A Great Article by Fob James on Christian Authority

One of the delights of Internet writing is making new friends who have so much to contribute to the people of Christ. One such new friend is Fob James. Fob is a semi-retired lawyer from Alabama. He wrote to me after my last post on the problem of authoritarianism in the church and told how he had become interested some years ago in how theologians routinely change the vernacular of scripture, creating theologies based on personal inferences. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:13 writes, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."  Fob pointed out to me that attorneys change legal vernacular all the time to promote personal agendas and he believes theologians are no more prone to be honest with scriptural language than lawyers are with legal language. Fob is the son of a two-term Alabama Governor and has written various "pro bono" briefs for his father in the seventies and then again in the nineties, concentrating on church-state cases.  You may reach Fob at fob@email12.info if you have questions about the following guest article. Fob has written for my readers a few of the things Fob and his wife have discovered about so called Christian "authority" over the last few years. For those of you who emailed me and said that you are facing difficult struggles in churches where men are alleging to have "authority" over you, I urge you to read the following article by Fob James and if you have further questions, drop him an email. He has done some excellent work on the subject of authority, showing how real authority flows from the gospel, and how the unbliblical and worldly concept of authority as "power and control" has come to dominate Christian leadership. Read on...

_______________


"In the New Covenant scriptures, only the apostle Paul speaks of "authority" (exousia) in the context of leadership in the churches.  The most descriptive words he uses to describe that "authority," which he (and others) exercise with tenderness and tears and sometimes toughness, are  "authority in the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:18) and "authority given... [by the Lord]...for edification and not destruction." (2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10)  The words "authority in the church" or their equivalent cannot be found in scripture. 

In fact, "church" (ekklesia) and "authority" (exousia) never even appear in juxtaposition in the scriptures.  The word "authority" (exousia) is never mentioned in regard to elders, pastors, deacons, prophets, local churches, or even any apostles, except for Paul himself and those who labored with him in the gospel. Not even Peter is said to have had "authority," even though Peter clearly had authority in the gospel in fact.  "Keys" and "Open Doors" for instance signify authority.

The word "authority" (exousia) is mentioned in the Revelation of John, when "overcomers" in the church of Thyatira will be given "authority over the nations," at the judgment of the world, to rule them with a "rod of iron."  (Rev. 2:26)  Evidently a lot of people for a long time have wanted to get a head start on their potential reward at the end of days, and rule not the world, but the church, with a" rod of iron" until the end comes.


The common lingo of today (and almost the last 2000 years) such as  "church authority" or "church government" would sound weird to the writers of the New Testament.  I think this lingo also grieves the Holy Spirit, because it isn't His words.  It is clear that the Holy Spirit backs up those who have authority "in the gospel."  No church membership covenant or the like can substitute for the real authority that comes from the Holy Spirit.  Many who actually do the work of the Lord today do not have titles.  But they do have authority in the gospel.  And by the way, we all have been given a gospel commission - it can be found it in Matthew 28. Another one, especially meaningful, is found in 1 Cor. 15:58, which reads, "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord."

The biggest eye-opener to me on "authority" came when I was noticing Paul's constant language about things "in the Lord."   "In the Lord?"  I went to a bible website called "Blue Letter Bible" and read every occurrence of the words "In the Lord" (or equivalents such as In Him, In Christ, In Whom, In God, In Jesus, etc.) in scripture.  There are over 250 instances of these terms.  In contrast, there are about a dozen instances of "in the church."  I do not detract from the importance of "in the church," but point out that "in the church" has been extensively used by American "theologians" (of almost every evangelical stripe) to the exclusion of the words actually chosen by the Holy Spirit for a lot of things believers should do.  For instance, do the scriptures talk about "receiving one another," that is, other believers, "in the church" or "in the Lord?"  Look it up.  Go further and read all 250+ occurrences of "in the Lord" and its equivalents (In Him, In Christ, In Whom, In God, In Jesus), and see what it does in your heart.  See what it does to your fear of man.  See what it does for your understanding of "authority" and every group out there that requires you to promise to submit to their "authority" in order to be allowed into the "group."

The scriptures teach mutual submission among believers, and a proper respect, indeed an esteem, for true leadership/eldership as exemplified by Paul and the other writers of the scriptures.  The scriptures do not teach a "covenant of submission" to anyone.  You submit as warranted by scripture, you do not make a vow or covenant to submit to man. 

There is a lot more to say on this.  Suffice it for now:  the Galatian error remains with us.  Supplemental covenants to recognize "church authority" or "make a radical commitment to the local church," etc., are everywhere in America, among just about every group.  These supplemental covenants are the true "foundations" of many turf-driven works of the flesh.  The end result is that they substitute a work of the flesh for that of the Spirit.  The ecclesiological "commitment" (paratithemi) that scripture actually teaches is a commitment to the scriptures themselves, which is a commitment to the gospel.  The gospel is essentially that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures.  It is the New Covenant in His body and blood alone that the Holy Spirit honors.  This is the Covenant the Lord told us to remember and proclaim until He comes again.  So, next time someone says that you need an extra authority-covenant, or extra unity-commitment, or the like, to be fully admitted to "their" fellowship, don't fall for it.  If they press you, you might also consider telling them this.  IT IS FINISHED."

