Darren's Musings

Did Jephthah Really Kill His Daughter?

2010-01-29T06:33:00.008-05:00

Last Sunday I preached about Jephthah from Judges 11. It's a tragic story about a leader who makes a rash promise to God and later regrets it.

Due to the time limits of a 30-minute sermon, I did not tackle one of the key debates about this story: Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering to God, or just commit her to a life in God's service foregoing her chance to marry?

Since blogs aren't subject to time restrictions, I'll tackle this debate here and present the key reasons behind each position.

The key passage is:

³⁰ And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, ³¹ then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
(Judges 11:30-31, New King James Version)

Position A: Jephthah Did Not Kill His Daughter

This position is that Jephthah's vow was to dedicate his daughter to a life in God's service, which included celibacy and solitude. Essentially, she was to live secluded and single like a monk, or possibly performing duties in the tabernacle. Historically, John Wesley was one Christian leader who was a strong supporter of this interpretation.

The most common argument for this position is the problem accepting that a leader of Israel would do such an evil act as offering a human sacrifice when the Old Testament law so clearly prohibits it. John Wesley wrote, "It is really astonishing, that the general stream of commentators should take for granted that Jephthah murdered his daughter!" His general reasoning is that Jephthah is too Godly and knowledgeable to commit such a foolish act.

Other arguments rest on a couple alternate translations of the Hebrew words involved, and by emphasizing the words of Jephthah's daughter.

The Hebrew word translated "burnt offering" in Judges 11:31 is 'olah. While it means "whole burnt offering," it can also denote a consecration or dedication to God that may not imply a sacrifice.

Secondly, the tiny word "and" in this verse could also be translated "or" making Jephthah's promise contain two options: "... whatever comes out of the doors of my house ... shall surely be the LORD's, OR I will offer it up as a burnt offering." In other words, if a person comes out of the door, s/he shall be dedicated to the LORD, but if it's an animal, it will be a burnt offering.

Lastly, Jephthah's daughter laments the fact that she will never marry. She doesn't lament that she will die young. Therefore, the sorrow is in the loss of her chance to bear children, and Jephthah's only chance for grandchildren.

³⁷ Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.”
³⁸ So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. (Judges 11:37-38, New King James Version)

Position B: Jephthah Really Did Kill His Daughter

While this position is certainly less pleasant, and creates a bigger ethical dilemma, it flows from the natural reading of this passage. Here are a few reasons why this position is defensible.

All Major Bible Translations Support It

Despite this debate being around for centuries, none of the English Bible translations include either of the alternate readings mentioned above simply because the Hebrew text does not support it. While the alternate readings may be possible, they are not the most likely meaning of this text.

For instance, 'olah (the word for "burnt offering") is used 289 times in the Old Testament. It is used twice to mean "go up" as on a stairway, and the remaining times it is translated as either "burnt offering" or "burnt sacrifice" (KJV). It is the word God uses when instructing Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). It is NOT the word used when Hannah promises to dedicate her future son Samuel to a life in God's service in the tabernacle. (1 Sam. 1:11) It is not once used to describe a dedication to God that does not include a sacrificial burning.

Jewish and Church History Supports It

For over two millennia, all Jewish and Christian commentators understood Jephthah to have killed his daughter as a sacrifice. This includes the Jewish writer Josephus, and early church fathers Origen and Augustine.

The first instance of a Jewish commentator suggesting that Jephthah's daughter lived a life of celibate service to God was Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1184 AD). Living during a period when Christian monasteries were common, especially monasteries for women, he argued that the Christians took this idea from Jephthah's daughter and thus declared it a Jewish idea. He justified his position by adding the words "if appropriate" to Jephthah's vow to make a burnt offering, even though those words are not present in the Hebrew passage. A few other Jewish writers then adopted his position in the following centuries.

The first Christian to adopt this view was Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340 AD). He offered no interpretive evidence for his position, but rather credited the idea to "the Hebrews" (i.e. the Jewish writers above) thus giving it authority. A few Christian scholars continued this view through the Middle Ages, but they remained in the minority. By the time of the Reformation, both Luther and Calvin were aware of this debate, but argued strongly that Jephthah actually did kill his daughter.

The Bible Story and Context Support It

The internal consistency of this Bible story, and the rest of the Bible, seems to fit together better if we understand that Jephthah's daughter actually was killed.

First, why did Jephthah's daughter need two months to mourn with her friends if she was going to be around for the rest of her life? Surely they could go visit her and continue mourning with her on regular occasions? After all, Hannah dedicated her son Samuel to service in the tabernacle, and she visited him every year and brought him a new outfit (1 Sam. 2:18).

Second, why did Israel start an annual tradition commemorating Jephthah's daughter if she was still around? Clearly this tragedy affected the community greatly and there was a desire to honour the memory of Jephthah's daughter, but it hardly seems appropriate if she was just up on a nearby hill serving God. It's hard to imagine any community declaring a national day of remembrance simply because a woman became a nun!

Thirdly, there is no Scriptural basis that a person dedicated to God's service had to be celibate. The Levitical priests were expected to marry, and most prophets were married, with the possible exception of Jeremiah (Jer. 16:1-2). There are examples of women serving in the tabernacle, but in one instance they obviously weren't serving as virgins (see 1 Sam. 2:22). People dedicated to God under the Nazirite vow were not required to remain unmarried, and the Nazirite Samson was not celibate.

Fourthly, while human sacrifice was abhorrent to God, it is not unknown among Israel. God condemns Judah for practicing child sacrifice like their pagan neighbours, particularly in the book of Jeremiah. (Click here for a Bible search on the word "Topheth" which was the place of child sacrifice.) Saul was ready to kill his son Jonathan for breaking a vow, but the people prevented it (1 Sam. 14).

Fifthly, Jephthah's and his daughter's mourning for the lost chance of having children (or grandchildren) is consistent with someone who was going to die young. In fact, in those days lineage was attributed through sons only, so it was already sure that Jephthah's line was going to end with him. Any future children from his daughter would have been considered her husband's lineage. Therefore, his daughter's mourning of her virginity does not require that his vow was a life of celibacy for her, and Jephthah's mourning really only makes sense if his daughter was about to die.

Lastly, Jephthah killing his daughter is entirely consistent with the rest of the book of Judges. While it is more pleasant to consider Jephthah's daughter leading a life of lonely service to God, it is inconsistent with the increasing immorality and the individual standards of ethics we see as the book progresses. "Everyone did as he saw fit" (Judges 17:6, 21:25). This dangerous standard of behaviour leads to a rape, murder, and a dismembered corpse in Judges 19, a death which is much more difficult to explain away than that of Jephthah's daughter. It's disgusting and unpleasant, but it's what happened to Israel when they abandoned God's standards. The death of Jephthah's daughter is just one more step in Israel's downward spiral.

Conclusion

Christians are on both sides of this debate, and it clearly is not a major issue of the faith, but I feel the reasons are more compelling that Jephthah actually did kill his daughter to keep his vow, and that is why I preached from that position last week.

Selected Bibliography

Such A Great Salvation, by Dale Ralph Davis, Baker Book House, 1990, pp. 147-149.

The Sacrifice of Jephthah's Daughter: Jewish and Christian Perspectives, by Rabbi Moshe Reiss, online at http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/21_jephthah.htm

Judges 11:31: Jephtah's Daughter, by T.L. Hubeart Jr., online at http://www.pennuto.com/bible/judg11_31.htm

Richard Feynman Lectures Online

2009-07-15T22:47:00.005-04:00

Bill Gates has used some of his foundation money to make some interesting science lectures available online for free.

The lectures that Richard Feynman gave at Cornell University in 1964 were found by Gates on aging movie reels in a library basement years ago. He has spent a lot of time and energy finding who owned the rights to the films and paying for those rights. The fruit of Gates' efforts are now available for everyone's benefit.

Feynman worked on the Manhattan Project during World War 2 and later became a Nobel laureate. He was known not only for his numerous scientific discoveries, but also his ability to teach students in interesting and novel ways.

The lecture series focuses on the physical laws, their characteristics, and how the laws relate together. The first lecture begins with gravity and he progresses through to quantum mechanics and possible new laws that have not yet been discovered. While the content ranges from simple to complex, he presents the material in a very accessible and understandable manner. He brings a unique perspective and love of science that I wish had been present in more of my science classes during my school years.

Kudos to Mr. Gates for a pursuing this worthwhile project.

Technical note: The videos are presented using Microsoft's new Silverlight video application, which currently does not work on the Google Chrome browser. (Arrrgghh!) You'll have to use either Internet Explorer or Firefox, and download the Silverlight plug-in.

Lakeland and Lying

2009-06-19T10:42:00.006-04:00

A lot of uproar surrounding the Lakeland revival fiasco has focused on Todd Bentley's divorce and rapid remarriage. However, I'm surprised that his lying has garnered less attention. As far as I know, it has not been addressed by Rick Joyner at all. (Rick is leading the so-called restoration process for Todd.)

