I wrote this article back in 2007 and included it as an appendix in the second edition of Prepared to Answer. At that particular time, it seemed to be quite in vogue to object to countless issues in our movement of churches, claiming that those things violated one’s conscience. While we should certainly not violate our consciences, I believe appeals to conscience can be both misused and overused. And we must be careful how we make those appeals. At that time in our history, once people objected to something supposedly based upon their own conscience, they essentially shut down any discussion on the matter, and dismissed any further consideration. My goal in writing this was to help us all have a more biblical understanding of what constitutes a valid objection based upon one’s conscience.
I believe this issue to be quite relevant a decade later as we consider current issues among us. I believe that some people do misuse the conscience principle in discussing certain emotionally charged topics (for them anyway) and are far too quick to pull the “conscience card.” I simply want to offer my study of the subject to a broader audience in hopes that biblical interpretation would be enhanced and deepened, helping us to avoid the misapplication of Scripture in the area of the conscience.
Common Misconceptions
The study of conscience biblically is a very interesting study, due partly to how misunderstood the subject actually is by many. For example, it is common to hear the old (mistaken) adage, “The conscience is a safe guide.” It wasn’t a very safe guide for Paul, who said before the Sanhedrin that he had “fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). That resulted in a slap in the mouth at the command of the high priest, but it had resulted in something far worse prior to this – he had helped kill Christians while believing that it was a service to God (Acts 26:9). He later stated in 1 Corinthians 4:4, “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.” The conscience is a safe guide only to the extent it is properly trained by the word of God.
Through the years, I have encountered several misunderstandings of just how the conscience was designed to function by God. I remember studying the Bible with a person who was deeply immersed in the teachings of Watchman Nee, teachings that I would call “neo-gnosticism.” (See my article, “Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit: a Form of Neo-Gnosticism” on this website.) Essentially, his teaching is based on making a very sharp distinction between soul and spirit, and building an entire system on this distinction, which is very confusing to anyone not familiar with his system and its terminology. But as it relates to the subject of conscience, he says that the conscience is based on the intuition component of the spirit, which ushers in a type of gnosticism by claiming to have something of a direct pipeline to God’s truths through hearing his voice in our inner self. Many religious people believe that God somehow speaks directly to their spirits, in a way that is better felt than told, and their consciences are often quite misled as a result.
Another misunderstanding, or in this case, blatant misuse, occurred with a ministry acquaintance of mine who often played the “conscience card” if his opinions weren’t carrying the day. If his ideas were accepted, he was happy; if they weren’t, he had a “conscience” problem with the directions chosen by the rest of the leadership group of which he was a part. This frequent appeal to conscience was nothing short of manipulation, and it likely isn’t a surprise for you to hear that he didn’t keep his job long.
An Historical (Almost Hysterical) Example
Another misunderstanding and misuse of conscience takes me back to my old days in the Mainline Church of Christ. In that setting, a number of older leaders often mistook an immature or untrained conscience for a sensitive conscience, which supposedly demonstrated a high level of spirituality. As an anecdotal teacher, I can’t help sharing an amusing incident in my life that illustrates this point all too well. Back in the late 1970s, I was preaching for a church deep in the heart of the Bible-Belt. Once I took a week’s vacation to go with my father and young son on a hunting trip, during which time I didn’t shave. Although beards were none too popular for ministers to have in those days, I decided to let mine grow for a while. The negative reactions by church members to my sporting a beard were nothing short of amazing. I suppose the hippie years were in the too recent past for them to see beards and rebellion as anything other than inseparably connected.
I remember one older member asking to meet with me, and he started the meeting with the question of whether anyone had ever told me that I was hard to get to know. I was trying to validate his evident feelings in any way I could, but unsure of just where he was coming from with such a question. About half an hour later, I figured it out. In essence, he said that he thought he knew me and that I was a great guy – but then I grew the beard, which showed that he didn’t know me at all! Wow, that was an enlightening conversation! But it did show how deeply some prejudices ran in that church at that period of history.
