greek or Roman gods one used to follow, or at least acknowledge.  Here’s the problem, though:  You know too much.  However offended you are by Paul’s words, you cannot any longer deny what you know.  Those ways are false ways, dead ends and worse than dead ends.  They all invariably lead to damnation.  Even atheism does not offer escape.  You have come to know the living God, and however much of a mess you’ve made of it, you cannot escape the realization that there is no other.

Would that we took our condition as seriously!  Would that we so held to the body of believers amongst which God has set us that we could conceive of no other.  Would that we were so committed to the church that we call home that we could, like Peter, say, “Where else would we go, Lord?”

Well!  This is not a direction I had expected my thoughts to take, but since I’m here, I may as well explore.  Understand, I have twice now left one church for another, not because of geographical changes, but because of other reasons.  For the first, I would have to say that my reasoning was not well founded.  It had more to do with preserving the peace in my household than with anything about what that particular church was teaching.  In my defense, I was at that point still more of an experiential believer, and inclined more towards pursuing what appeared more alive and energized than what appeared more devoted to sound doctrine.  So, I made a progression from Pentecostal to Charismatic, knowing not what I did.

For many years thereafter, I remained faithful to the church to which we had moved.  I also became far more concerned with doctrine.  In rather perverse fashion, the more wildly charismatic that church proved to be, the more conservative my doctrine came to be.  During that time, I began these studies.  I had, by that time, gone through Calvin’s Institutes as something of a casual read – to the degree that can be casually read.  What really shifted my doctrine was going through Romans in depth.  I have said it often enough, but I entered an Arminian (whether I knew enough to say so), and came out a Calvinist.  Things I thought settled were overturned by the weight of Scripture.  As it turns out, this would become the reason for my departure, albeit several years later.  It was not, and is not as though I could not abide with the presence of those who felt differently about free will, predestination, and the perseverance of the saints.  But, when pronouncements are repeatedly made from the pulpit insisting that predestination is a doctrine of the devil, particularly when proclaimed by one with limited theological insight, it eventually became indefensible to stay.

Even so, I would maintain my stated desire that we would be so committed to our church as to conceive of no other place to be.  The availability of alternatives has a corrosive effect on us, not unlike the corrosive effect of society.  It can be resisted, but only with conscious effort.  Knowing we can shift our allegiances leaves us perhaps less determined to preserve what we have.  If I know that I can find a more compatible church should doctrinal differences lead me to depart, I have less reason to stand for sound doctrine where I am.  I can come to view it as, “Hey, it’s your church.  Do what you want with it, but I’m outta here.”  There is the countervailing danger of coming to think, “It’s my church, and you’d best hold to my views if you plan to stick around.”  But, the truth – and it is the truth Paul is driving home here – is that it is Christ’s church.  When we say “I am of Paul” or “I am of Apollos” or “It’s your church” or “It’s my church” or any such nonsense, we’re right where these Corinthians found themselves:  mere men following mere men.  Or, as Christ put it, the blind led by the blind (Mt 15:14).

So, again:  How do you respond to this message?  Do you find that it applies?  It would be easy enough for me to write this off.  No.  I don’t see any factionalism in our church.  We must be doing OK.  Oh, there was a time.  To be sure, there was a time.  But, it’s before my time, and it seems to have pretty well healed.  But, if I stop there, I’ve missed it.

Take Paul’s point and apply it to your favorite doctrinal position.  What happens when you meet a believer holding the opposite views?  Around our church, I suppose the obvious ones would concern the nature of baptism – whether paedobaptism is acceptable or not, or the ever-present dissension as to whether salvation is the result of God’s predetermined choice, or personal volition in accepting His offer.  But, I sense more and more that for myself it’s the challenge of charismatic beliefs.  This will no doubt be a challenge for the duration.  But, I note that I have, at least in demeanor and response, become very conservative in my views.  I cannot simply write off those things commonly lumped together as the gifts of the Spirit, for I have experienced them in what I would maintain were valid and real experiences as well as in their counterfeit forms.  Am I fit to render judgment as to which is which?  In some degree, perhaps, but certainly not infallibly.

I do think it’s clear enough that the current lusting after a return of the apostolic office is ill-founded, ill-informed, and potentially heretical.  I do think that certain developments in the pursuit of prophecy are similarly unscriptural in nature.  There are those who speak in tongues, and I would count myself among them.  There are, however, those who do so decently and in order, as Paul describes the case, and those who more or less insist on the right to do so whenever and wherever.  I have known those whose use of the gifts was, by any measure I could make, legitimate, and I have known those who were clearly in it for either money, ego, or both.  Too much of it has become a matter of power and making a living, and too little of it seeks to edify.