A Christian leader who cannot be consistently honest in his words surely does not deserve to be followed or trusted. As Jesus said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' (Matt. 5:37)

A couple example where I have found Todd Bentley was dishonest in his statements.

1) Overstating the Number of Healings

While I am convinced that God can heal people miraculously, it seems Todd overstated the number of healings that actually took place. Some people refuse to accept that anyone was healed at Lakeland, but I find that a difficult position to defend as one would have to follow up with every single person who claimed to have been healed. Proving an apparent healing did not occur miraculously as a result of prayer is just as difficult as proving that one did. Healing can be a subjective measure ("I feel less pain than before"), but even for healings that can be clinically confirmed ("The tumour has shrunk in size by 50%") it is still virtually impossible to determine what caused the healing. Was it last week's chemotherapy or this week's prayer that did it?

When ABC Nightline did their investigative report on Lakeland on July 9, 2008 (see Part 1, Part 2), they asked for contact information for just 3 people who claimed to be healed. Todd promised to do so, but could not. ABC could not confirm a single case of verifiable miraculous healing. Sometimes getting confirmation can be difficult because people (or their doctors) do not want to be thrown into the public eye, but surely 3 out of the alleged thousands of healed people would have been willing to come forward.

The most remarkable claims that Todd made was regarding resurrections -- dead people who were miraculously being raised to life. The counts kept increasing -- then decreasing -- then increasing. One supposed resurrection that Charisma magazine (which was largely supportive of the revival) mentioned in their article on May 22, 2008 was about a brain dead girl who came to life on the operating table just before having her organs harvested. The article concludes with the sentence, "The hospital denied the report." Why publicize it as a resurrection when there is clear evidence from the hospital contradicting that claim? Apparently a few days later, Todd publicly stated that the little girl had "died again" although if no resurrection ever took place, it would appear she had in fact only died once.

Robert Ricciardelli, a (now former) member of Peter Wagner's apostolic network and a contributor to Charisma magazine, began investigating these claims of healing as one who supported the revival. He started raising warning flags in July 2008. Andrew Strom has collected some of Robert's internet postings, a couple of which are presented below:

"Charisma reporters and a few others like myself have tried to get these [healing claims] verified and cannot... We actually had offered to help, because any news of a resurrection in my opinion is world news if it can be validated. But then when the totals continued to mount which led to hype and embellishment, they began to ask us to stop asking questions."

"We have investigated the 20 plus 'raised from the dead' claims as we want to report them to the media, and they cannot be verified, but were only called in, or sent in from an email. This is not responsible reporting, and leaves many questions, which also adds to the claims of hype and embellishment."

One email report of a resurrection that Todd read on live TV was admitted to be false by its author as an attempt to test the screening process for healing claims. It obviously proved to be a very good test of a very poor screening process! To my knowledge, the mistaken resurrection claim was never retracted by Todd.

2) Lying About When He Got His Tatoos

Todd's tatoos obviously attract a lot of attention to him, and I suspect that's why Todd has them in the first place. While I don't find tatoos attractive, I don't have a particular problem with them per se. What I do find disturbing is Todd's lies about when he got them.

In an article published by The Charlotte Observer, we get one version of the story: "He [Todd Bentley] said most of his tatoos are from his pre-Christian days, but he makes no apologies for them."

However, it is clear from photos taken only a few years ago (one example here) that there were no tatoos visible on his neck. Further, most of his tatoos have overt Christian themes. Why would a non-Christian teenager get tatoos like that?

On May 8, 2008, Todd wore a T-shirt on stage with the words, "Jesus Gave Me My Tatoos."

Lastly, Rick Joyner admitted that Todd had an unhealthy obsession with tatoos over the past few years.

It is clear that Todd got most of his tatoos recently but lied about it to the newspaper reporter.

There are other examples of Todd Bentley's mistruths, but they aren't necessary to make the point.

To my knowledge, Todd Bentley never corrected any of these lies nor repented of his lying, neither during the revival nor since he has begun his restoration process. Which begs the question: Why is an unrepentant liar being restored to Christian leadership?

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 3

2009-06-13T23:16:00.006-04:00

In Part Two, I discussed the pros and cons of restoring a fallen Christian leader to their ministry. In this final post, I would like to return to the Lakeland situation and evaluate what has been happening with Todd Bentley's restoration. Regardless of whether you believe fallen leaders can be restored or not, there are some particular problems with this situation that need to be highlighted.

A Few Lessons from Todd Bentley's Restoration Process

1. Restoration Must Begin With Complete Removal From Ministry

Even though Todd immediately stopped leading his revival meetings in Florida, two things happened right after he moved to Rick Joyner's church to begin his restoration process: a) donations were invited for Todd's support; and b) it was announced a new charity would be set up for his new ministry.

Rick Joyner has since denied this implied that the outcome of this process was guaranteed. He said people were asking to donate money, and he was simply accomodating their request. As for setting up a charity at the beginning of this process, I don't believe Rick ever commented on that.

Todd now has an office at Rick's church and apparently is being supported by donations, even though he is doing no ministry work.

The restoration of a fallen leader must begin with a complete removal from church ministry. He must get a job and support his family with work outside of the church. There is no need for the church to support him (or private donors) because he is not doing any ministry in the church. Why should he be paid for not working in the church? Surely this is poor stewardship of church funds.

Further, there is no need for a new charity until the end of the restoration process because it is not known if it will be needed. By creating the new charity at the beginning, Rick effectively admitted the outcome of the process is guaranteed. Why go through the process then?

2. Restoration Does Not Begin When The Fallen Leader Decides It Should

Todd's apparent disappearance for approximately 8 months after his pending divorce became public is a big part of the problem. Where were his overseers during this time? Why was he allowed to quickly finalize his divorce and remarry before his restoration process began?

Rick Joyner has publicly said he should bear some of the blame for Todd's rapid remarriage, apparently by giving Todd some vague advice that was misinterpreted. If that's so, then Rick should be disqualified from leading Todd's restoration process. It was a failure in oversight over Todd that made this big problem even worse, and further eroded trust with the church.

Oversight should have happened immediately after Todd's divorce plans became public by trying to restore Todd's first marriage. It may not have prevented the divorce, but it was the logical first step.

By permitting Todd to determine when his restoration process began (i.e. after he moved to Rick Joyner's church), he got to lock in his divorce and his new marriage. Repentance has no consequences now. Nothing can be undone. Which leads to my final point ...

3. Repentance Is Not Just Saying "Sorry"

By locking in his divorce and remarriage, Todd gets to avoid undoing his sin. Repentance involves admitting one's sin, changing direction, and cleaning up the mess. Todd has confessed his errors, but how has he changed his direction? How has he cleaned up his mess?

Todd admitted his inappropriate "emotional" relationship with another woman, and dealt with it by divorcing his wife and marrying his new girlfriend. That doesn't sound like a change of direction to me. It sounds more like keeping the same direction and stepping on the gas.

Hypothetical story: A pastor confessed of defrauding his church of a huge amount of money, stepped down from his leadership role in the church, and disappeared for 8 months. Then he reappears again, says the money has now been spent and he's broke, but he's ready to repent. He's truly sorry, but it's no longer possible to return the stolen money because it's gone. Too bad, but that's just the way it is. Would you consider that repentance? Sounds more like opportunism. Let's finish enjoying the sin, and then we can enjoy the forgiveness.

Repentance is the fruit of a change of heart. Words can be empty; actions speak louder than words.

Todd Bentley and Rick Joyner have been shouting apologies, but Todd's actions have drowned out his words.

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 2

2009-06-01T19:24:00.001-04:00

I want to continue on the topic of restoring a Christian leader to their ministry, as Rick Joyner is doing with Todd Bentley. (See Part 1 here.)

I closed the last post with the point that not everything gets restored after someone sins. The question for this post is:

Should a Christian leader's ministry be restored after moral failure?

I think there are only two possible answers to that question: Never, or Sometimes.

I don't think many would argue that a leader should always be restored, because at minimum it requires repentance, and not everyone repents. So it boils down to a question of restoration to church leadership being possible or impossible.

There is also an assumption of the seriousness of the sin. Obviously all Christian leaders sin to some degree, because no one leads a sinless life. What we are talking about is some kind of serious, moral failure that is blatantly inappropriate for a Christian leader.