Our Problem Is Authoritarianism and Not Legalism

I used to think the problem in modern Christianity was legalism. I was wrong. I now see that some Christians flaunt their freedom and taunt their foes while other Christians consult their legal formulas and insult their libertine friends. One man's freedom is another man's sin, but both groups suffer from a much larger problem.  The church of Jesus Christ in the 21st century is losing its power because of an infatuation with authority. It is authoritarianism, not legalism, that has become the biggest challenge Christians face. William Bausch, church historian par excellence, has correctly written, "No cultic priesthood is to be found in the New Testament. Yet we are importing Old Testament Levitical forms and imposing them on Christian ministry."

The world has established systems of governance with imperial forms of authority, governance similar to that of the Hebrews in the Old Covenant. The Hebrews looked--and the world looks--to positions of authority for their leadership. Webster's defines authority as "the power to influence thought, opinion, or behavior by convincing force or control." Governments have authority. Kings have authority. Presidents have authority. The Hebrew priests had authority. The control or force these systems of governance exert vary, but the authority is similar. Leadership comes from people in higher positions of authority.

The church of Jesus Christ was never designed to operate in this manner. Jesus explicitly taught in Matthew 23:8-11 (read it for yourself to see) that the only person who rules Christian communities is the Lord Himself. Under Him, we are all equals. He emphatically rejected the world's system of top-down governance by declaring, "It shall not be so among you" (Mark 10:43). "The greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11). There is no emphasis in the New Testament on authority that is derived from any "office" or position. Let me repeat that again: Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that a Christian, because of title or position, has moral authority over another Christian. The idea of an 'office' of authority in the church, like that of the office of  'President of the United States,' simply does not exist. Christ alone has the position of authority in the church and He has no vicar on earth but His Spirit, who resides in the life of every believer.

The King James Version unfortunately translates the Greek word diakonia as  "office" in Romans 11:13, but diakonia is always elsewhere properly translated as "service" or "servant." Christians serve others and any leadership in the church flows from this selfless service and oversight of others; pagans seek offices that grant authority so that their leadership (lordship) over other people is inherent to their positions or titles. Christians morally persuade others by our love and grace; pagans morally coerce others by their positions of authority. When Christians act like pagans, they turn their homes, churches, and organizations into structures of authority where everybody is coerced to submit to the authority and control of another person in a higher 'position' of authority. The equality of New Covenant believers in Christ is lost because Old Covenant Levitical forms of authority are imposed on Christian ministry.

How does one know if the Christian community or church to which he or she belongs is following Christ's teachings on leadership or is a reflection of the pagan's understanding of authority? What are the signs imperial authoritarianism in the church? The following are ten indicators:

(1). There is never any freedom to question the leader.
(2). The leader often makes claims of having special insights from God, insights that the laity are unable to possess.
(3). Disagreement with the leader is deemed a sign of the devil's influence in one's life.
(4). Events are designed to bring attention and praise to the leader rather than equipping others to do the work of the ministry.
(5). Any concept of equality is immediately labeled rebellion or the end result of a "liberal" denial of the Bible.
(6) Authoritarian leaders are only comfortable around like-minded leaders; thus, there is an unoffical 'speaking tour' where only imperial, authoritarian leaders share the platform with each other.
(7). The measure of success becomes the number of people who follow the leader ("It must be of God! Look at how many come to hear me speak!")
(8). If a person leaves the community or church, the problem is always in the person who leaves, not the leadership.
(9). Leaders who wrongly perceive themselves as those "with authority" insulate their lives by demanding absolute loyalty through giving large financial benefits to their closest 'advisors.'
(10). The ultimate end of this kind of Christian leadership is always more; more money, more power, more followers, more publicity, more, more, more...

The people of Christ are beginning to awaken to the abuses in the modern church. Whereas I thought it important in years past to challenge the legalism prevalent in the Southern Baptist Convention, I have become utterly convinced that the major problem in modern Christendom is authoritianism, not legalism. Ask yourself if you are in a place of worship where there is always a fresh, radical presentation of the freedom and equality of individual followers of Christ. If not, consider leaving, because in the end you will find your Christian community was never really about Christ or His people at all.

The At-One-Ment: The Heart of the Gospel

In 1525 Englishman William Tyndale (1494-1536) began working on the first English translation of the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. John Wycliffe (1328-1384) who lived almost two centuries prior to Tyndale, is often considered the father of the English Bible, but Wycliffe had only translated the Latin Vulgate into English. The Wycliffe Bible was highly Latinized and contained many Roman Catholic superstitions that Tyndale sought to correct. Tyndale took the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and faithfully translated the Word of God into the common English of his day, avoiding Latin and high church phraseology.