But, again:  Am I at risk of responding to these things in a fashion that is effectively saying, “I am of Calvin”?  Am I at risk of presupposing that any further display of these gifts I may encounter are almost assuredly counterfeit and to be rejected?  Yes.  I am at such risk.  I cannot deny that.  I cannot help but see that in reacting to the excesses of my previous church, I am inclined to be equally excessive in the opposite direction.  God willing, I shall find balance restored, and find myself willing to accept that which passes the test of Scripture.  I would not, after all, wish to discover myself fighting against the God I seek to serve.  I would not wish to reject the very Holy Spirit who indwells me to my eternal benefit.  But, neither do I wish to become so welcoming of anything that smacks of being spiritual as to demonstrate only that I am not spiritual at all.

It is a caution, this passage.  It is a caution to take to heart, whatever our particular doctrinal dividing line happens to be.  The moment we slip into, “I am of” territory, we have left the house of God.  We have asked, “Where else could I go?” and arrived at the answer, “over there.”  Since there is strife and jealousy, we demonstrate that we remain fleshly, walking as mere men.  It matters not what caused the strife, or what it is we are jealous of.  The point illustrated by those attitudes remains the same.  It may seem shocking, but we can become so jealous for the Truth that we wind up driving away those who would know it.

I am struck by the fact that this term which we translate as jealousy is the term for zeal.  Zeal can be a good thing.  If we are zealous to do good, it’s hard to imagine that God would find cause to complain.  If we are zealous in pursuit of sanctification, certainly that’s a good thing, right?  But, zealousness too easily turns to jealousness.  One little letter makes the change.  One little failure on our part, or one success on another’s can make the change in us.  We see somebody advancing more than ourselves, and the competitive spirit rises up in us.  If we cannot catch them up by our own progress, we must slow them down by attacking their progress.  So, rather than spurring one another on towards further growth, we seek instead to impeded, to stunt the growth of others so that our own stunted growth may appear in a better light.

Here, I might quote the Message.  “As long as you grab for what makes you feel good or makes you look important, are you really much different than a babe at the breast, content only when everything's going your way?”  That does grasp at least one application of Paul’s point.  What is happening in these situations?  Why is it you promote this teacher or that one?  Is it not to make yourself feel good for having chosen correctly?  Is it not to make yourself look important by comparison to those who do differently?  Look out!  The very things you hold out as evidence of your maturity wind up demonstrating instead that you remain an infant, a babe at the breast.  I’m not sure I would read so much into this as is implied with the Message’s, “content only when everything’s going your way.”  But, the basic point remains.  You grab for what makes you feel good.

Is that your measure of Truth?  What makes you feel good must be right?  What a dangerous way to measure!  What an open target for false doctrines, and the tickling of the ears!  Just ask yourself:  Who, upon hearing what Paul said to them here, could say it made them feel good?  Even those who had brought the issue to his attention could hardly feel good under so bruising an assessment.  For, there is room enough in his charge for all of us to find cause for repentance.

Let me ask this from a different angle.  When you happen across a ministry whose particulars are not the same as your own, whose practices include things you consider a little suspect, do you immediately reject them on that basis?  If their ministry demonstrates a heart for God, and fruit for the kingdom, perhaps fruit in excess of what your own ministry produces, how do you react?  Does it stir you to address your own ministry’s efforts to join them in fruitful service, or does it stir you to find cause to discredit the good they do on the basis of some point of doctrinal disagreement?  Are you jealous in a good sense that urges you to excel, or in a bad sense that leads to contentious rivalry?

It is good and proper to assess the doctrine and practice of our own ministry, and of those ministries that would partner with us – to a point.  We cannot expect to concur on every point.  We can’t even manage that in our own congregation!  But, there are bedrock doctrines by which the very nature of Christianity is defined, and there are what we construe as secondary doctrines, points where we can’t help but recognize that men of good faith and good conscience can reach contrary conclusions.  Baptism is one.  Charismatic gifting is another.  But, these hardly exhaust the list.  It is one thing to refuse cooperation with those whose teachings insist on proclaiming heresies.  It is another to refuse cooperation with those who have legitimate differences of opinion but remain within the realm of Truth.

Even with those ministries that have veered into heretical teachings, we might well ask what our response ought to be.  Does Galatians 6:1 apply?  “Even if a man is caught in sin, you who are spiritual must restore him with a spirit of gentleness.  Look to yourself, lest you likewise be tempted.”  It seems eminently applicable to me.  We are all of us capable of error.  I would hold that it is so unlikely as to be nearly unthinkable that there exists so much as one man whose doctrine is perfectly accurate.  If there ever was such a man, it would have to have been one or the other of the Apostles.  Paul would seem the most likely candidate.  But, even there, one can suppose there were other points he made that were, perhaps, not made in keeping with the Spirit’s leading.  There were things that needed correcting.  They didn’t make it into Scripture, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.  Or, perhaps it really was part of the unique gift of these Apostles that they wrote without error.  But, that way lies the papacy, and doctrine subject to change as opinions change.