Restoration: Never

One position is that a Christian leader is permanently disqualified from church leadership after falling into gross sin. John MacArthur is one prominent person in this camp. His argument is based on the following points:

Disqualification in the character requirements of church leaders is permanent.
For instance, John argues that one can never be "above reproach" (1 Tim. 3:2) after shattering one's reputation with sin. Therefore, one can never meet the qualifications to be a church leader again.
Restoration to fellowship, not leadership.
Forgiveness is offered for the sinner's return to fellowship with the church, but not for return to leadership in the church. Galatians 6:1 is not talking about restoring a person to leadership, but rather relationship. We need to help, encourage, exhort, support, and minister to the fallen leader, but we do not put them back in charge.
Church health takes priority over the leader's expectations.
By putting a fallen leader back in a position of leadership, John argues the reputation of the church is damaged. Further, the message is sent that sin is not serious and there are no long-term consequences from it. By preventing a fallen leader from returning to their former position, it shows both the world and the church that sin is serious and that it holds its leaders to a higher standard than the world does.

Restoration: Sometimes

Another position is that a Christian leader can be restored to public ministry, providing certain conditions are met. Rick Joyner obviously holds this position and feels that it applies to Todd Bentley. Leadership Journal featured a story in 2006 about a pastor who had an extramarital encounter and was eventually restored to a pastoral role in a different church. The frequent arugments for this position include:

Christians must offer grace and forgiveness to everyone who sins, including leaders.
Galatians 6:1 applies to everyone, including restoration of fallen leaders to their former roles once they have repented and addresssed their sin. If a leader disqualifies himself from leadership, he can requalify himself given sufficient time. Character failures can be mended.
Restoring fallen leaders gives hope to others who have sinned.
When a leader repents and is restored to leadership, it gives hope to others inside and outside the church who are in similar circumstances.
Fallen leaders who are restored can relate well to others who have sinned.
Because of their experience with the sin and their repentance, they can relate to others in serious sin and can provide practical guidance during their restoration process.

So Which Position Is Correct?

Unfortunately the New Testament does not include a story of a church leader who sinned, repented, and was either restored to leadership or prohibited from being restored to leadership. That would've made things much easier to discern.

I believe both of the above arguments have some degree of Biblical basis, but neither side can point to a clear passage or verse to justify their position entirely. There seems to be strengths and weaknesses in both camps.

Interestingly, I think both sides can cause harm to the church. There are instances where a fallen leader was restored to his position, bringing scorn on the church from the outside world and division inside the church between those who trust the leader and those who do not. There are also instances where a fallen leader is not given the option of returning to leadership, but is neither offered any forgiveness or fellowship in the church. Their options are to hide their history and find a different, unsuspecting church, or to give up on church altogether.

This is one key weakness of the "never restore" position: while in theory a fallen leader can be offered fellowship without leadership, in practice I think it seldom happens. People used to relating to a person as their leader have trouble relating to them as just another follower, just as the former leader must get used to relating to his former followers as peers. Further, if the church was severely wounded by the leader's sin, it takes a long time before fellowship can be freely offered again. Deep wounds are never healed quickly. Restoration to fellowship but not leadership seems to be a theoretical position more than a practical one.

On the other hand, arguing a fallen leader can relate to sinners better because of their sin turns Scripture on its head. If sin makes such a great qualification for a pastor, then seminaries should have adultery practicums, or fraud courses. Such a claim is ridiculous, as it disqualifies Jesus from leading his church. Hebrews 2:18 says that "Because he himself [Jesus] suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Sin is not required to relate well with sinners, just the temptation to sin. And everyone is well-qualified in the area of temptation.

It just shows how messy things get when leaders sin. The consequences are significant and complex, and the possible solutions to the problem are equally complex.

So how do we sort through the complexity? More to come in the next (and final) section.

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 1

2009-05-29T10:45:00.002-04:00

When Todd Bentley announced he was seeking a divorce from his wife last summer, it was disappointing. It was yet another Christian leader in the spotlight who could not keep his personal life together. But when news came out shortly after that he had already remarried, and that the woman he married had earlier lived in his home as a full-time homemaker, things were looking less like a simple case of marriage problems and more like a long-term scheme to get a different wife.

At least that's what it looked like. Todd has denied that there was any inappropriate relationship before his divorce, but appearances speak louder than words, and he certainly was not exercising any wisdom throughout this entire whirlwind of events. If the public is guilty of jumping to wrong conclusions, then Todd is certainly guilty of providing them with a trampoline.

What's done is done. The divorce is final, and the second marriage is final. Neither of those things can be wished away. So what about Todd's future in the church?

The Restoration Process

Enter Rick Joyner. On March 9, he announced on his website that he would be leading a process along with two other pastors to restore Todd fully to his ministry. Not just restoring Todd to a place where he could be a Godly husband and father, or a contributing member of a church, but to actually return to the kind of public ministry he had before his divorce. Rick's basis for this action is Galatians 6:1, which says "If a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted."

While Rick stated that this process was just beginning and the timeline for Todd's restoration was not known, the original announcement also stated that Todd was forming a new U.S. charity (the Canadian charity he founded had severed ties with him) and that people could start sending money for his support immediately. It seemed that the question of Todd's restoration to ministry was already decided, and that the only thing left to work out was when it would become official.

Questions About Restoring A Christian Leader

All of this lead me to ask a number of questions about what Biblical restoration really means in a situation like Todd Bentley's.

1) What Does Gal. 6:1 Mean?

Rick Joyner justifies this restoration process for Todd based on Gal. 6:1. The verse is fairly clear: a person who commits a sin of any kind should be helped by those who are spiritual to be restored. The Greek word translated "restore" is a medical term, referring to the setting of a broken bone so it can heal.

Rick presumes "restore" includes the return to one's original leadership position or ministry in the church. While it could include that, it is not the common understanding among Bible commentators. The primary restoration is understood to be one of restoring the person to a relationship with God through repentance of their sin, and then to restore their relationship to the church.

The context of Gal. 6 is not church leadership. While it certainly could include church leaders who sin, it should not be the only passage we base our decisions on when dealing with fallen leaders.

2) What Other Passages Apply?

We are not to put just anyone in leadership in the church. 1 Timothy and Titus have some clear prerequisites for those who aspire to carry church authority. There is no guarantee that once a person is put in leadership, they should always be in leadership. Just as a person can disqualify himself for church leadership before being appointed, he can also disqualify himself after being appointed. Gal. 6:1 does not supercede these character requirements for leadership.

For example, 1 Timothy 3:4 gives the following requirement for a church elder: "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect."

If a leader leaves and divorces his wife, moves away from his children (in Todd's case, thousands of kms away), and remarries, it's very difficult to argue that he is managing his family well. It's hard to teach your children to obey you when you are absent from the home.

Therefore, Todd should be disqualified from church leadership on this criteria alone. Some would argue he could qualify himself again in the long-term after carefully building a new marriage and family, while others would consider this a permanent disqualification. I don't think Scripture is clear on this detail, so pick your side.

3) Committees Cannot Restore the Trust of a Church

Somehow in recent years, an assumption has crept in among some Christian groups that fallen leaders can be restored to their positions or ministries after a committee announces that they are ready. I'm not sure why this is, as it is not a Biblical concept from what I can see.

While a process led by a small group of leaders may be fruitful in bringing about repentance and progress with the leader who has sinned, it is not how trust is restored with the church. Trust takes a long time to build, and once it has been squandered, an even longer time to rebuild. Committees cannot change that fact. Trust must be earned in relationship over the long term. There is no quick road to restoring trust.

We certainly wouldn't apply this solution to other situations in the church. No one would ever suggest that a spouse who has been unfaithful should meet with a pastoral committee for a period of months or years, and when the committee decides the time is right, the wronged spouse should accept the person back into the marriage and return to life as it was before the sin occurred. That is a complex, long-term, personal process that does not have a clear outcome or timeline. Sometimes the marriage can be fully restored, and sometimes it cannot, but it's never done using a committee of marriage experts.

The church functions as a network of relationships, and broken relationships cannot be restored by committee.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, not everything gets restored after a person sins. Stolen money cannot always be returned. (Bernie Madoff recently reminded the investment community of that.) Murder victims are not brought back to life. Divorces are seldom undone. Abused children carry emotional scars for life.

To view Galatians 6:1 through the lense that everything a Christian leader had before they sinned should be restored is naive at best.

Todd's marriage will not be restored, no matter what happens with his ministry. Todd's parental relationship with his children will now be distant and occasional, no matter what progress he makes with his relationship with God. Why shouldn't his ministry and church responsibilities also be permanently affected by his sin?

Lakeland and Greasy Grace

2009-03-23T14:41:00.014-04:00

Earlier this month, the editor of Charisma magazine J. Lee Grady published an article regarding the Lakeland saga titled The Tragic Scandal of Greasy Grace. In it, he is critical of the quick remarriage of Todd Bentley so soon after his divorce, and especially the quick move to begin restoring Todd to ministry.

The term "greasy grace" is not new, but it was used by Peter Wagner in his first letter following the public announcement of Todd's separation from his wife. Peter was one of the apostolic leaders who publicly laid hands on Todd in late June. In that letter, Peter commends the apostolic leaders who were stepping in and removing Todd from his ministry leadership:

I am delighted that they are not buying into typical charismatic soft morality, also called “greasy grace” or “don’t touch God’s anointed” or “mercy must triumph over judgment,” phrases that have been used on other similar occasions as convenient religious cop-out excuses. They’re proceeding in love, but it is tough love!