Tyndale, the consumate scholar, worked hard to precisely translate the Bible into English. Hebrew and Greek words are much more precise than their English counterparts. For example, one single Hebrew root word kippur and its Greek equivalents katallagee (katallagh) and hilasteerion (ilasthrion) have been translated in our modern English Bibles as pardon, grace, mercy, reconciliation, satisfaction, propitiation, ransom, etc.... Tyndale wished to be as precise as possible in his translation, so he coined (created) a new English word to translate kippur, katallagee and hilasteerion--the word atonement. Let me say that again: William Tyndale coined the word "atonement." If you ever hear a debate about "the doctrine of the atonement," you need to understand what is being debated; it is pardon, grace, mercy, reconciliation, satisfaction, ransom, propitiation, etc... that is being debated, because everyone of these English words translates the same Hebrew and Greek words for which Tyndale created the word "atonement."


At-one-ment. The last portion of the word, the suffix 'ment,' means "the result of a process." In Tyndale's understanding of the Bible, the result of the process of Christ's death on the cross is God and sinners  are at "at-one." Tyndale understood  that the words kippur and hilasterion pointed to God’s initiative in reconciling sinners unto Himself.  Tyndale believed deeply that holy Scripture was preeminently concerned with how a sinner becomes fully accepted by God and thus becomes one with God. Tyndale saw this atonement process as God's work alone. Tyndale believed the Scriptures to teach, rightfully so, that Christ’s death is the event God has chosen whereby sinners receive full acceptance from Him; it is the at-one-ment. Tyndale has a great deal of company in his orthodox views of the death of Christ. William Romanine puts it like this:


“There is no salvation without righteousness, and it is of the Lord’s free grace that he (the sinner) is received as righteous, through the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith. Christ’s righteousness can be made ours only by imputation. As our sins were actually imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is actually imputed to us. The Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all, and therefore He was wounded for our transgressions, and was bruised for our iniquities. As He thus took our sins upon Himself, so we by faith take His righteousness upon us, and by it are saved" (The Whole Works of the Late Reverend William Romaine A. M., London, 1837, p. 789).


In summary, the cross is God's initiative in bringing sinners into His full acceptance. There is no love of God without the cross of Christ. There is no blessing of God apart from the death of Christ. There is no gospel without the cross. It is in the death of Christ that the mercy and grace of God meet the sin and failure of man and God demonstrates that "He is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). God makes sinners 'at-one' with Himself in full acceptance of those sinners through the 'ment' of Christ's death. In the next post I will show that Christians can and do disagree over the extent of the atonement. However, it is clear from Scripture that the sinner who denies that reconcilation with God comes through the death of Jesus Christ is spitting in the face of grace and imperiling his or her soul. You may be religious and deny the at-one-ment, but you are without God's favor if you do. Logically you may say God will love me "no matter what," but revelation declares, "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry." To the world this gospel is foolish, but for those of us who are being saved it is the power of God to deliver us from our condemned state (Romans 1:16). The cross is the heart of the gospel and the essence of Christian faith, and without it there no reconciliation with God.

I Pray that My Theology of God Will Never Be More Vital to Me than My Passion for God

"The African witches surrounded our South African home every day. They placed their ancient curses on me and my family because they didn't like us telling their fellow Africans about Christ. They painted themselves white, conducted blood rituals, and danced in circles as they invoked the dark spirits to do us harm. At first we prayed and asked God to protect us. Soon, there came a settled peace that "He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world." The African witches, however, kept coming to our house. Day after day they showed up to cast their spells. Finally, one of the young Africans whom we had led to Christ and was living with my family read from the Word and said to us, "I see here that Jesus says, 'Bless those that curse you...' We haven't yet blessed the witches!" We watched as our young convert to Christ walked out to the street with some water and said to the witches in their native tongue, "I've come to bless and help you. I commend you for your dedication to your cause. You come day after day to pronounce curses on us, curses that will never work, but you never give up. That's to be admired. Would you like some water? It's hot and I know you must be tired. Please know that if there is anything that you need or if there is something that we can do for you, just knock on our door and ask us. We will help. You are welcome to stay for dinner if you are hungry instead of going home." The witches stared at this Christian who blessed them as they cursed  him. Within a few minutes they left our house and have never returned."

The above story was told me this morning by a 31-year-old man named Jeff Reid; the witches were trying to curse him and his family. Jeff lives in South Africa in ghettos surrounding Capetown, ministering to the poor the gospel of Christ. I was introduced to Jeff this weekend by friends and fellow church members Bryan and Tara Riley. Jeff's passion spoke to me. When he was a seventeen-year--old drug addict, Jeff found himself in a California prison for men because of his crimes. One day a prison evangelist came and shared Christ with Jeff. The Holy Spirit took hold of Jeff through the preaching of the gospel and transformed him from the inside out. Jeff went to prison all tatted up, but the biggest tattoo he ever received was from the hands of God when the Holy Spirit tapped his heart. Having only the Bible to read for the next year, and going to prison 'church' with other convicts who had also come to faith in Christ while in prison, Jeff's Christian faith was fashioned in the crucible of America's prison system. Upon his release, Jeff didn't know any better but to go back to his old San Diego hangouts and share Christ with the people to whom he once sold drugs. Eventually Jeff felt God calling him overseas to share Christ with the poor in countries other than America. While in discipleship training sponsored by Youth With a Mission, Jeff met his wife Bethany. They are now ministering in the ghettos of South Africa through YWAM. Jeff speaks of Christ with an intimate passion. Their ministry base in South Africa is a former home of a notorious drug lord who had been the recipient of Jeff's love and "wanted to give to the missionaries" a place to minister. Jeff spoke to several groups at our church this weekend, and the story of the witches cursing him struck me because of the simplicity of taking Jesus at his word and doing it. Too many of us in America's Bible belt analyze, theorize, and systemetize the Bible instead of doing what the Bible says.