After a fairly short time, I shaved off the beard, but determined to address the issue of how I had supposedly “violated the consciences” of many members with my beard. It was obvious to me that the understanding of Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 8–10, along with Romans 14, was woefully lacking. About six months later, I preached a sermon entitled “The Sin of Beards and Bowties.” At the time, large butterfly bowties were still on sale in stores, but quite out of style anyway (except to one news announcer on a local TV channel). The night I preached the sermon, I wore one of the floppy things, and knew that a young ministry student with a beard would be sitting in his normal place in the second row in front of the pulpit. Thus, I had the props all set up for my sermon!
I began the sermon by talking about the importance of example and influence, and the sin of causing brothers to stumble (an oft-repeated claim in situations like mine). The “amens” started pretty early that night. I went on to show the biblical basis for not offending our brothers, by simply reading a number of verses in the chapters mentioned above. If you would like to read them, they are, in the order read, 1 Corinthians 8:1-2, 9, 12-13; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 32. Romans 14:13, 15, 19-21; 1 Corinthians 9:3-7, 11-15, 19-22; 1 Corinthians 10:31-33; and finishing with 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I ended the readings with this statement, “If my bowtie bothers you, I ought to take it off; if Ralph’s beard bothers you, he ought to cut it off! The chorus of “amens” rose to a new level, as quite a number of people were evidently rejoicing to see that I had finally seen the light! My next statement was that since it had been a very short lesson up to that point (about seven or eight minutes, as I recall), surely there must be other things on the subject to notice and study out in the context of the passages read. From there, I explained the passages used thus far in their context and in a way that caused the blood to drain from the faces of a number of folks in my audience. I stuck the sword of the Spirit in and twisted it! Just why I never was fired or asked to leave a ministry is a mystery!
As I began that confrontational explanation, since the last passage read was 1 Corinthians 11:1, I talked about the example of Christ in his earthly ministry. Certainly Jesus, like Paul, gave up many rights to influence people for good. Matthew 20:28 is a good passage on this point, as it states that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Another good one is Matthew 12:20: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.”
However, some things Jesus did seem to point in another, somewhat contradictory, direction. For example, Jesus often healed on the Sabbath Day. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 were very explicit – work six days and do no work on the Sabbath day. In fact, the Jews cut their teeth on the teaching that they shouldn’t do anything on the Sabbath that they didn’t absolutely have to do. It is not a mystery why some might see Jesus’ work on the Sabbath as at least questionable. Yet Jesus seemed to make a point of healing on the Sabbath. Sometimes Jesus disrupted those gathered in the temple or the synagogues for the purpose of worshiping God to the extent that bedlam ensued.
Don’t you think the people had at least some reasons for their feelings? There were six other days in which Jesus could have healed, but he insisted on Sabbath day healings! Even a more amazing situation was when the apostles picked grain on the Sabbath. Go back and read Exodus 16, which contains some very strong warnings about doing much of anything on the Sabbath. Also read Numbers 15:32-36, where it describes a man being stoned to death at the command of God simply for gathering wood on the Sabbath day! What would you have thought about the disciples gathering grain on the Sabbath day if you had grown up with these passages? They could have prepared food the day before – Israelites had been doing it for hundreds of years. Further, Jesus was criticized for the kinds of people he associated with, including prostitutes. (Likely, a minister in my ’70s setting would have caused some serious buzz through such associations, even if for spiritual purposes!) He was also accused of being a glutton and drunkard – but he didn’t quit eating or drinking. The fact that his behavior and practices drove some up the wall didn’t stop him from doing it. Why did he continue? We will answer that question a bit later in the article.
The Importance of Context
Studying passages in their context is a must, especially when sensitive subjects are involved or when addressing misunderstood texts. Look back at 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7-13, where the context gives a deeper insight to this subject of influence. First, notice in verse 9 that the wrong use of influence could cause someone to stumble. Verse 11 states that it could cause them to be destroyed. (Romans 14:15 uses similar terminology.) We must understand that there is a difference in causing someone to grumble, and in causing them to stumble. Second, 1 Corinthians 8:9-10 shows exactly how someone was caused to sin in this setting. Bottom line, they see your example and end up doing the same thing, but their conscience won’t allow them to do it without seriously damaging them. So, to make the application to beards and bowties, it would mean contextually that my example or Ralph’s example caused someone to wear a bowtie or grow a beard when their conscience wouldn’t allow it without producing guilt!