I don't know this, but Lee's title may be an intentional reference to Peter Wagner's use of that term, and thereby an implicit criticism that what is happening with Todd is exactly what Peter said was not happening.

What is Greasy Grace?

An understanding of greasy grace has to start with an understanding of grace.

Grace is getting something good that you don't deserve. It is unmerited favour. In the context of Christianity, it is God allowing Jesus' death to be counted as punishment for our sins. God's grace flows as a result of his love for us.

Grace is risky. It means undeserving people get good things. Most of us would prefer that good people get good consequences, and bad people get bad consequences. That is justice. God's grace says Jesus can take my bad consequences, and I can receive Jesus' good consequences instead. Justice is served overall, but it wasn't justice for Jesus to be punished when he didn't sin, nor is it justice that I don't get punished for my own sin. Grace is joining God's love with His necessity for justice.

When Christians confront someone who has sinned, we have the choice of being gracious like God has been gracious to us, or we can dispense justice. Of all people, Christians should be the most gracious when it comes to dealing with sinners, but that's not always the case. Throughout history Christians have been very effective and doling out punishments and dire consequences to fellow Christians who are caught trespassing in some way.

Greasy grace therefore is a negative term used by folks who feel someone has inappropriately slipped out of the consequences of their sinful deeds in the name of grace, or has benefited inappropriately from their sin. Like Peter Wagner implies, greasy grace is the opposite of "tough love."

Lee Grady describes what he means by this term:

Many Christians today have rejected biblical discipline and adopted a sweet, spineless love that cannot correct. Our grace is greasy. No matter what an offending brother does, we stroke him and pet him and nurse his wounds while we ignore the people he wounded. No matter how heinous his sin, we offer comforting platitudes because, after all, who are we to judge?

Therefore, Lee is suggesting that greasy grace involves forgiving and not disciplining the offender, while ignoring the pain of the victims of his sin.

Observation #1: All Grace is Greasy

The more I think about grace, the more I am faced with this question: Isn't all grace greasy? Doesn't grace by definition mean that all Christians are getting away like bandits?

Yes! If we are receiving good things that we don't deserve, we are experiencing grace. That ridiculous display of God's grace for us by sending Jesus is what is supposed to motivate us to love God in return. Grace is really shocking when you think about it, especially when you start to dispense it to others.

It's either greasy grace or sticky justice. I don't believe there can be such a thing as "sticky grace."

Observation #2: Grace Does Not Ignore The Victims

Grace does not deny that people have been hurt by that sin, nor does it ignore them.

Sometimes people think that if you forgive someone, you have to pretend the sin did not occur. If you forgive them, you are saying there never really was any harm. That is completely untrue. Forgiveness simply means I give up my desire to seek revenge or punishment for that person.

We cannot be ungracious to people who have been wounded by a person's sin. We must care for and stand with them as they attempt to process their pain and come to a place where they can offer forgiveness as well. We must protect them if a risk exists of being wounded in the same way by the same person, such as in an abusive relationship.

Failure to support the victims of sin is not due to grace being offered to the sinner; it is just a failure to support the victims. That failure is wrong, but it is a separate issue from how we deal with the sinner.

However, we cannot become so consumed with a desire to restore a sinful leader that we overlook the victims.

Observation #3: Grace Does Not Preclude Correction

Being gracious with a sinner means we choose to forgive and not punish them for the sake of punishing, but that does not mean we cannot bring discipline and correction to them.

In fact, Jesus gave us each the responsibility to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). You cannot make a disciple (literally a "disciplined one") without bringing discipline. So how could a Christian leader be restored without bringing discipline and correction?

Grace means we will correct a sinner in love; we will stand with them and not abandon them; we will not condemn them; we will help them face and deal with the consequences of their sin; we will help them see their error and learn to avoid it; we will make an environment where it is possible for them to be restored.

Final Thoughts

All of these things are really easy to write about in a blog. They are much harder to live out, especially when you have been wounded by the sin. Situations are complicated and God's wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the people involved. But as Christians, we have no choice but to be gracious with sinners. We have been the biggest recipients of God's grace, and we must dispense grace to others.

The Lakeland Outpouring: Pouring Out Some Thoughts

2009-03-23T14:35:00.006-04:00

While I haven't particularly followed the so-called "Lakeland Outpouring" last year, recent developments have got me thinking about a number of related issues.

By way of background, in the spring of 2008, Ignited Church in Lakeland, Florida held some revival meetings led by Canadian Todd Bentley. Supernatural healings started taking place, and people started coming from far and wide to experience it. Some people went back home and experienced healings in their home churches. However, Todd Bentley had a history of questionable theology and uncomfortable ministry practices, and when the Lakeland events were broadcast on GodTV, those issues suddenly became visible to many. Some people began raising their concerns.

I found it fascinating how Christian bloggers quickly became polarized around Lakeland, either strongly supporting it as an evident move of God, or strongly opposed to the theological error and awkward practices being played out on stage.

In the summer, it was announced that Todd and his wife were separating and that Todd was no longer leading the Lakeland meetings. The Outpouring quickly fizzled, and many bloggers were more than willing to add their "I told you so" to the chorus of commentators.

In March 2009, more details emerged. Todd had divorced his wife and married the woman with whom he had been having an "inappropriate relationship" when his separation was announced last summer. Further, he is beginning a "restoration process" led by Rick Joyner. He is setting up a new charity in the U.S. (he was asked to step down from the Canadian charity he started 10 years ago) and Rick Joyner has begun putting out weekly update videos on Todd's progress.

Truth is stranger than fiction, and it would've been hard to script something fictional with as many plot twists, scandals, and surprises. While I don't feel like adding my voice to the throngs who are taking sides in this battle, I do want to use it as an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of both the players and some commentators in this sad real-life story. My next few blogs will try to tackle a few of these lessons.

Science vs Opinion

2009-03-05T16:38:00.007-05:00

I read an interesting column today in The Globe and Mail by Andre Picard, entitled The Internet Has Changed The Nature Of Scientific Debate.

His main point is how responses to his columns about healthcare have changed over the years, particularly that "there no longer seems to be much place for civilized disagreement, honest scientific-based dissension, on differing analyses of agreed-upon facts."

Offering an argument based on facts has been replaced with personal attacks and a head-count of how many people agree on a given point. As Andre quotes Anatole France, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

There is a similar phenomenon happening with the global warming debate. It's not whether there are scientific facts that show greenhouse gases created by humans are the problem; it's about how many experts think that conclusion is likely correct. Scientific truth is now determined by a democratic vote among certain approved experts. If you disagree with the populist view, then you likely aren't qualified to vote.

Conspiracy theories and their adherents are growing substantially in our day. Lately I've been curious why that is. Andre suggests a lack of science literacy among the population, and I think he is right. If you have no capacity to evaluate statements based on objective evidence, you simply get to choose which expert you want to agree with. And it's always easiest to be on the side of the expert who already has the largest following.

But I think there is something more fundamental at work here than simply declining science education. I believe we are losing the desire to seek out truth itself. After all, that objective is at the very heart of the scientific method. There is truth and there is error, and the scientific method says both can be determined by an objective investigation of the facts.

Defining your own truth in your own world is much simpler than facing absolute truth. It allows you to form reality in your own image. And why wouldn't folks choose to have that kind of power?

Economic Stimulus - Does it really work?

2008-12-17T11:35:00.003-05:00

Lots of talk these days about the government providing "economic stimulus" to the economy. Ever since my first year economics class in university, I've heard that when the goverment spends money, its effect is multiplied across the economy and it provides great benefits. I always thought that logic was flawed, as it overlooked where the government got that money and the negative effects caused by it.

That idea was started by a British economist named John Maynard Keynes (pronounced "Kains") and has since become known as Keynesian economics. It seems to increase in popularity every time there is an economic downturn, and given the severity of this downturn, its popularity is really surging now.

Now someone named Dan Mitchell has explained the flaw with Keynesian economics much clearer than I ever could. He also explains the track record of this strategy since the 1930's.

Review of The Shack, by William P. Young

2008-11-02T21:19:00.007-05:00

The Shack is a fictional story about a guy named Mack who unexpectedly meets God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a remote shack in the mountains. In the process, many of his ideas of God are completely overturned and he is able to overcome a great tragedy in his life which has been burdening him.

While I admire the intentions of William Young to try and make the concept of the Trinity accessible to a wide audience, there are some major theological problems with the book.

Before we get into theoogy, I first have to say that the book is just a bit weird! Mack goes to an abandoned shack in the mountains and it somehow transforms into an Eden-like setting where God lives. God the Father appears as a black woman whom Mack calls "Papa", the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman named Sarayu, and Jesus is just a Middle-Eastern man named Jesus.

