New Thoughts (1/26/03-1/27/03)
Scripture does not hold an exclusive claim to truth, but an ultimate claim. Can we accept this as fact? Can we look past the method used to convey the truth, and take the truth that was conveyed? In 1Thessalonians 5:19-22, Paul delivers a series of instructions for dealing with spiritual matters; revelations, prophecies, and the like. One part of the instruction given is to cling to what is good. Examine everything by the established word of God, and then hold on to what is shown good upon examination. We could stand to apply this same standard to other matters.
I see many in the church today who have taken a position that medical science should be rejected out of hand, not even given a hearing, because after all, God is our healer. I see many who look to diets, and homeopathic methods and somehow find that God is in these things in a way that He is not in science. On what basis are either of these opinions formed? In what way have they tested their beliefs against the truth of the Word? It is equally possible that grains of truth will be found in either of these fields, or in neither, or in both. But the fields may be clogged with weeds of wrong thinking. Nowhere that I have seen are we instructed to completely ignore these sources of understanding, only we are told to test them, and then accept only what is good and true.
What message did Paul declare? Whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, let your mind dwell on these things (Php 4:8). Paul was himself quite aware of other beliefs and understandings in the regions in which he preached. From them, he took such parts as were true, and put them to use in furthering the cause of the Gospel. We have an example of that before us in this section. The prophet he quotes in this passage was no prophet of God, no prophet of Israel, but a poet, an artist. With our modern sensibilities, much of us in the church today would not even listen to such a man, fearing his liberal thoughts. But Paul knew His God was able to use whom He would. He knew the message and the meaning of Balaam's ass. He took the truth where he found it, and disposed of the rest.
We cannot afford to limit God by our own understanding. We cannot insist that He only speak through the established order of the Church. Isn't this exactly what the Pharisees had done in Jesus' day? Isn't this exactly why they missed the most important event in the history God has written on the earth? Isn't this how they were blinded to the very hope they were seeking after?
By insisting that everything we hear must come solely from Christian sources, we put ourselves at an unnecessary disadvantage. Even a myth, a story of the imagination, may yet contain a great deal of reason, logic, and truth. It can be learned from. It must be tested before it is accepted, yet it is not to be rejected without a hearing. Newscasts today can be learned from, even though not everything heard is to be accepted. Any number of fallacies are put forth by the commentators, any number of ill-reasoned arguments. Again, it falls to us to be sufficiently wise to see the problems in their reasoning, to sift the truth out from what is said, reject what is at odds with God's teaching, and accept the rest.
I have watched members of our church family get in an uproar because one of our own is seeking help from the medical profession "instead of trusting in God." Apparently they haven't looked beyond their own preconceptions. Never have I seen before me such a solid example of trusting in God! Faith like this, these critics should be seeking for themselves! I have watched others reject the process of western medicine, and yet accept the precepts of eastern medicine as somehow being godly in nature. Are Buddhists, then, more trustworthy sources for us than atheists, or fellow Christians who may actually be participating in the health sciences? Can we really believe this? Ah, but eastern medicine has a more spiritual feel to it! When will we learn to test those spirits? Spiritual does not automatically equate to good. Demons are just as spiritual as angels, even disguise themselves as angels, according to the warnings given in God's good word. Test! Make sure of your sources! Then use what passes the test, whatever the source.
God is Truth. God is sovereign. We proclaim these things, we declare that we believe them. If we believe them, then why do we insist on telling God how He is allowed to speak His Truth to us? Is it not enough that He has given us the means to recognize His Truth when we come across it, wherever we come across it?
This brings me, in a roundabout way, to a topic I still struggle to settle within myself. There are large swaths of the Christian population who will outright deny the possibility that God still moves upon His people with the charismata known to the early church. They will declare that these were tools given only for a time, and only for the founding of the church, tools retired with the passing of the apostles from the scene. Such understanding does not necessarily deny that the gifts were really and truly present in that early church, these are not the liberal Christians who think the Bible no more than myth itself. They are solid believers in God's word.
