Scandalous: Judgment or Grace

Which is more scandalous and remarkable?

That God judged and wiped out the world of Noah, Sodom & Gomorrah, and the Canaanites? Or that God gave them many years and even centuries in which to repent from their wickedness?

It was God's love and grace that He became human and gave Himself so that those who believe and rely on His redemption and grace would spend eternity with Him. It is a scandal of God's love and grace that He didn't wipe me off the face of the Earth the first time I sinned but am instead a beneficiary of His love and grace.

A Reason Why God Doesn't Show Himself? Maybe?

James 2:19 makes an interesting statement: You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. Satan and demons know for certain of God's existence, and are forced by that knowledge to believe in God. But it doesn't save them from their rebellion.

Were God to manifest Himself to humans so that His existence, majesty, power and love were undeniable, would that then make impossible salvation through faith in Jesus's death and resurrection?

Men and Women of Our Times?

I recently read http://danielsilliman.blogspot.de/2014/02/if-i-did-not-believe-god-loved-blackest.html, an article about racism among Pentecostals of a century ago. It gives a little general history of the Pentecostal movement, and of several notable men in its history. Particularly, it mentions a several men who affirmed the racial separation that was the norm of that era; not all were white.

Many years ago, now, I read an excellent biography of Martin Luther. Along with his accomplishments, it noted that, late in life, he also wrote and published some very ugly things about Jewish people. This was, at the time, new to me. I was raised in a Lutheran church, and his antisemitic writings were not taught. They might have remained ugly historical curiosities, but 4 centuries later, Adolph Hitler and other anti-Semites cited Luther's writings to bolster their credibility.

In both cases, it could, accurately, be said that they – Luther and racists/racialists among early Pentecostals – were “men of their times”. The writer of the article I linked above noted this idea … but went used over half of his article to give the histories of two white Pentecostal leaders who were not “men of their times”. They rose above their times, and they paid a price for it (not only with whites, BTW). One can only wonder what might have been – for them personally, the Pentecostal movement, and for the US – had many more Pentecostal leaders similarly and righteously refused to be “men of their times”.

I think this is the kind of thing Jesus had in mind when He prayed that believers not be “of the world”! Many Christians worry about and expend energy pointing out worldlinesses such as fashionable clothes, cosmetics, dancing, expensive cars and homes, music, gadgets, and such – and there certainly is room for concern. But aren't the compromises of being “men of their times” when the views and doings of “the times” are unrighteous far more “worldly” than the brand of clothing one wears or the the model of car one drives? Tossing out one's cosmetics or music collection is easy and cheap, not requiring any change of heart or loss of friends and social standing.

Now ... forget, for a moment, about the sins of men and women of the past. Don't point fingers at others' sins. Have the courage and faith to look in a mirror. Where do we (I!) now compromise with our society and culture over what God has said is right?

Rethinking Modern Church Practice, Part 2

I recently finished reading the Bible, Genesis through Revelation. One of the things that struck me was in 2 Timothy 2:2. Here, Paul instructs Timothy to train/appoint mature leaders who will, in turn, train and raise up the net generation of leaders in their congregations. Obviously, Paul was not committed to the idea that Jesus would return in his lifetime. Aside from that, note the leadership training process. Congregations were not to send of their brightest and best to a seminary tens or hundreds or thousands of miles away, and then receive as new leaders men or women who were chosen after brief acquaintance or appointed by some regional leader. Congregations were to train - in Scripture and in hands-on service (= ministry) - and develop their own leaders from within, and send out people to service elsewhere as the Holy Spirit led.

While there is significant value in learning the languages of Scripture and the teachings of Christians throughout history, I think much of value is sacrificed and lost in the farm-'em out model of leadership development. Churches, thereby, sidestep their responsibility to make disciples, leaving it to others. Potential leaders who cannot afford seminary (or whose gifts do not fit in a seminary) do not become what they could be. Leaders being developed in seminaries do not have the accountability they need and would get from a church whose members know them well. And churches select, or have imposed on them, leaders they don;'t know and who do not know them. Much vulnerability can come from that lack of knowledge, from incompatibilities and understandings to fraud and various sorts of abuse.

Rethinking Modern Church Practice, Part 1 (of ??)

One of the ideas I've long nursed came up recently in the discussions I was having regarding speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts. While there is no detailed instruction or description in the New Testament of the early church's "worship services" Paul does give some very interesting information about what was "normal" at the very beginning of the church:

When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26

That certainly sounds like pretty much no "worship service" I've ever seen! Paul's picture is of a meeting where - potentially and sometimes literally - contributed something to the overall worship and  building up of the assembled Body. Modern "worship services" are like a hybrid concert, stage production, and lecture. While this modern (and it is centuries old) performer--participative-audience model is a more organized and efficient for preplanned worship and teaching in a large group, it channels limits the work of the Holy Spirit. In fully scripted (= liturgical) churches, the Holy Spirit could almost go on a years long sabbatical, unnoticed.