I rather think the errant ways of man are a universal that encompasses even the greatest man of God.  Certainly, as we see them in Scripture this holds.  Moses, the great prophet and leader, was a fallible man, and erred so greatly as to be excluded from the entry into the Promised Land.  David was likewise flawed in moral, even though a man after God’s own heart.  Should we really suppose the Apostles were any less human for being filled with the Spirit?  Are we?

All of this moves me to think that when it comes to doctrinal disputes and the correction of heresy, it is always wise to heed Paul’s words there.  “Look to yourself, lest you likewise be tempted.”  Look to your own doctrine and see if it is so sound as you think.  Invite the inspection of your Lord, and His critique of what He finds.  Do not write off your erstwhile brother because he has wandered.  Seek to restore him with a spirit of gentleness.  And, in doing so, always seek to be certain which of you it is who needs restoring!

You can write it off to a passive aggressive tendency, but I find more often than not that where such disputes and disagreements occur within the household of God, it is best to let God handle the matter of sorting it out.  This has played out many times in my life.  The disagreement is there, and were I to try and fix it, the likelihood is that I would not manage it in gentleness of spirit, but would discover a pridefully bold confidence in my own opinions, and an unwillingness to accept correction.  Far better to take such matters to prayer, acknowledging our own weaknesses.  Lord, clearly one or the other of us has this wrong, please correct whichever of us needs correcting.  If it’s me, open my eyes.  If it’s him, may he hear You that we may be one in You.  I don’t suppose there is anything wrong with also including, “and if indeed this is no man of Your kingdom, let him be anathema to me, as well as his teachings.”  But, far better he should be restored to the kingdom, or we should be so restored, if we are the ones in error.

To reject wholesale on the basis of disagreement smacks of a return to Pharisaic practices.  If you don’t do as I teach, think as I think, then you’re not really a believer.  We, after all, have perfect understanding.  If you disagree with us, you obviously do not.  In writing that, I am mindful that there is a message not too dissimilar which comes from Paul later in this letter.  “Anyone who thinks himself a prophet or spiritual should recognize that what I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (1Co 14:37).  Mind you, Paul could say that with accuracy and honesty.  What he wrote was the Lord’s commandment.  That’s why we have it preserved.  I have to say, though, that no man since the death of John has been able to make that claim, and therein lays one of the greater issues of our time.

It’s not just an issue of our time, it’s an issue that has troubled the Church almost as long as there has been a church.  Indeed, it’s the very issue that Paul is dealing with here, at least in part.  There were those who claimed a teaching contrary to Paul’s, and they had their followers here in Corinth, as elsewhere.  I don’t think we have this in the case of the followers of Apollos, but those who claimed to be of Cephas, were perhaps ill informed as to the source of the doctrines they favored.  In matters of doctrine, I maintain Paul and Peter are in perfect accord.  Paul’s understanding may be a bit more advanced in some ways, but as to the content there is no disagreement.  One cannot be of Cephas in truth and not simultaneously be of Paul.  One might favor one’s style over the other, but as to substance, there is but one Gospel, one Savior, one Holy Spirit speaking one Truth.

The trouble is that there are always those who wish to make a name for themselves, who want to be in possession of something more or better than other believers.  They may not promote themselves as self-seekers, for who would pay them any heed if they did?  But, they will insist on having new insights, greater revelation, deeper things of God.  It’s just Gnosticism rewrapped for the present day.  Here is the issue with, for example, the purveyors of the five-fold ministry.  Here is the issue with those who in years past have promoted prophecy over preaching.  Here is the issue with those that raise up physical healing to so great a height as to find its absence a cause for unbelief, if not caused by unbelief.

This, it seems to me, turns the heavenly order entirely on its head, insisting that the admittedly temporary blessings of physical health in this life are somehow of greater import than the possession of eternal life.  It comes down too close to a viewpoint that insists that if God won’t heal me now, then I have no reason to put my faith in Him.  But, real faith sees things much differently.  Whether in lean times or plenteous, I have learned the secret of being content (Php 4:11).  These maladies, though they pain me, are just circumstances.  Though they were to last a lifetime, yet they would be but momentary pains.  Eternity awaits, and in the meantime, “I am well content with weaknesses, insults, distresses, persecutions and difficulties for Christ’s sake.  For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2Co 12:10).  Yes, I know that last restricts itself to those things suffered for Christ’s sake.  But, if He is sovereign over all – and He is – and you have not caused your own suffering by self-inflicted wounds, on what basis would you say your circumstances are not for His sake?  Even if you set them forth as being the attack of the devil, even there our Lord remains in control, and His purpose prevails.  If God has His reasons for you being as you are, shall you make of them cause to disbelieve?  It is to your hurt that you do so.