Third, note that the weak person is the one that is caused to stumble, not the strong person. My experiences growing up often showed the supposedly spiritually mature brothers raising issues about nearly everything, and thus they backed others off of a given choice so that they wouldn’t be caused to “stumble.” Frankly, those men were only grumblers and actually should have been the focus of church discipline, because in the words of Titus 3:10, they were divisive. Fourth, Romans 14 makes the other three points, but gives one additional point. It’s about the attitudes the strong should have toward the weak, and also about the attitudes the weak should have toward the strong. Read verses 1-10 to grasp Paul’s line of reasoning. Note that in verse 1, we are dealing with matters of opinion.
The strong brother should not discount the conscience of the weak brother. The weak brother, on the other hand, should not judge the strong brother who has the stronger conscience and the freedom that goes with it. Either way, Romans 14 gives a clear call for tolerance towards each other. It should be quite obvious that my hearers in the long ago had looked at these passages in a surface way in the past, and had often given some incomplete or even wrong applications of them. To summarize, (1) Paul was talking about causing someone to fall away; (2) the way that they were made to sin was by following your example when their conscience wouldn’t allow it; (3) the weak person is the one caused to stumble, not the strong one; and finally, (4) in matters of opinion, we must develop and exercise tolerance toward one another with different viewpoints.
But how do we harmonize what Paul taught here with the examples of Jesus already noted? Paul is dealing with young Christians, whereas Jesus was dealing with those who were supposedly mature. Paul was arguing for giving the immature time to grow, while Jesus was not willing to placate the ones who claimed to be mature – the keepers and defenders of the law of God! I have found that the young are typically not the ones upset about such things as beards and bowties – they haven’t had time yet to become traditionalized. It is most often the supposedly mature who appeal to conscience being violated.
In my lesson of long ago, I went on to discuss possible objections, which although strongly felt, were emotionally based instead of biblically based. I decided as a result of that study that I would try to imitate both Paul and Jesus. In a nutshell, I wanted to be very careful with those who were newer Christians and thus immature in their faith, but not be manipulated by older Christians who were not willing to change their minds and alter their consciences. Real maturity is willingness to entertain the possibility of being wrong – of having a conscience that needs further training. Digging in one’s heals in the kinds of issues that Paul would call matters of opinion is not a very mature practice. Hardening of the arteries is probably an inevitable part of aging; hardening of the attitudes should never be.
Consciences Can and Should Be Retrained
All in all, I would never advocate someone violating their conscience, even in an opinion area. I believe that is what Paul was warning against in the passages referenced. However, I will always try to help someone retrain their conscience in opinion areas. The reason I make this distinction and feel strongly about it is intensely personal. I was raised in a church of about thirty people, all of whom believed sincerely that taking communion from multiple cups, having more than one tray of bread passed, and dividing the assembly into Sunday School classes were all sinful practices. We were technically called a “one cup, no Sunday School” type of Church of Christ. Once, we debated for six months whether we could change from using grape juice in communion to using wine, in order to have one couple join us on Sundays who were driving to another city to worship with a “wine, one cup, no Sunday School church.” Although I was a preteen at the time, or maybe a young teen, I still remember vividly some of the heated conversations between my parents and other members of that little church. The memories are not good ones, but after a number of decades, sometimes they can seem at least a little humorous. During those conversations, the questions of violating consciences came up often, rest assured.
When I married at the ripe old age of twenty-two, my (then) Baptist wife wanted us to attend church together. We at first agreed to switch off attending each other’s type church, which we did for a few months. When it was time to attend the Church of Christ, I chose one of the more typical ones, with multiple cups and Sunday School, thinking that the little church of my childhood would be so different from what she was used to that it would seem too weird to her. After a few months, I just couldn’t go to the Baptist church anymore, knowing how far off they were on the subject of conversion. In one service with a guest preacher, he had everyone close their eyes, and then asked those who wanted to accept Jesus to simply raise their hands. He kept telling us that one and then others were now being saved as they raised their hands. Although I honestly wasn’t interested much in going to church anyway, I just couldn’t condone what I was observing in that church, and told Theresa that I wasn’t going to go with her anymore.
That could have been the end of it, and I could have used my Sundays for fishing – which was more to my liking anyway! But she said that she would just go with me to the Church of Christ (which was not particularly good news to me). But we started visiting various Mainline Churches of Christ at her insistence. It is a fact that the Baptist church teaching on salvation violated my conscience, based on passages about baptism and forgiveness of sins. And I believe that my conscience was correctly educated on that matter. It was not a matter of opinion.