It also severely limits the expression and variety of gifts that can be used in a gathering. Looking over the lists of spiritual gifts listed in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4,  some would be impractical or extremely difficult to express and oversee in the performer-audience worship service model. And those that do fit are limited to particular circumstances (e.g. "worship time", "offering time", "sermon time") and particular people (e.g. the worship leaders, the pastor or guest speaker).

All in all, the modern performer-audience worship service model does not fit Paul's "each one has a" and "(l)et all things be done". Does anyone sincerely believe we modern Christians are smarter than what Paul described and the Holy Spirit developed? Have we modern Christians improved on the early church? Or lost/discarded something extremely valuable? And have we done so for so long that we wouldn't recognize our loss or what Paul wrote of as normal?

The Gift of the Spirit, Spiritual Gifts, Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy, Part 14

What follows is pretty much an addendum to this post, http://soapypetesbox.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-gift-of-spirit-spiritual-gifts_7679.html. While reading in 1 Peter recently at the gym, I recognized that 1 Peter 4:10-11 probably refers to gifts of the Holy Spirit, generally and to a couple of gifts in particular:

1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; ...

I will not claim, with the same certainty as with 1 Corinthians 12, that these verses definitely speak of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but I will show reasons why I believe this to be the case. These 2 verses (actually, 1 1/2) are part of a larger context, verses 7-11, which are general instructions given to believers in light of the end of the world system being “near”.

The word in verse 10 translated "special gift" is the word karisma. While the literal meaning of this word is an unmerited favor or gift of grace, it is also the word Paul used throughout 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 and in Romans 12:6 to denote the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The word in verse 11 translated “speaks” is laleo. It is used in 1 Corinthians 12-14 in reference to speaking in tongues. The word is also, however, used to mean speaking, generally, including in those very same chapters of 1 Corinthians. I do not think, on the basis of this word alone, that it must refer to prophecy and/or speaking in tongues, but the word translated “utterances (of God)”, logion, does support that understanding. Logion means just as the NASB renders, an “utterance”; in the New Testament the word is specifically used to mean words spoken by God or an oracle of God (e.g. the Law given to Moses).

The word in verse 11 translated “serves” and “serving”, diakoneo, means an a servant or attendant who waits on some one's needs. It is used frequently in the New Testament to mean “serve” or “minister”, and is the Greek word from which we get the English word “Deacon”. It is also the verb form of the noun Paul used in the Romans 12 list of spiritual gifts for the gift of service. The clause, “as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies,” makes very clear that the serving to which Peter especially referred is more than just a natural ability, job or incidental action. Peter reminded his readers of the source of strength for their serving and urging them to make full use of their gift.

The brevity of these two verses and their context of a summary list of instructions, in my mind, preclude a definitive conclusion that these verse must specifically refer to gifts of the Holy Spirit. My opinion is that they do refer to the spiritual gift of service and to the gifts of prophecy, speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues, and I think the words of the text very strongly support this conclusion.

There is a significance to this passage beyond being yet another partial list of gifts of the Holy Spirit. It feels almost silly to point this out, but this is the one mention (that I've recognized, at least) of spiritual gifts that is not in a Pauline letter or in Acts (written by Luke, who ministered with Paul). Paul's writings are not, to me, any less authoritative as Scripture than, for example, the writings of Peter or John, but this demonstrates that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not peculiarly manifested in/through Paul's ministry or some figment of his imagination. As brief as this mention is, I believe it shows Apostles' recognition of the importance of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit that are above and beyond believers' natural abilities. This makes sense, generally, as believers should be reliant and dependent on God for and in all the ministries of the church and believers.

Did Paul Believe Jesus Would Return Within His Lifetime?

In reading 1 and 2 Timothy recently, I noticed something interesting. Both books include some teaching that I believe looks toward the "End Times". These passages have gotten their share of attention in the last several decades' books about eschatology. It is commonly believed that these teachings indicated that Paul believed that Jesus might return any time, possibly within Paul's lifetime.

What caught my attention was 2 Timothy 2:2: And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well. Follow the train of Paul's thought: he was a first-generation Christian leader; he had taught, mentored and apprenticed Timothy to be a second-generation leader; in this passage he urges Timothy to teach the next, third, generation of Christian leaders; so that they could then teach a succeeding, fourth, generation of Christian leaders.


While I'm sure Paul would not have minded had Jesus returned in his lifetime (and believed it possible), he anticipated the need for at least three generations of Christian leadership beyond himself (he probably meant for Christian leaders always to be preparing the next generation of leaders). Paul probably knew that he was unlikely to be alive when those third and fourth generation Christian leaders actual became leaders. In other words, Paul was very aware that Jesus might not return within his lifetime, and set things in motion toward the possibility that Jesus might not return for decades, centuries, or even millennia.