Here is what I find Paul saying in this passage:  Fleshly deeds are evidence of spiritual needs.  The examples he has in view are those arguments, contentions, and divisions that arise from our tendency to form factions, to queue up behind whatever favorite teacher or leader we may choose.  But, the application runs wider.  Let me take it to this matter of healing.  There is nothing sinful, per se, about wishing to be healthy.  There is also nothing sinful, per se, about being ill or injured.  Neither cure nor its absence has anything to say as regards a person’s spiritual well-being.  That conclusion cannot be avoided.  That is not to reject the possibility of a connection, but we cannot insist on a connection.  Neither do we do our fellow man a service when we project the idea that physical healing or material provision carry more weight than spiritual health.  Indeed, if we insist on these things, what we demonstrate is our own spiritual need.  We are too focused on the fleshly indicators, and not enough on what God accounts as more important.  We are walking like men, and demonstrating that we remain no more than men.

What is Paul saying with that?  When he uses this term, he is saying that those who are acting in this fashion, thinking in this fashion, are still devoid of that spiritual nature so necessary to godliness.  We remain morally weak, with a demonstrated propensity for sin.  We are focused on body rather than soul, if you will.  There is every reason to question whether we should be accounted regenerate.  Now, that feels too strong a statement, doesn’t it?  After all, Paul is writing to the church.  Surely, these men who exercise spiritual gifts must be among the regenerate, mustn’t they?  And if we set the question of regeneration aside, well aren’t we all still fallen in our natures, morally weak and with a continued propensity for sin?  Granted, our perspectives are changing, and we seek to remain as free as we can from sin’s grip.  But, we all know that sin remains in us, the propensity to give it leash.

Were it not for Paul starting this point by identifying his hearers as brothers, I would think he might very well be declaring them unregenerate.  But, as brothers, we must recognize that he is addressing them as he advised the Galatians:  In hopes of restoration.  One cannot restore to spiritual health what has never known it in the first place.  One can only convert.  Further, I would argue that Scripture is pretty clear on the point that you cannot re-regenerate.  Having tasted the goodness of God and rejected it, such a man has trampled Christ underfoot, crucified Him once more, at least in thought, and there remains no further hope of heaven for such a one.  Clearly, that’s not where Paul sees this church, or he wouldn’t spend further time on them.

Is there, then, a category of believer we might call the carnal Christian?  Are there indeed those who are saved in truth, but demonstrate no evidence of this in practice?  No.  Neither are there to be found any who have reached perfection in this life.  We remain a mixed creature after redemption, men of flesh and spirit.  As Jesus noted with those best positioned to arrive at such perfection of faith, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt 26:41).  Sadly, the weakness of the flesh tends to win out with us.  We are in good company, though.  Even Paul knew these struggles, though some seek to deny it.  “I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Ro 7:23).  “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!  On the one hand I find myself serving the law of God with my mind, yet on the other hand I find my flesh serving the law of sin” (Ro 7:25).  Yet, this leads Paul to boldly proclaim, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro 8:1).

All of this must be held in mind as we consider the correction of this letter.  Perfection is the goal, but this life is entirely spent getting closer to the goal, never in reaching it.  The definition of maturity changes as we mature, such that we always have further to go, always have further to grow.

I think of the instructions given to me as a manager.  When it comes to reviewing your workers, you never give them a perfect score.  There’s always room for improvement.  Even if they excel, so far as you are concerned, they could do better, and if you present them with a perfect review, you deprive them of any motivation to do better.  If I’m doing the job perfectly now, I can just keep on as I am.  Maybe – maybe – one might arrive at such a standing in the workplace, but I doubt it.  In the progress of godliness, though, we shall never outgrow our need for Christ, our need for progress in sanctification.  We will consider to find ourselves in situations and with responses that demonstrate by our fleshly deeds that we do indeed have spiritual needs.  Praise God that He provides for our needs.

Father, may I never lose sight of the things You have been saying here.  I, too, am a man with spiritual needs, desperate needs.  I am acquainted with at least certain of my sins, and I know You are as well.  Whatever may be my current circumstance, and whatever it may be that You are calling me to do in Your service, it does not signify that I’ve arrived.  It signifies that You are great enough to achieve Your good purpose even through such poor materials as me.  Thank You.  Thank You that You do indeed provide for my every need, and that Your provision isn’t just a matter of food, clothing, and shelter, though You do wonderfully well in those areas, as well.  No.  Your provision is seeing to my spiritual need.  May I, then, take the correction You have offered in this brief study to heart, and may I find myself more merciful in disagreement, more willing to accept the good fruits of others without jealousy.  Where You are glorified, may I praise Your work whole-heartedly, even if I don’t entirely understand the means and the methods You have chosen.  May I never be found rejecting from fellowship one whom You have called Your own.  And may I, somehow, live in this manner even while holding to devotion to Your Truth.