Jeff emphasized that sometimes we get so caught up in theology and having all the right answers that we miss the power of the Spirit through intimate relationship. Jeff recounted how at a discipleship conference for YWAM leaders,  a prominent theologian sought to demonstrate how to share Christ to antaganistic people. He took a group of trainees into the city and found a pretty rough, cynical crowd of young people. He began telling them of the Bible and Jesus. The theologian spoke at length, using his best rhetorical and intellectual skills. Finally, some guy shouted out, "If the Bible is true and evolution is not, then why do men have nipples?" The scholar, stumped for an answer, said, "You know I'll get back with you on that one." Though I laughed at the question of the skeptic as Jeff told me the story, what struck Jeff Reid was that nobody in the park came to Jesus through the scholar's arguments. He's also pretty sure that had the scholar actually come back with an answer to the nipple question, there still would have been no conversions to Christ.

On the other hand, in the city that same day,  a skateboarder who had recently come to faith in Christ was sharing Jesus with his friends. The skateboarder didn't know much theology. He wasn't an eloquent scholar like the theologian, but what the skateboarder did have was a passion for his friends to know Christ. He would simply walk up to fellow skateboarders and ask, "Hey, what would you say if I told you that the marijuana you are smoking to get high on is a sorry substitute for the real power that comes from God and gets you higher than a kite?" Curious, the skateboarders would ask for it to be demonstrated. The new believer would tell his friends what had happened to him when came to know Christ and after sharing the gospel he would take his friends by the shoulders and begin tenderly praying over them and asking the Holy Spirit to do for them what the Holy Spirit had done for him. Soon, the Spirit would take captive the heart of the sinner for whom the skateboarder was praying. Would it surprise you to know that the skateboarder was actually leading people to Christ through his passion to see lives changed while the theologian struggled to find an answer to the 'nipple question' in his passion to see minds changed?

I'm grateful for the reminder today that both theology and passion are important, but theology without passion is worthless. A passion to know God intimately and a desire to make God known personally transform the community around us. My prayer today is that my theology of God will never be more vital to me than my passion for God. 

"The Office of President Belongs to the American People and Is Not For Sale" - Harry Truman

The following information about former President Harry Truman (pictured left with his wife Bess) was sent to me by one of my church members.  My friend is always sending me interesting anecdotes from history, and this is one I found quite fascinating. Though I don't agree with all the politics Mr. Truman cherished, I sure do wish a new President of the United States would arise with some of the same personal principles regarding government compensation held by Mr. Truman.  Read on... "Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father. Other than their years in the White House, the Trumans lived their entire lives in that house in Independence. When Mr. Truman retired from office in 1952, his sole income was a United States Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There were no Secret Service agents following them.When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale." Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, 'I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise.'  As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale (cf. Illinois). Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, 'My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!'

I say dig him up and clone him!"

Tim Tebow Represents Well What It Means to Be a Follower of Jesus Christ

There was a day I didn't like Tim Tebow as a football player. He represented the enemy. He quarterbacked the University of Florida and his team played my beloved Oklahoma Sooners in the BCS National Championship Game. Rachelle and I were in Miami for the January 8, 2009 game, and we arrived at the stadium a couple of hours early. We stood right behind a small barricade outside of the stadium, just in front of the Florida locker room. We seemed to be the only Oklahoma fans in a sea of Florida fans. When the buses pulled up we happened to be the two people closest to the door of the second bus--the one from which Tim Tebow disembarked.  He stepped off the bus, not two feet in front of us, and everybody began  screaming his name. He glanced at us, saw our Oklahoma garb, and with a little smile on his face, let out a primordial roar that sent the Florida fans into a frenzy. I turned to Rachelle and said, "Uh oh. Oklahoma's in trouble. Tebow's fired up." Sure enough, Florida won on the back (or should I say 'legs') of Tim Tebow. I didn't like Tebow as a football player in 2009.

I have come to love Tim Tebow as a person in 2012. After three years of learning more about Tim Tebow there is a great deal that I've discovered that causes me to admire this young man who is the age of my oldest son. He's bold about his faith in Jesus Christ. He's humble about his accomplishments. He has a solid perspective on what's really important in life.  You can't read this article on Tim Tebow,  posted yesterday by award-winning sports writer Rick Reilly, and not be moved by Tebow's Christianity. Tebow's favorite verse is John 3:16. In the extraordinary win against Pittsburgh last Sunday Tim Tebow threw for 316 yards. His average yards per completion was 31.6 yards. The Neilson T.V. rating in the fourth quarter was 31.6. Twitter buzzed about the first names of the four referees who called the game--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It seems somebody else is interested in Tim Tebow's testimony as well. Witches are now lining up to cast their spells against him.