If you can get past all that and continue reading, there are some clear and accurate themes that emerge, such as God's desire for relationship with mankind and his abundant love for us. But there are also some concepts that are questionable in their theology, and some certainly are contrary to the Bible.

Below are some theological errors I noticed:

1) The Members of the Trinity cannot morph into one another.

p. 96: Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus, and Mack notices the same crucifixion scars on Papa's hands that Jesus has.

The three persons of the Trinity are not interchangeable. They cannot take on the forms of each other. Jesus was the only person of the Trinity on the cross. God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. Jesus was born of a virgin, God the Father and the Holy Spirit were not. The Trinity is not one person who takes on three different forms, but three distinct persons.

The theological term for this heresy is modalism and it has been around since the 3rd century AD.

2) God really did forsake Jesus on the cross.

p. 96: As mentioned above, Papa states that he was present on the cross with Jesus. Mack disagrees, in that Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Papa says, "You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him." [italics in original] Papa goes on to ask, "When all you can see is your pain, perhaps then you lose sight of me?"

The idea that God did not turn his back on Jesus when he was on the cross is contrary to Jesus' own words (Matt. 27:46). To disregard Jesus' statement is to propose that Jesus was somehow deceived because of his intense pain, that God the Father was actually still with him but Jesus was blind to it.

God did not forsake Jesus because he was in pain. God had to forsake Jesus on the cross because Jesus had become "a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13) and "sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). God turned away from the sin that Jesus was taking on our behalf so that we might obtain Christ's righteousness. Jesus got what we deserved (separation from God) so that we could be reconciled to God.

However, the point remains that when we are in pain, God does not forsake us like he had to with Jesus. We are not bearing anyone else's sin. God is present even in our greatest pain. It is just not acceptable to make that case by arguing that Jesus was deceived.

3) Jesus does not continue to choose to be human.

p. 110-112: Jesus explains to Mack that he is fully human and fully God: not in the sense that he was fully human while he was on earth, but still is. "I choose to live moment by moment fully human. I am fully God, but I am human to the core."

While Jesus was certainly fully human and fully God while he was on this early 2000 years ago, to argue that he is still choosing to be human daily is a strange proposal. The point that Jesus can relate to us because of his experience as a human is absolutely true, but stretching it to mean he continues to become human repeatedly after his ascension into heaven is peculiar and unbiblical.

4) God will condemn some people to hell.

p. 162: The book is a bit vague on this point, but it seems to strongly intimate that God is too loving a father to send anyone to hell simply for sinning against him. It completely ignores the justice of God. Hell was not originally intended for people, but rather the demons who rebelled against God. However, Rev. 20:10-15 is clear that everyone will be judged and those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be given the same punishment as the demons.

5) There really is authority within the Trinity.

p. 122-3: Sarayu says, "We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command .... What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us .... Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you."

There are a number of presumptions in these statements that are misleading.

First, authority is not contrary to unity. There can be authority in a relationship and unity. That was modeled during Christ's life on earth.

Second, authority is not always synonymous with power. Authority can exist without forcing obedience of another. In the Trinity, authority works through submission as opposed to enforcement. The concept of submission is entirely lacking from The Shack, but is essential in understanding true Godly authority and relationship.

Third, authority must be legalistic and is therefore contrary to relationship. Legalism is deadly, and contrary to the new covenant. However, William P. Young seems to think that authority is impossible without legalism. Again, willing submission permits authority to exist alongside loving relationship without any legalism required.

Jesus clearly demonstrated that he was not in a "circle of relationship" with the God the Father. He did what his Father in heaven wanted. The Father sent Jesus to earth, and sent the Holy Spirit after Jesus ascended. Jesus asks his Father for things in prayer, but never commands his Father. There is clear authority in the Trinity, and it is not circular.

6) There really is the concept of "responsibility" in the Bible.

p. 205: Sarayu says "you won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures."

That statement is technically true for the King James Version of the Bible, but the concept of responsibility is clearly there. The NASB has 4 instances of the word responsibility, and the NIV has 13.

The term is used in a few different situations:

The responsibility of the Levitcal priesthood to oversee the tabernacle. (E.g. Num. 4:16, 27)

The responsibility of the Levitical priesthood to oversee the temple. (E.g. 1 Chr. 9:26)

The responsibility of the seven deacons to oversee the distribution of food to the widows. (Acts 6:3)

The responsibility of church leaders to take care in the laying on of hands, so as to not "share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Tim. 5:22)

The concept of responsibility is found in many more passages, even though the word itself may not. According to Merriam-Webster, responsible means "able to answer for one's conduct and obligations" and "marked by or involving ... accountability." Jesus' parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) clearly shows that we will be held accountable for the gifts God has given us to steward during our lifetime. God commended Abraham because he "kept my charge" (Gen. 26:5 KJV and NASB), meaning he looked after that which God had placed under his care. Lastly, we will all be held accountable for our lives after we die and face judgment (Heb. 9:27).

Our relationship with God is certainly based on love and acceptance, but it is also one of stewardship. We will never hear God say to us, "Well done good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21) unless we have been responsible stewards.

Being in relationship with God is more than hanging out together, although that's part of it. It is a relationship with a purpose. Jesus' life on earth demonstrated what a purposeful life in close relationship with the Father looked like. Jesus did not just live to sit back and relax with a cold drink while experiencing the Father's love, but to fulfill the work the Father gave him to do (John 5:36). Our love for God is our motivation to be obedient to him and fulfill his purposes rather than our own.

We don't carry the burden of responsibility out of legalism, but out of our relationship of love with God.

Conclusion

Attempting to make difficult Biblical concepts easily understandable to the crowds is a worthwhile goal, but mixing error and heresy with truth is destructive. I would not recommend this book to anyone, except as a practice exercise in discerning Biblical truth from error.

I've asked myself how this book might have been improved. What if it were rewritten, avoiding the blatant theological errors?

The problem is, the entire premise of The Shack is part of the error. Presenting the three persons of the Trinity as humans is doomed to failure from the start. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not and have never been human. Projecting human traits on them is not helping us understand their nature. Instead, it is making God to be in our image rather than the other way around.

A Democrat Journalist's Critique of the US Media

2008-10-25T22:02:00.005-04:00

Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a jounalist in the U.S. and in a recent column he has strong criticism for both Democrats and journalists in regards to the causes of and the blame for the current financial crisis.

His main lament is that truth in journalism has taken a back seat to promoting one's own causes, in this case election outcomes.

His own honesty is a refreshing change from the typical election news stories.

A Funny But Accurate Description of the Financial Crisis

2008-10-25T21:38:00.004-04:00

John Bird and John Fortune are a comedy duo in the UK who interview each other on various news topics. Here is their explanation of the financial crisis, which is the best I've heard so far.

Here is another one they do regarding the British Navy's planned construction of two new aircraft carriers.

Lessons on Conscience, from Hitler's Secretary

2008-08-28T21:57:00.016-04:00

I watched a documentary called Blind Spot, which is an interview with Traudl Junge, personal secretary to Adolph Hitler. She worked for him for a few years during the war, right up until the Russians captured Berlin. In fact, Hitler dictated his last will to her in the bunker. She published her memoirs, and died in 2002.

After the war, Traudl was shocked to discover all of the atrocities committed by Hitler and the Nazis. She had always viewed Hitler as a kind, fatherly figure incapable of doing harm. In the decades following the war, she did much soul-searching to come to grips with how she had been so effectively blinded and deceived about the evil that had taken place all around her.

The interview begins with her discussing how the Nazi system dominated all of society.

[interviewer] People's consciences too?

Yes. You see, that's an area where Hitler did a huge amount of harm. He actually tried to manipulate the consciences of the German people. He convinced them they had a task to do, they had to exterminate the Jews, because the Jews caused all our problems. It wasn't Hitler's own idea, it had been put forward much earlier. That they had to make a sacrifice. And I can remember a writer, she interviewed a soldier who had been stationed in a concentration camp. He was a guard, and she asked him: "Didn't you feel any pity at all for the people you treated so badly there?" And he replied, "Yes, I certainly did feel pity for them, but I had to overcome it. That was a sacrifice I had to make for the greater cause."

And that's what happened to conscience.

After all, Hitler always used to say: "You don't have to worry, any of you, you just have to do whatever I say, and I'll take responsibility." As if anyone can take charge of another person's conscience. I do think you can make someone's conscience more sensitive or desensitize it, or manipulate it.

It is remarkable what evil Hitler could accomplish once people's consciences were desensitized. He actually convinced many in a society to ignore their consciences for a "good" cause.

Fun with Wordles

2008-07-31T22:58:00.010-04:00

Another toy on the internet to play with.