But I cannot find a solid basis for their understanding on this. The basic foundation of this understanding lies upon the bedrock belief that the Scriptures are complete, neither to be added to nor subtracted from. This, I also believe. Yet, what they have built upon this belief in their case, I don't see. They point me to the opening of Hebrews, where we are told that in the past God spoke through prophets, and that in the present He has spoken through His Son, the very image of His own substance. Well and good. Does this then say that He stopped speaking thereafter?
There is another comment of Paul's that is often brought up as a basis for this understanding: 1Corinthians 13:10 - when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Those that see an end to direct communication from God tell us that Jesus was the perfection spoken of, and that He has come. Indeed, He is perfect, and He has come, but not yet to establish perfection upon the earth. The new heavens and new earth still lie ahead, the time when our own perfection will come. If this verse points to the end of the charismatic gifts, and points to Messiah as the endpoint, how is it that the verse was not even written until long after Messiah's departure? If Paul were telling us that these gifts had come to an end, why then is he so careful to instruct in their proper use?
Is it not as Augustine has said? He points out that so long as there is a tomorrow, we will have need of those who deliver God's warnings of what lies ahead. He points out the message that when we see Him, we will be like Him. We are not yet perfected. Perfection has not come to us, so we continue to need the imperfect understanding that we glean from these Spiritual sources. Then, we will know Him face to face. Then, we will hear from Him directly, fully, and immediately. Now, we hear from messengers, messengers unseen and unknown. Our hearing is yet imperfect and our understanding yet incomplete.
And this is where I see issues on the other side of the debate. I see those who most assuredly accept the continued communication of God through means above and beyond the record of Scripture. There remains a belief in prophecy, in miracles, in utterances of God through the mouths of men. But we have lost the care that was enjoined upon us by Paul's instruction. We are entirely ready to declare the 'amen' upon what has been said, without ever bothering to do as we were told: test. Test against what Scripture tells us. Is it God's Spirit that has spoken, or a deceptive voice? Is it truly an angel of light that delivers the message, or only one who disguises himself as such?
Study to show yourselves approved. Make careful search of the Scriptures to see if these things be so. Don't quench the Spirit, assuming He no longer speaks to men. Don't despise the prophetic word because of your skepticism. No! But examine everything, and examine it carefully. Measure it by God's Word. If it is good, hold fast to it, if it is evil reject it immediately, cast it far from you. And even then, don't do so in silence, but speak out the truth of God so that the error of that message stands revealed and exposed! If we fail of this, many families will be led astray. These are the instructions given us in Scripture!
Consider what Mr. Zodhiates has had to say in his definition of the word 'prophet:' As part of that definition, he tells us that the prophet maintains the direct contact between God and Church. Yet this is a man who fiercely denies the possibility that the charismata remain active! To me, this seems particularly sad in combination, for it suggests that Mr. Zodhiates believes that there is no longer a direct contact between God and Church. In truth, among many segments of that Church, it would seem that this may be so. But is it because God has ceased from speaking, or only that man has ceased from listening?
Paul shouts out that he will pray both with the spirit and with the mind, that he will sing both with the spirit and with the mind. Jesus tells us that God seeks those who will worship in Spirit and in Truth. God is Spirit. It is the spirit of man that survives the grave. These things, even the most conservative of religious scholars accept and believe. Paul enjoined the Corinthians to seek after gifts of tongues and prophecy. Why? Does it seem likely that Paul, so focused on the kingdom and on the eternal, would encourage his flock to pursue such passing matters? If the gifts of the Spirit were not restricted to the Apostles in their giving, on what basis are they declared dead with the Apostles' passing? Throughout the ages, God has spoken to His people through various people, through various means. God is not a man that He should change. On what basis, then, dare we declare that He no longer speaks? He is there, and He is not silent. That was the message of Francis Schaeffer's great work. Indeed, He shouts from the pages of Scripture, but can we honestly say it stopped there?
How much of the denial of these less concrete forms of communication is in reality a bowing to the rationality of modern man? How much of it is an echo of that same mindset that has declared the Bible to be no more than myth, because we want to be comfortable amongst the unbelieving population around us? In so guarding the gates of truth, how much of the Truth have we refused entry to? Gates block traffic in both directions.