In an age and day when a few religious evangelical professionals are causing Christians some justified shame, Tim Tebow has given us something for which we can be proud--a consistent witness for Christ through both his words and his life. Well done Tim Tebow. Whether you win or lose against the Patriots today, God has  already made you a winner in the game of life.  

The Frozen Chosen Are Leading the Blind Off a Rooftop Into Hell

Yesterday I spent my second day interviewing an 82-year-old man who is telling me his life story. Born in 1929 to a poor Oklahoma whiskey bootlegger, losing his eye in a knife accident at the age of three, raised in a home where birthdays and Christmas were never celebrated because of abject poverty, and only hearing the name of God or Christ used in epitaths, this gentleman--and I mean gentle man--has overcome long odds against him to become a highly successful businessman in Oklahoma. I listened yesterday as this man shared with me how Christ changed his life at the age of 26. He and his 22-year-old wife were saved on the same day. How did it happen? A co-worker in the oil fields of New Mexico took the time to share Christ with the young couple. He wasn't pushy. He asked questions of a spiritual nature, but he expressed his love through his friendship toward the young couple. In time, because of the influence of this co-worker, the man and his wife attended church for the first time in their lives. They went at the invitation of their friend to a small Baptist church called Loveland Baptist Mission. "We didn't know what to expect, but the preacher--an older man who had experience in the oil fields himself--began to talk about Jesus Christ. He didn't use flowery words, and he didn't distract us with us with silly illustrations. He spoke from his heart and explained how Jesus Christ came and died for people who have messed up their lives like he had, and how Christ has the power to change the lives of those who will surrender to Him. At the conclusion of the message the pastor invited people to place their faith and confidence in Christ. As my wife and I looked at each other with tears in our eyes, we both knew that we needed Christ. That day my wife and me were both saved. God worked us over from head to foot. We were never the same. It was the most important day of my life!"

As I listened to my aged friend emotionally describe his conversion experience, and knowing the "success" he has (as the world defines success), I was struck by the depth of his feelings about the day of his conversion. You could see it in his eyes. You could hear it in his voice. Christ meant the world to him. I spent the next eight hours typing this portion of his narrative for his family members and arrived home around midnight. I checked my email and found a question from a pastor asking me about my Augustine post (from yesterday) and the feelings I had about Pastor Ed and his wife Lisa Young placing their bed on top of their church's roof for 24 hours to promote their new book on sex called Sexperiment: Seven Days to Lasting Intimacy with Your Spouse. I had heard about the promotion for the book, but I decided to log-in this morning and watch Pastor Ed and Lisa--in their bed on the roof of the church--as they answered interview questions about their sex life and the new book.  I was still a little tired from the night before, but I listened carefully to Ed and Lisa as they bundled up against the twenty degree temperatures of early morning Dallas.  After being given a vivid visual for the phrase "The Frozen Chosen," I found my mind drifting toward the interview I had the day before.  My elderly friend had movingly described for me how he and his wife--at the time a young couple in the prime of their lives, the very group Ed and Lisa are targeting--had been transformed by a pastor's message on the person and work of Jesus Christ. A few questions came to mind as I gazed at the LiveFeed of Pastor Ed and Lisa on the roof of their church:

(1). Do people know that even if their sex lives improve, they are still headed for a date with hell, unless they come to place their confidence and faith in Christ?
(2).  Do Christian people understand the importance of taking the time to thank those pastors and teachers who instruct us of Christ and His death--a message deemed "foolish" by the world and the cause of much ridicule--but the only message God uses to change lives?
(3). Could there possibly be some eighty-year-olds--sixty years from now--who curse the day they ever fell under the teaching of a preacher who taught them how to have better sex?
(4). Is it too harsh to say that any Christian preacher who spends time, money and effort to encourage people how to have better sex--while in bed with his wife on the roof of his church--may actually be guilty of leading the blind off a rooftop into hell?

When I get to heaven I want to find that pastor at Loveland Baptist Mission, Loveland, New Mexico. Fifty-five years ago he spent a week preparing a message about Christ. He walked into the church building that next Sunday morning and saw a new young couple had been seated on the front row.  He didn't try to impress them with his knowledge about anything but Christ. He preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That preacher's message led my blind friend to saving faith in Christ and impacted an entire generation of people within the state of Oklahoma.  Thank you, my pastor friend, for a job well done. May your tribe increase.

Evangelicals and Excessive Sex: Mark Driscoll and Ed Young from Augustine's Perspective

There is a proliferation of sex manuals, sex sermons and sex talks within the evangelical Christian community. From Mark Driscoll's sometimes crude and vulgar discussions of sex in his 'exposition' of Solomon's Song, to the extraordinary theatrics of Ed Young in promoting his new book Sexperiment, modern evangelicals seem infatuated with sex. If you intituitively feel something is not quite right with such an overemphasis on the pleasures of sex, but you are not quite sure how to define what you are feeling, then I refer you to St. Augustine.