Wordle lets you take any document and create a word picture based on the word counts. It's quite asthetic to look at, and sometimes seeing the most common words does give a new insight into the key concepts within. Other times, it's just a jumble of words!

Here's one I did based on the book History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickson White in 1895.

Here's another of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament.

Grace or Righteousness?

2008-07-29T00:46:00.020-04:00

Terry Virgo describes a situation where a pastor is asked by an unmarried couple if he would baptize them. Terry uses it as a starting point for a study on grace and righteousness, and that grace is not an alternative to righteousness.

The situation Terry describes led me in a slightly different direction of thinking. What are the requirements for baptism? Is righteousness (Godly behaviour) a prerequisite for being baptized?

To Baptize or Not To Baptize?

In Acts 2:38 Peter says, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no time for a demonstration of righteous behaviour on the part of Peter's audience -- repentance was the only prerequisite.

In Acts 8, Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands what he is reading in Isaiah. After Philip preaches Jesus to him, the eunuch immediately asks to be baptized in the nearby water. In this case, an understanding of what Jesus did for him was the prerequisite for baptism.

In Jesus' great commission, he tells us to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20) A decision to become a disciple of Christ preceeds baptism, but instruction on observing Christ's commands comes after baptism, not before.

So it appears from just these 3 passages that the requirements for baptism include:

A clear commitment to follow Christ;
Repentance of sin;
An understanding of what this commitment involves, and of what baptism signifies.

If a person meets these requirements, then there should be no objection to baptizing them. Baptism is a beginning, not an end, and we should not put a lot of hurdles in the way of a person beginning their walk with Christ.

There is no Biblical basis for us to insist that a person be disobedient to God by postponing their baptism in order to become obedient in another area first, such as marriage.

So What About Sin?

Getting back to the original situation of an unmarried couple wanting baptism, how do we address the fact that God intends for sex to be reserved for marriage? How do we address their sin?

First, we show them grace by allowing them time to become disciples of Christ before we expect them to live like Christ.

Second, once they are disciples, we begin teaching them how to live like Christ. We set expectations that their lives will look differently down the road, and that they need to be willing to let Christ show them areas that need changing. In this case, we show them that either they will get married or they will separate, but that they cannot remain in the status quo situation indefinitely.

Third, we do not presume which sins God wants to deal with first in the lives of new believers. There is no Biblical basis to assume that a couple in a common-law relationship is the most offensive sin before God and that it must be dealt with first. It may be the first sin God deals with for some people, but for others it may be second priority or fifth priority. We need to give God room to work within his priorities and not impose our own agendas on new believers.

For example, God may need to deal with a person's violent temper or their addictions or their chronic lying before marriage is even going to be a possibility. Rushing a couple into marriage before they are ready may just result in another divorce, and that is not God's desire either.

If there are children in the home of this unmarried couple, taking the father away until a marriage can occur may cause other undesirable problems in terms of family life. We want the children to see that their heavenly Father has changed their earthly father for the better, not that their Daddy became a Christian and suddenly couldn't live with them anymore.

A Year of Grace

At The King's Family Church, we talk in terms of a Year of Grace for new people who come to us. The idea of a year is rather arbitrary, but it seems to be a length of time that allows God to bring some significant changes, but not too long to seem indefinite.

If a particular sin is causing problems in the new believer's life, or in church life, we take the initiative to address it. Otherwise, we let God shine his light on different areas of the person's life and follow God's lead. As long as we see growth in at least one area, we know that God is at work and we can therefore be patient with the other areas of that person's life.

And when we see the fruit of righteous living in a new believer, even in just one little aspect of their life, we're grateful to God.

Human Rights or Human Responsibilities?

2008-02-17T22:30:00.001-05:00

I hear a lot about people's rights these days. We live in an age and society where human rights are given not just important status, but preeminent status.

I hear very little about people's responsibilities however. Rights always bring responsibilities but I find that they seldom are discussed together. We have Human Rights Commissions, but no Human Responsibilities Commissions. Lots of protestors demand human rights, but very few protest the lack of personal responsibility that should be exercised along with those rights.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines certain rights in our constitution. Interestingly, immigrants who become Canadian citizens are taught about both their rights as Canadians AND their responsibilities as Canadians. (Those of us who are born Canadians are never given that training!) For instance, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website helpfully points out that our right to vote is not much use if we ignore our responsibility to vote. Similarly, our right to a fair trial comes with a responsibility to obey Canada's laws. Rights are always connected to responsibilities.

The focus on human rights can result in good outcomes, but it becomes unbalanced without any consideration of responsibility. A system of rights can only work when everyone understands their responsibility to honour the rights of others. Once a person starts thinking that their own rights trump everone else's rights, the system starts to breaks down.

One example:
In November 2007, a group of school children north of Toronto filed a human rights complaint demanding their school inspect every child's lunch bag for foods that cause them severe allergies. It caused a lot of media attention, and lots of letters to the editors. Fascinating that these students previously had the unusual priviledge of lunch bag inspections, which were stopped because the school board was trying to make their practices standard across the region. It was a loss of this special priviledge that caused the students to complain. From the National Post article:

Jane Farrell, a spokeswoman for Edmonton Public Schools, was surprised when told about the proposed lunch-bag inspections.

"I've never heard of anything like this," she said. "If it's a peanut-free school, it's a peanut-free school and parents are respectful of that. I've never heard of anyone deliberately violating that. Inspecting lunches? That's a new one."

I find it fascinating that the Human Rights tribunal, which was created to ensure everyone is treated equal, is now being used to provide a few people with preferential treatment. The complainants provided no evidence that the lack of these lunch-bag inspections has increased the prevalence of peanuts in the school, as the school policy prohibiting peanuts has remained unchanged. There was also no mention of any responsibilities of students who have a peanut allergy, such as having an Epi-Pen handy. And predictably, no consideration of the rights to "lunch-bag privacy" for the vast majority of the student population.

The time may have arrived for us to stop emphasizing human rights and instead refocus our society on human responsibility.

Spirit-led Meetings: Maintaining Order While Experiencing Freedom

2007-12-10T00:18:00.000-05:00

This is my fourth and final post in response to this article by David Walters. See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Order AND Freedom In A Meeting? Is That Possible?
I grew up in a church that excelled at keeping order in church meetings. Everything was decided beforehand, right down to the hymn numbers and who was reading what Bible verses and when. Nothing was left unplanned. If the Spirit wanted to influence the worship service in anyway, he had to get his input to the church office by Thursday afternoon when the bulletin was typed!

It's obvious that this kind of control in a meeting tends to stifle the Spirit, and his potential to speak through various members of the church body. But the opposite is also undesirable -- total freedom in a meeting so that a level of chaos prevails and the meeting is unfruitful.

It seems the Corinthian church was leaning towards the latter situation -- they were experiencing freedom and the gifts of the Spirit, but the meetings were getting a bit chaotic. Apparently people were talking at the same time, too many people were speaking while too few listened, and Paul was becoming concerned.

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
1 Cor. 14:26-33.

Paul clearly teaches that it is possible to have freedom in the Spirit in a church gathering while still avoiding disorder. So how do we achieve such a balance? A few thoughts ...

1) Control Must Begin with Self
It's difficult to have an orderly group if no one is practicing self-control. We must consider others in the group before ourselves. Speaking in turn or listening to what others say or following the direction of the leaders may seem like common courtesy, but I'm amazed at how some people can take the Spirit's leading as an excuse to be inconsiderate of the rest of the church.

"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets." No one can say, "The Holy Spirit made me do it." We each can decide when and where and how and even whether we bring a message that we've received from the Spirit. The gifts of the Spirit are always under our control.

Sometimes that means we have to wait until a later time in the meeting to bring our prophecy or prayer. Sometimes it means not saying it at all during this meeting and saving it for next week. If I seek to strengthen the church in humility, then "not getting a turn" shouldn't cause my ego any problems.

2) Leaders Must Exercise Their Authority
While an orderly meeting begins with everyone exercising self-control, it ends with the authority of the leaders. Leaders have a responsibility to maintain both freedom and control in a meeting. When the whole church gathers, it is the elders who ultimately have that responsibility, but when smaller groups meet it is whomever gives leadership for that group, such as the home group leader or worship leader.

What functions must leaders take on to ensure an orderly meeting happens in the midst of freedom?

a) Leaders set the expectations for the meeting.
The leaders must set the expectations for a number of aspects of the meeting. For example, the leaders must make the purpose(s) for the meeting clear, they must set the format and style of the meeting, and they must set boundaries defining what is appropriate or inappropriate for the meeting. This doesn't mean they have to write policy documents or post lists of rules on the door, but they must speak about and model these expectations when meeting together. These are not issues of right and wrong, but of preferences and strategies.