Zodhiates also tells us that the prophet must both hear from God, and clearly speak out what he has heard. A hearty amen to that! The prophet should be the first to make certain of their sources. The warnings to those who would prophesy are great, and the penalties for prophesying falsely ought to be sufficient to shake the prophet to his heart. But the responsibility does not end with him. We, too, are given responsibility; responsibility to test what we have heard. Let one or two prophesy, Paul instructs us, and let the rest judge their words. This is where we are failing in the Charismatic church. We've lowered the standard and said, 'let them prophesy, and the rest shout the amen.'
There is a great danger when men of clear speech speak, but not from God. Paul warned of this danger in his letters to Timothy. People, he said, will come to be more concerned with interesting speeches than in accurate doctrine (2Ti 4:3-4). In fact, they will refuse to hear the truth, because it's no longer new and fresh, it no longer entertains, and it certainly doesn't satisfy their fleshly desires. No, they will seek out those who will feed their fantasies instead. The time will come, Paul said. I would suggest the time now is. We live in an age when Christians jump from church to church, looking for one that will tolerate their particular peccadilloes. They want the comfort and assurance that God loves them, but preferably free of the responsibility of loving God in return, of hearing His loving correction and responding. What a poison this has become to the Church!
Today, many are willing to mix Christianity with whatever other beliefs they may happen to hold. This is why new-age religions are so well accepted, why the Unitarian Universalists are accepted; for the very basic reason that they lay no specific requirements on anybody on any topic. It's a pick-and-choose religion. In this, we show that our current culture is not terribly far removed from the Greek and Roman cultures of Jesus' own day. There are any number of gods out there for folks to pursue, and they needn't restrict themselves to just one. They can piece together the bits of this god and that as they like, until they have succeeded in making their god in their own image.
The great power of Christianity is that it seeks to do the exact opposite. It doesn't try to derive God, it begins from God. It doesn't try to approach some human ideal, it seeks to move humanity to approach God's ideal. The great power of Christianity is that it doesn't rest on the powerful oratory of its proponents, it's not a matter of sounding good. It is good. It's power rests on Truth, an unshakable bedrock, which will stand up to all the testing of reason and remain unchanged. After all, reason is founded on truth, when its tools are turned upon Truth, there will be nothing to chisel away. If sound and honest reason could succeed in destroying the Truth of God, it would inevitably destroy itself in the process, for it would be attacking its own foundation.
Christianity is not a comfortable message, although it gives great comfort to those who know and believe. It is a hard message. Throughout Scripture, we encounter those who came up hard against the truth that was being taught. Many of these could not accept the truth revealed, and turned aside to follow after something more palatable. Jesus did not deliver a 'seeker friendly' message, as we would term it today. Even as He sought out those who would worship in Spirit and Truth, He was winnowing out the partially committed, the pretenders, those who saw in this ministry a business opportunity, or a means of gaining status. Christ set the cost of discipleship high, and He made that cost very clear to all who would follow Him. This was not elitism. It was simple honesty, the Truth speaking. "Count the cost," He said. There's no room for the half-hearted, they won't survive. Commit in full, or don't commit at all, for it's a fearful thing to make a false vow before our God.
Here's another place where the situation of the modern church, with all this church-hopping activity by its members, has been severely weakened. It's the very place that Paul is addressing throughout this letter we are studying. Discipline and order are being lost. Accountability is being lost. Look at his instructions in 1Timothy 5:20: Publicly rebuke the sinner! How counter is that to our thinking? We always turn back to the clause that says if we have something against our brother, we are to go to him in private and seek resolution. Is this a contradiction? I don't think so. I think we have confused the purpose of this latter instruction. I can see to possible ways to resolve this.
First, the message about our having something against our brother is not a message about our brother's sin, it's about our own. Anger and unforgiveness are sin in us. How dare we, says Jesus, come before the throne of God bearing such things in our hearts! Deal with your sin, then come before God. Paul's message, on the other hand, has to do with a recalcitrant, unrepentant sinner. They speak to very different situations.