In the early 5th century Augustine wrote two volumes on sex. In his book entitled The Good of Marriage and a follow-up treatise on the blessings of celibacy called On Holy Virginity, Augustine defends the superiority of celibacy while at the same time maintaining the dignity and genuine goodness of marriage as God intended it. Though Augustine wrote during a time much different than ours, and we would not agree with every argument he makes, Augustine should still be considered by us modern evangelicals as a valid resource on the subject of sex for two reasons: (1). Augustine was forthright and transparent about his own battles with sexual addiction prior to his conversion, an account of which can be read in Augustine's Confessions, and (2). Augustine possessed a brilliant theological mind.  R.C. Sproul maintains there has never been a better evangelical biblical scholar in the history of Christendom.

Augustine taught that the pleasures which come from doing things human naturally do, things like eating food and having sex, are good and edifying as long as it does not lead to excess. "Neither activity  (eating or sex) is devoid of pleasure for the senses, and when this (pleasure) is regulated and put to its natural use under the restraint of moderation, it cannot be lust," wrote Augustine. But eating food and having sex should always be for a purpose. The purpose of eating is to obtain strength and sustenance to accomplish one's God-ordained work, and the purpose of sex is the proceation of the human race. In Confessions (Book 8), Augustine describes what happens when sex is pursued for the sake of its pleasures and uses himself as an example: "By servitude to passion, habit is formed, and habit to which there is no resistance becomes a compulsion. By these links, as it were, connected one to another (hence my term a chain), a harsh bondage held me under restraint." One would be hardpressed to find a better definition of sexual addiction.

Those of us with an understanding of New Covenant grace would argue that pleasure in and of itself is not sin, as long as the boundaries God established are not violated (i.e. 'sex outside of marriage'). However, we would be remiss if we did not pause and carefully consider Augustine's arguments that the pursuit of the mere pleasures of sex, even within the confines of marriage, will lead one into the bondage of  sexual addiction. Augustine calls sex for pleasure within marriage a venialis culpa. Latin is not a strong forte among us modern Christians. In plain English, Augustine is saying sex within marriage for the pure pleasure of it is a "forgivable fault."

Augustine pointed to the words of the Apostle Paul who wrote that married couples "should abstain from sex only for brief periods of time for the sake of prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command" (I Corinthians 7:5-6). The concession, in Augustine's interpretation of Scripture, was the absention of sex for brief times. Augustine believed the ideal was abstention from sex for much longer period of times, coming again to the conjugal relationship for the purpose of having children. However, the Apostle makes a  'concession' because of the struggle Christians have with 'sexual lusts' (Augustine's term).

Again, for Augustine sex has a God-given purpose; and without this purpose in  the forefront of the mind, the soul becomes deadened by the lusts for sex.  When a married person participates in sex for the sake of its pleasures, it becomes like overeating food for the ecstasy of its taste. Damage will occur. Unlike the effects of food overindulgence, the consequences of participating in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure are hidden and unseen. Married couples, according to Augustine, who pursue sex for the sake of its pleasures are commiting a "fault" (culpa).  They have substituted pleasurable sex for God. This fault in a married couple is easily "forgivable" (venialis) because of the goodness of marriage itself, but it is a fault. If left unidentified and unresisted, it will lead to further and deeper bondage and more and more movement away from God.

How radically different is Augustine's view to that of Driscoll's and Young's? I am not saying that Augustine is completely right and that Driscoll and Young are completely wrong; what I'm saying is something may be out of kilter with the pronounced advocacy of enormous pleasurable sex from evangelical pulpits. If we are to believe Augustine, the problem is that those promoting the pleasures of sex are themselves addicts--chained by their lusts. I trust that my four children, all of whom love Christ and read what I write, will realize that Augustine is worth considering on the subject of sex as much as he is on the doctrines of grace.

When Jesus Comes for You the Second Time It Is Without Reference to Sin

We are all familiar that Christ came into the world the first time to die. Christ fulfilled the Law--born during the Feast of Tabernacles, died during the Feast of Passover, rose from the grave on the Feast of Firstfruits, and sent His Spirit at Pentecost to write a new Law in the hearts of His people--and then took away (abrogated) the old Law in order to establish the New Covenant (Heb. 10:9). The promises of the New Covenant in Christ are so much superior than the conditional promises of the Law (Old Testament).  Pity the believers who have no understanding of their freedom in Christ.  When New Testament churches try to replicate what the Hebrews had-- turning the church into a Temple, the pastors into authoritative priests, and Spirit-led service and worship into obedience to commandmants--then the entire joy of New Covenant living is shattered. "You shall know the truth (notice the definite article "the" truth), and the truth (Christ) shall set you free!" One of the tools some preachers use to keep their congregation subservient and obedient to laws the preacher wishes to impose on God's people is fear. Fear of Christ coming to judge them for their disobedience. Fear of Christ's return to earth when every thought and deed of His people will be revealed for what it is--insufficient obedience to God.  It seems that many evangelical preachers know no other means to motivate God's people than through fear.