In our church, the Sunday morning worship meeting happens so we can worship God together as an entire church family, build relationships with each other, encourage and pray for one another, serve one another, teach God's Word, and create a public venue for visitors to check us out. We allow anyone to speak out during the worship time to bring their worship contribution, but during the teaching time we expect folks to raise their hand if they want to ask a question or make a comment about the topic at hand. We pray for people who have any kind of need, but we don't want Sunday morning to be a "Here's-my-list-of-prayer-requests" time. That happens in either home groups or smaller "prayer triplets" (accountability groups) where people can get a bit more personal. We try to finish at the same time every week because we rent a community centre, and we have to be out at a certain time to allow the next group to set up.

By having clear expectations, it gives us some boundaries to know what behaviours are appropriate or inappropriate in the meeting. For example, if someone speaks up in our Sunday meeting and says we should cancel the sermon and spend the next hour praying about a situation, we know that this is counter to our purpose of teaching God's Word, so we might take a few minutes to pray about it, but we're not going to cancel the teaching time. There is nothing wrong with praying an hour for something, it's just counter to our overall purposes in this particular meeting. In a prayer meeting, it might be entirely appropriate.

b) Leaders ensure that key messages are being caught by the group.
It's easy for us to focus on the contribution that we each want to share while ignoring all the other contributions being made. Sometimes a leader needs to interrupt things, highlight the last prophecy, and have the church pray into that topic for a few minutes. Sometimes a leader needs to remind people of prophecies brought in past weeks when they relate to new ones being shared now. Sometimes a leader can thread pieces from a number of different contributions into a common theme.

While each of us as maturing believers should be doing these things ourselves, the fact is we need to learn how, and the best way to learn is to see it demonstrated by the leaders.

c) Leaders ensure inappropriate or un-Biblical messages are stopped and corrected in a loving and gracious manner.
In my experience, this is the most difficult part of being a leader in a Spirit-led meeting.

If people in a church meeting "weigh carefully what is said" after a prophetic word is given, what if one person says that word is appropriate and another says it is inappropriate? How does the group decide who is right? How does the meeting proceed? There must be leaders who can give authoritative direction.

David Walters shares an example of a prophetic word of knowledge in a church meeting:
A young evangelist who traveled with me was in one of our meetings on a Sunday morning. The meeting was packed and there were many visitors. Sometime during the meeting he stood up and said, "The Lord has shown me that there are six people here that are involved in immorality and if you don't stand up right away, I will stand in front of you until you do." One by one, six people stood up for prayer and deliverance.

While David uses this of an example of God's Spirit moving in a meeting, I feel this is a good example of a false prophecy. If that had happened in our church meeting, I as an elder would've stood up immediately and stopped this word from proceeding any further. (Quite likely both of our other elders would've beat me to it!) I would explain that there would be no public confession altar call, and that we should each let God point out any areas in our lives that need repentance, but otherwise I would keep the meeting moving on. I wouldn't embarrass the young man who had brought the word, but I would be clear that we weren't going to follow his instruction.

Why would I do that? What's wrong with that prophecy?

1) It was brought with a sense of condemnation and guilt rather than love and grace. It was clearly not intended to build up the church, but rather to knock some people down a notch and probably to bump the speaker up a notch.
2) It was brought with an attitude of arrogance and coercion, not humility.
3) It was vague and general so its truthfulness could not be validated.
4) Confessions in our church are done in small accountability groups ("prayer triplets") and not in our public worship meetings. This is an expectation our leaders have set in order to keep our worship meetings more orderly.

Point 3) needs some elaboration. Because the sin of immorality could be interpreted to include any immoral thoughts, it could describe a lot of people on any given Sunday. Even though it supposedly only applied to 6 people, the likelihood is that it applied to far more than 6 people that Sunday morning, and the rest were all relieved that they didn't stand up first! Like a newspaper horoscope, if the predictions are common enough and vague enough, some people will think it's supernaturally describing their situation. If God brings a word of knowledge, it should be possible for the church to test its truthfulness.

If this message had been brought with love and grace, it might have been brought with words about God's desire to have sinners return to him to be received and accepted because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins. It would've been an encouragement for people to voluntary confess their sins, not an awkward coercion to force people to confess.

If this message had been brought with humility, it would've been given privately after the meeting, one-on-one, encouraging the individuals to find someone they trusted to confess whatever immorality they had committed. If God really wanted public confessions to occur that morning, he probably would've asked the person who received the prophetic word to be the first to confess.

If this message were specific enough to be testable, the 6 people would have names and faces, which would allow the one-on-one discussions to occur as mentioned above.

If inappropriate prophecies are left unchecked, it can cause confusion and sometimes harm to the church. Prophecy is both a powerful and dangerous gift. Like fire, it can do a lot of good or a lot of damage depending on how it's used. Most of the time leaders can bring correction privately after the meeting, especially if the problem was minor. Other times when the error is more serious, the correction must occur immediately and publicly. That's where Godly wisdom comes in to know what response is best.

All correction must be brought with the intention of building up the person who erred, not tearing them down. We don't want to humiliate the person so they are reluctant to use their gift in the future.

Order AND Freedom In A Meeting is Biblical

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
1 Cor. 14:39-40

We must pursue both freedom in the Spirit AND order in our meetings because that is what God wants in his church. He says it's possible, so we must keep learning how to do both aspects better.

Spirit-led Meetings: Keeping Our Priorities Straight

2007-12-01T22:06:00.000-05:00

This is Part 3 of my comments in regard to this article by David Walters. (Read Part 1 and Part 2).

Keeping Our Priorities Straight

When we come together as a church to worship God, we need to remember why we are doing so. If we forget our purpose for meeting, we can become focused on other good things while failing to achieve the most important things.

David Walters describes occasions where people do not hear clearly from God in the meeting, or the various contributions do not coalesce into a coordinated message.

"If we felt the presence of God wasn't really there, we would close the meeting and acknowledge that we missed God. We would have a coffee."

This suggests to me that the focus of that meeting has subtly shifted from being on God to being on the worshippers. If the worshippers don't experience God in a certain way (i.e. we somehow "miss" him), then there is no point in continuing the meeting. But what if God was actually enjoying the meeting?

There will always be occasions when we don't hear God's Spirit as clearly as we would like to, or times when some folks don't share their contributions out of fear or self-doubt. The result may be a meeting where there is no clear theme being heard from God. But what if God wanted to bring 3 or 4 themes that day? What if there were so many urgent issues happening in the church that particular week that God did not want to bring just one coordinated message? Maybe everyone was hearing God's Spirit correctly after all.

Worship Is Primarily An Opportunity For Us To Bless God.
Our primary purpose in a worship meeting should be to bring our worship offerings to God. We bring our songs of praise, prayers of thanks, our money, and our talents. We want to express in a public way how great God really is.

Hearing from God's Spirit is something excellent to pursue, and we should always desire to experience his presence, but that is not our primary reason for gathering to worship. We do not come to worship God for our benefit, but for his. If we primarily focus on receiving something from God in our meetings, our focus has subtly shifted to ourselves.

The great thing about our loving God is that he often blesses us, and speaks to us, and encourages us when we bring our worship to him, but let's not make "us" our main reason for coming together as a church. Let's allow God to have that privilege.

"Success" in a worship meeting (if we could measure such a thing) should be based on what offerings we bring to God, and not on what we receive from him.

Spirit-led Meetings: How To Get Folks To Participate

2007-11-29T19:42:00.000-05:00

This is Part 2 of my comments in regard to this article by David Walters. (Read Part 1).

How Can We Get People To Participate In Church Meetings?

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Cor. 14:26 (NASB)

David Walters does a good job of describing how different contributions from people can flow together into a beautiful collection of related topics and messages when the Spirit is allowed to lead each person.

"Everything should flow like a piece of music. A symphony, a melody theme, flows through with variations, but at the end everyone recognizes the melody, the theme, the message. It's come through the songs that are brought by the Spirit, the visions shared, the prophecies, and tongues given, the message preached. They all connect."

I believe many Christians are interested in experiencing this type of meeting, but most don't know how to get there. How do you change a group of believers, who are used to having one leader or a worship team bring all the worship contributions, into a group where many are willing to bring their own worship contributions?

Here are some of my thoughts:

The Leaders Must Learn First. If people are going to learn a new way of doing worship meetings, someone is going to have to show them what it looks like. Initially that "someone" is going to be the leaders. It can be the pastor or the elders or the worship team, or in a home group it can be the group leader or the hosts, but someone has to take the initiative to model it.

This leads to the question: "How do the leaders learn the new way so they can model it?"

There must be a "safe place" for leaders to try out the new model of meeting. It may be a home group, or an elders meeting, or a worship team rehearsal. At some point, someone has to be willing to say, "Let's try having a worship time where each of us brings a contribution." See what happens. Evaluate what worked well and what didn't work so well. It has to be in a setting where no one is embarrassed and no harm is done if the meeting turns out to be a complete flop.