Alternatively, it may be a matter of degree. We are instructed that love covers a multitude of sins (1Pe 4:8), that if we turn our brother from his sin, we have won his soul (Mt 18:15). Look now at Jesus' full instructions in that passage: The first step is to seek him out in private (love covers). If that is unsuccessful, the issue is to be escalated, go once more, but bring others to witness and confirm the truth of the matter. If even this fails to dissuade the sinner from his course, if he will not even accept the discipline of the church, turn him away as an outcast. Suddenly, it all begins to fit together! The message Paul was giving to Timothy relates solely to this last stage of discipline. He is addressing the case of those who simply will not stop pursuing their sins. In this case, he says, rebuke them publicly. Don't surreptitiously turn them out, and leave people wondering where they got off to. Make it abundantly clear exactly what has occurred. Why? Paul points to one answer: it will discourage those who remain from pursuing sin in their own lives.
If left untreated, this disease of sinfulness would have spread. The church would have fallen into licentiousness, and begun taking their liberty as license. Has this not happened over and over again when the church turns a blind eye on the habits of its members? I have seen another danger in the silent purification which seeks to minimize the painfulness of discipline. When the reasoning is not made plain before the church, the church will make up its own reasons, and it will gladly listen to whatever reasons any may have to offer. In this fashion, discipline leads to division, and the people die for lack of knowledge. No, shouts Paul! Keep it out in the open! Be transparent about the maintaining of discipline! Let those who would follow a similar path be forewarned, and saved from their own natures. Let those who would take advantage of opportunity to disturb the flock be defeated at the outset by open and honest governance!
Now, when I first saw this verse in conjunction with Paul's words to the Corinthians, I again saw an apparent contradiction. Here, he had told Timothy to publicly rebuke the unrepentant sinner, and now he tells the Corinthians that he has decided to write to them while away from them, so that he won't have to be the disciplinarian when he arrives (2Co 13:10). What's up with that? Is Paul creating a double standard here? In retrospect, no. Even in this letter, his rebuke of their sinfulness is quite public, isn't it. Even today we know of the sad situation of the Corinthian church. Christians throughout history have, and will continue to be aware of their shortcomings. It doesn't get much more public than that! But, God's example is discipline with mercy. This is how He treated us, and certainly how He dealt with Paul. How could Paul but do likewise?
Certainly, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, he was responsible to assure their spiritual well-being to the best of his ability. Certainly, he was responsible for keeping them on a sound footing. But, he was also responsible for modeling God's own ways to these people, a people who had not the advantage of being raised in lifelong understanding of their relation to God. Authority is given by God. But, it is not given to whom it is given that they may destroy their subjects. It is not to be abused. Authority is given with purpose: to build up the people of God.
This is true for governments. It is all the more true for church leadership. All who have been given this authority would do well to engrave this verse on their hearts, to have it before their eyes in every situation. Before, during, and after every giving of counsel, the question should loom before them: how am I using my authority, am I strengthening the body, or bringing its destruction? Again, I will point out that we are all called to live as candidates for authority. We are all to lead lives that would be qualified to serve if the call came. We, too, should be asking this question of ourselves in each and every situation we face: how am I handling myself, how am I directing my words? Am I seeking to build up the body, am I strengthening what remains? Or am I building up my own self-image by tearing down and destroying?
Father, I stand guilty before this message. I have allowed myself to come into Your presence with the audacity to seek from You what I will not give to others: forgiveness. I have allowed pride to poison my efforts 'on Your behalf.' Too often, it has been on my behalf. Oh, that my repentance might be real! Oh, that as I ask Your forgiveness, that as I pledge to put this away from me, it will be put away in truth. Lord, give me a heart to forgive the hurts, to forgive the shortcomings in others that I so despise in myself. No more! Let my eyes be on You, and on what You show me of me. Let my concern for propriety focus on my own needy state. Help me, Lord, to take the beams out of my eyes.