Hebrews 9:28 knocks the legs out from any preacher who tries to motivate Christians through fear of Christ's second coming. This verse states, "So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." The imagery here is powerful. The writer of Hebrews has already explained how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in His first coming. He came to earth as the Lamb of God to die. He shed His blood for God's people at the cross. He rose from the grave. He entered true Temple (the one not made with human hands) and presented His blood as the payment for the sins of God's people. He cleansed forever those who place their confidence in Him. He cleanses them by the one-time offering of Himself. Every command God gave the Hebrews to atone for sin--every feast, every festival, every sacrifice, every ritual, every oblation, every offering--finds fulfillment in the first coming of Jesus Christ to deal with sin.

But Christ also is coming a second time to earth for His people, and it is this second coming which is referenced in Hebrews 9:28. The second coming of Jesus Christ corresponds to what the Old Testament Hebrew high priest did after he applied the blood in the Temple to atone for the sins of the Hebrew people--the priest came out of the Temple to bless the people. This blessing brought pure joy and pure delight to the sinners for whom the blood had atoned. The priest made no reference to their sins in his blessing. To hear the actual blessing in the Hebrew language go here.

The writer of Hebrews and the other biblical authors are just as clear that our Great High Priest is coming a SECOND TIME to do the exact same thing for us that the Hebrew high priest did for the Hebrews (Hebrews 9:28). The second time Christ comes, He comes "without reference to sin." When He comes for us, either in  death or in His coming to earth to usher in eternity, He will make no reference to our sins. He will say nothing about them. Nada. Nothing. They are lost in the desert of forgetfulness. The scape-goat bears them and the goat cannot be found. Of course, the persons for whom Christ did not die--those who are not part of the many of Hebrews 9:28 --will give an account to God for their sins  against Him (see Hebrews 9:27). The judgment they will receive from God for their sins will be just, fair, and right; but this judgment comes upon those whose confidence is not in Christ's death. Christ comes for His people the second time and He will make no reference to their sins at His coming.

Just as the first coming of Christ is typified by the Old Covenant high priest in the offering of the sacrifice, the taking of the blood into the Temple, and the intercession for God's people before the mercy seat of God, so too the second coming of Christ is typified when the Old Covenant high priest came out of the Temple to bless the people. No reference to their sin is made.

Hallelujah, what a Savior!

New Testament Equality Leads to Healthy Relationships and Female Subordination Brings Dysfunction

When I first started blogging in 2005 I was told that the most effective blogs are those that focus on one predominant theme. I focused like a laser beam those first couple of years on the unethical attempt by International Mission Board trustees to subvert the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole and impose a doctrinal standard on IMB missionaries that that not only exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message, but by its very existence, breached the ethical boundaries of trusteeship and violated the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention. It was during 2005-2008 (the years I served as an IMB trustee) that I began to see the problems we had in the Southern Baptist Convention went far beyond the International Mission Board. Convention leadership (trustee boards) had left their sola Scriptura convictions, and out of the fear of "liberalism,"  became Fundamentalists--demanding conformity and agreement on tertiary doctrines that had nothing to do with evangelical cooperation on the mission field. One of those third-stage doctrines is the role and authority of women. I saw with my own eyes the unethical, unbiblical, and godless treatment of women in the Southern Baptist Convention and I vowed to do something about it. Do I consider the equality of men and women a first-tier evangelical doctrine? No; but because the Fundamentalists among us have elevated "the female subordination of women to men" as a litmus test for evangelical orthodoxy, I now focus on their dysfunctional views of male authority and female subordination to help my fellow Bible-believing, conservative, evangelical friends realize the errors being promulgated. Female subordination to male authority is promoted by organizations such as The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Together for the Gospel, and The Elephant Room. I only recently heard that Mark Driscoll has identified "the subordination of women to men" as one of the four key building blocks of his Resurgence Movement. I have addressed the doctrinal fallacies of the Gender Gospel elsewhere, fallacies that plague both liberal feminism and Fundamentalism. In this post, I want to give a few examples of how Bible-believing Christian families, churches, and groups move into dysfunctional, even cultish behavior, if female subordination is allowed to be taught and practiced as biblical orthodoxy.

Most people are familiar with the removal of Sheri Klouda as Hebrew professor from Southwestern Theological Seminary by men who hold to female subordination and cringe at the thought of a woman teaching men Hebrew. What many men and women in conservative, evangelical churches don't realize is that there are Sheri Kloudas everywhere--gifted women who are removed from responsible Christian leadership positions and/or forbidden from speaking publicly, teaching others the Word of God, or otherwise providing spiritual guidance to men because they are women. This absurd position is totally contrary to the Gospel, anti-Christian in nature, and opposite of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. If not stopped, it will plague Christian people with a disease of the soul that is worse than leprosy of the skin. It leads to power-hungry men seeking positions of authority and control, and an almost cultish like god complex. "I am in the image of God. My word is Law. You submit to what I say, and don't dare try to tell me what I should do."  This anti-Christ doctrine fleshes itself out in conservative Christian homes and churches in various ways. I will give you three examples.