As your leaders get comfortable with the new model, you can start bringing it into larger meetings. You must demonstrate that people who don't have a microphone in front of them are allowed to speak in the meeting! When the bass player in the worship team says her own prayer of gratitude, when an elder in row 5 reads a Bible verse, when a youth leader in the back row shares a prophetic picture he received that morning during his devotions, suddenly people will begin to grasp what this new model of a worship meeting really looks like. It will move from being a theoretical concept to being a tangible reality.
Expect Change To Come In Steps, Not All At Once.
Very few things in the Christian life are learned instantaneously -- most are learned step-by-step. Same is true when teaching a church how to participate in worship meetings. Expect this transition to be a journey.

If the believers in your church are not used to speaking out in a meeting, it will take time for them to get used to the new reality. For some it will take a lot of practice until they are comfortable reading a verse in a large group. People with a prophetic gift may be used to sharing prophecies one-on-one with people, but sharing a prophecy with the whole church takes a lot more courage and confidence.

So allow time for folks' courage and confidence to grow. After each meeting, personally encourage the people who made contributions. Tell them that you liked how their verse fit with the song you had just sung. Let them understand how their seemingly simple prayer encouraged you. People have to know that even if they misread the verse or stutter or have a mental blank in the middle of a prayer, nothing is going to happen that will cause them embarrassment. Your leaders must create an atmosphere of safety so people can be willing to take such a risk.

The other week my wife and I sat next to a couple from an Anglican background who recently started attending our church. They are quite terrified at the thought of making up their own prayers and saying them out loud. It is completely foreign to their experience and expectations. It will take them time to get comfortable with the idea, but I hope that someday when one of them publicly says "Thank you God for ____ (anything!)" there will be a few "amens" to encourage them. That will be their first personal contribution to a worship meeting in their lives, and I can tell you that it's exciting to witness!
People Don't Need Certain Spiritual Gifts to Contribute to the Worship.
Some of the contributions described in 1 Cor. 14:26 are gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The danger is when people look at themselves, see that they don't have those certain gifts, and then dismiss their ability to contribute anything of significance to the worship.

Leaders must clearly teach that everyone can contribute something of value to the worship. Almost everyone has the ability to read a Psalm, or at least a verse of a Psalm, that would build up the church. There is no spiritual gift of "psalming" or of public praying. We just have to get up the courage to share our contributions in a group.
Encourage People To Come Prepared.
This dovetails with my last post, but people must come prepared both to worship God and to hear from God.

Encourage everyone to watch for a verse to share next Sunday while they do their personal Bible reading throughout the week. Encourage prophetically-gifted people to spend time praying and listening to God throughout the week, asking if He would have anything for them to bring next Sunday. It greatly improves the likelihood that they will have something to contribute.

God is gracious and he will bless even our feeble, initial, imperfect attempts at making our church meetings more closely follow the Biblical example.

Spirit-led Meetings: Spontaneity vs Preparation

2007-11-27T10:05:00.001-05:00

A friend recently forwarded this article to me written by David Walters, an itinerant minister in the U.S. It got me thinking about our ongoing experience at The King's Family Church and pushed me back into the Scriptures to review what exactly New Testament church meetings are supposed to look like. It's been a helpful exercise, and will probably generate a few postings from me on this subject. Here's Part 1 of my response to David's article.

Spontaneity vs Preparation
David Walters seems to suggest that a Spirit-led meeting is one where the components are completely unplanned and entirely spontaneous.

From David's article:

"So when we come together corporately, our gatherings, or meetings, should also be unpredictable, like the wind. 'How is it then? Whenever you come together each of you have a psalm, have a teaching, have a tongue, have a revelation, have an interpretation.'
1.Cor.14:26.

If you don't want messes, keep organized, keep everyone in order, then you will have sterile meetings. "

I agree with David in that spontaneity is a part of being Spirit-led, but I disagree with him that the Spirit is all about spontaneity. Planning ahead is also an aspect of Godly wisdom (as in Jesus' parable in Luke 14:28 about building a tower), so why would we presume that the Spirit cannot start leading us until after the meeting has begun?

There is nothing in 1 Cor. 14:26 that implies spontaneity. That verse is about everyone contributing to the meeting. Spontaneity can apply to the prophetic gift, as in 1 Cor. 14:30:

And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.

So spontaneity is clearly a component of a Spirit-led meeting, but it is not a requirement for every aspect of the meeting.

I also disagree with David's assertion that because the Spirit is like the wind, Christians should be unpredictable. I see unpredictability as a sign of immaturity in a believer. The most mature believers I've encountered are very stable and predictable, no matter what the situation. They are sensitive and responsive to the Holy Spirit, but they are not unpredictable.

Christians should rather be like a sailor who is constantly watching the wind, adjusting the sails to allow the force of the wind to have maximum effect. It doesn't mean letting go of the rudder and spinning in circles. In fact, one of the gifts of the Spirit is administration (1 Cor. 12:28), which literally means someone who can steer a boat. Therefore, a church that is fully moving in the gifts of the Spirit should be responding to the latest blowing of the Spirit while still keeping things in order and on course during the meeting.

Despite David's poke at inflexible worship teams and preachers, the fact is it's very difficult to sing a song when you don't know the words, or play a melody that you aren't familiar with. It's also difficult to teach effectively when you haven't studied or made notes. Bringing our worship to God requires both preparation on our part and sensitivity to the Spirit. It's not one or the other. Certainly worship in the OT temple was not a spontaneous event. An animal had to be chosen and led to the temple before any sacrifice could occur. Preparation on the part of the worshipper was mandatory.

It's interesting that the Bible says remarkably little about the format of church meetings. That tells me we should expect a lot of variety between churches, as different believers try different methods that suit their situations. At The King's Family Church, we essentially plan the meeting to include times of spontaneity. The worship team plans and practices their chosen songs beforehand, but between songs they invite people to share their contributions. Some folks read a Bible verse, others say a short prayer of thanksgiving, a few bring prophetic words, and occasionally we even get a tongue and an interpretation. The speaker plans a sermon beforehand, and usually some of the contributions will fit with that topic. We keep trying to grow in this, and every year we get a little further ahead.

For instance, our worship teams are becoming more comfortable switching the order of their songs in response to the contributions that have just been made. As the worship teams get more and more songs that they can play by memory, they'll be able to add a song that they haven't practiced that week. Some day we'll be there, but not quite yet.

We've also made progress on what I would call "free singing." We have some worship leaders who can start singing their own words to a song. The musicians keep playing and the leader sings a new melody and new words in line with what we just sang together. No one from the congregation has tried that yet -- it will take some time for the worship leaders to model it before others have the confidence to step out in that way. It actually took us a long time to be able to do free singing at all. I remember the first occasion was a bit rough, because the musicians didn't really know what to do. Because each musician was playing his own unique chord progressions (which didn't sound good), they stopped playing altogether and the vocalist was left to sing by herself, which she wasn't comfortable doing. It was a noble attempt, and we encouraged the team afterwards, but it left some room for improvement! We now have musicians who know how to carry on certain chord progressions after a song is over, and we have some vocalists who know how to make up new melodies within those chord progressions. It's working very well now, and it significantly enhances our worship.

I guess all these mechanics don't sound very spiritual, but the development of skills is essential for us to be able to respond to the Spirit's leading.

Preparation on our part is a key aspect of having Spirit-led meetings.

Good Sermon on the Gift of Prophecy

2007-11-27T09:19:00.000-05:00

I heard a good sermon on the radio a couple weeks ago on the gift of prophecy in the church.

John Piper (a Baptist minister from Minneapolis) gives a very good explanation of what this gift looks like in the New Testament, as opposed to how prophets functioned in the Old Testament. He also fairly presents some opposing viewpoints from other Christian leaders.

My favourite lines:

So for these reasons I am persuaded that the gift of prophecy is valid for today and is not equal with Scripture in authority but is valuable as a Spirit-guided expression of something we otherwise would not know or say, which is powerful for that particular moment and brings conviction or exhortation or consolation for the awakening or upbuilding of faith.

It is fallible. It may prove true and it may not because the human channel is sinful and fallible and finite.

Welcome to Darren's Musings

2007-11-27T08:32:00.001-05:00

Muse: to become absorbed in thought; to turn something over in the mind.

I am not creating this blog because the world needs another blog. There are plenty of blogs out there already desperately searching for audiences.

I am not creating this blog to fill all my spare time. My spare time is nice and full already.

I am not creating this blog to seek fame and fans. I don't know what I'd do with fame and fans, and I think I'm quite safe from getting either.

I am creating this blog primarily for me, to put my ideas in a place where I can find them later after I've forgotten them.

I will post when I have a thought or a question worth remembering, not when the calendar says I'm due for a post. I refuse to be a slave to the blog; I want the blog to be my servant instead.

If you happen to find something in this blog that helps prod your own thoughts, great. Add a comment and help prod my thoughts too.