(1). A well-known Southern Baptist pastor recently told his congregation that he decided to move his family to  a new house this year. The price of the pastor's old home ($375,000) and the price of the pastor's new home ($500,000) were appropriately not revealed to the congregation. However, they are relevant to this story because the pastor previously told his congregation that they were not to buy more expensive homes, but rather God desired them to set aside that extra money and give it to kingdom causes (i.e. the church). Please don't misunderstand me. I advocate freedom for all pastors and all congregations to do as the Spirit leads; even the purchase of million-dollar-homes if that is what the Spirit leads them to do. What I find incongruous is the promotion of a so-called "radical Christianity" by those are actually averse to living radically themselves. People should realize one of the prominent New Testament principles is freedom and Spirit-led living. The problem is when pastors place themselves as an authority over the lives of others to tell them how they are to live, while at the same time doing the opposite of that they advocate. It's much better to be silent on issues the Bible is silent about. Anyway, back to the main point. What most people in this pastor's church are not aware of is that the pastor's new home is within ten miles of his old home. Before the move the pastor's wife insisted that the family should not move. She had several very good and valid reasons. However, the pastor informed his wife, that as the man in the home--"the one with authority"--he would make the decision to move and overrule any objections he heard. He said moving was "the right thing" to do, and submission to his authority was "the right thing" for her to do.  So the pastor's family moved. I have withheld names, but I do hope the pastor reads this blog and realizes the dysfunctional nature of the argument he had with his wife. Multiply this by hundreds of times in conservative, evangelical homes and you get a picture of the problems created when Christian men have a warped view of their authority.

(2). Lamar Wadsworth recently wrote to me and told me about his mother's funeral. He wrote:

 "When my mother died, we were not allowed to have her funeral at the Southern Baptist church where she was an active member for over FIFTY years because I had asked two women to read Scripture at the service.  So the funeral had to be held at my home church, the Heritage Baptist Church  in Cartersville GA. My church honored my Mother like she was one of their own and gave her the homegoing celebration she deserved. The following November, on All Saints Day--without explanation or comment, my Mother's name was included on the list of members of Heritage Baptist Church who had died in the past year. Bill Leonard said we pulled off the first posthumous transfer of church membership in Baptist history."

Can you believe it? A Southern Baptist Church refuses to allow the funeral of one of the members of their church, a member who faithfully attended and gave to the church for over fifty years, because the son of the woman who died wanted two women to read Scripture at his mother's funeral. Again, the church is not being named in this post, but for our purposes we will call it Ichabod Baptist Church for the glory of God is truly gone from it.

(3).  There is now a commentary on the Bible "just for women." Dorothy Patterson and Rhonda Harrington Kelley, professors of "Women's Studies" and  "Women's Ministry" at Southwestern Theological Seminary and New Orleans Theological Seminary respectively, are the two women who wrote the Bible commentary "for women." On the back cover, the purpose of the commentary is revealed: "The Women's Evangelical Commentary is designed to equip women to face cultural issues regarding femininity and gender." This is Christianese lingo for "it will help convince all you women that you should teach only women, work only in the home, and find your identity in the man God has given you." I had dinner with Paige and Dorothy Patterson in their home in Fort Worth a few months ago. I have never written the details about our conversation, nor will I, but what that dinner did for me was reinforce my decision to focus on calling out the bizarre and unbiblical views of women that are being taught by our seminary Presidents, their wives, and other 'leaders' in the SBC. If the Spirit of God leads you women to never work outside the home and to focus on having as many children as possible while creating a safe environment in your home for your husband and kids, then go for it! If you are led to the seminary to learn the skills of sewing clothes and folding knapkins for a proper Southern home, then more power to you! If you live your life submitting to what you perceive as "the authority" of men, particularly the husband God has given you, then fine! Just don't dare call it biblical. Call it your cultural preference. Why? Because one day when you die you will not have a man you will call your husband. One day when you die you will exercise your gifts in God-given creative work. One day when you die your entire identity will be in Christ and no other man. One day when you die you will be given a new name, a new place to live and a new purpose for eternity--all based upon who you are as a person-- equal to any man God created. While you are on earth, I hope you find that the teachings of grace and equality in the Bible prepare you for eternity. But if your cultural preference is to find your identity in a man, then just be honest that you feel safer and more secure in the shadow of man's identity, and if equate your submission to God to that of a visible, physical man, then just be honest about what you are doing. Don't call it biblical Christianity. In fact, it's so unbiblical to the Christianity portrayed in the New Testament that it may be people who are as comfortable as you in your cultural preferences will write a Bible just for you. Oh, wait, that's what this post is about.

 May I suggest that the Bible you have from God is sufficient?

Well, that's my rant for the day. My oatmeal is getting cold (I should quit writing at breakfast on Saturday morning). Blessings to all my friends, and even my Fundamentalist friends. :) Just remember that since you elevated the gender gospel to a primary test of Christian orthodoxy, you have forced me to focus my laser on you to help end the dysfunctional churches and homes you are creating.