However, like the folks being addressed in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, I had conscience issues about other matters that were not as clear biblically – notably the use of multiple cups and Sunday School (which Paul could have called “disputable matters.”) Fortunately for me, I became friends and fishing buddies with a preacher whom God used to change my life and my eternal destiny. I have written about him in the introductions of my books on Surrender and Romans. He introduced me to other scriptures about conscience and patiently helped me think through it all. He basically said that conscience shouldn’t be violated, but it could be re-educated, noting that those addressed in passages like 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and Romans 14 were younger Christians with weak consciences in areas related to their backgrounds. Those like Paul had stronger consciences, which meant in essence that they had better trained consciences. I’m sure one of the passages my friend used was 1 Corinthians 4:4, which we have already quoted.
While abiding within the boundaries of our conscience is important, the conscience is not always correct in its conclusions, however strongly the conclusions may be felt. With my friend’s help, I was able to retrain my conscience and accept a number of teachings that once violated my conscience. Those same principles he taught me served me well when I first encountered the discipling movement and then later became a part of it. I did not violate my conscience (although at times it got “stretched” a bit!), but I did seek to ask the hard questions and try to deal with them biblically, and then prayed that God would help my conscience change in ways that it really needed to – moving from what would be classified as “weak” to “strong” (or at least “stronger” as the process continued).
Current Trends
In recent settings (then 2007), I am hearing more about conscience than I have heard in a long, long time. Perhaps that is because some (most?) of us violated our consciences in our movement’s past. But we have had far too many pendulum swings in the last several years, and this may well be among them. I would hope that matters of conscience would become more and more confined to biblically clear matters, not simply to what Paul calls disputable matters. People need retraining of their consciences far more than the strengthening of them in opinion areas. In the Mainline church, we used to have an old saying: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things, love.” The problem I found with some folks was that their definition of faith issues was really broad. They didn’t like to admit that very much of what they believed belonged in the opinion arena. The practical result was most often that they were able to hold others at bay who had different opinions. Otherwise, they reasoned, we would be asking them to violate their consciences.
I am not the judge of anyone’s conscience. As Paul said, God is the one who judges. I am just pleading for consideration of possible weaknesses in how we are viewing conscience and conscience issues. My plea grows largely out of some of my own experiences in trying to work with others, and from my experiences in needing to retrain my own conscience – a painful but highly rewarding experience, for which I am most grateful. Had I not been open to that, I believe my life would have gone in quite different directions than it has, and I’m so thankful that my preacher friend (now deceased) was patient and loving enough to help me get past some things that were at first very difficult to deal with due to my background. And I do believe in looking back that my conscience was simply improperly trained in some areas, and hence according to Paul’s definition, it was weak.
As we mature, I think our opinion areas should become less important to us. Learning to properly identify the differences between opinion and faith areas is pretty essential for unity and harmonious relationships. And as we do that, the strength of our emotions in opinion areas should lessen considerably. One thing that has helped me since I have been in our movement is to realize that when good brothers who know the Bible well have sincere differences, this fact alone makes it highly likely that these differences fall into opinion areas. And in opinion areas, I want to remain tolerant and open to being persuaded to go in other directions than I might opt for personally, in order to work together most effectively. That is a worthy goal, and clearly a biblical one.
A Caution to Leaders
Since leaders are in the forefront of making decisions that affect a lot of people, they are the ones who especially need these lessons, it seems to me. Back when Wyndham Shaw and I co-authored the book Golden Rule Leadership, I wrote the introduction. Near the end of the introduction, I included the following caution:
WARNING!
The greatest danger in reading this book is to assume that you really already understand the principles being discussed and are currently putting them into practice. This is especially true for our most experienced leaders. We do not see ourselves as we are; we do not see ourselves as others see us. Our strong tendency is to think more highly of ourselves as leaders than we ought to think (Romans 12:3).
Guess who got offended by my cautionary remarks? Not young Christians – they were saying “Amen.” But a number of older leaders were definitely offended. What does that say to us? It says to me that as we age in leadership and years of service, we can be guilty of exactly what I penned in the quote above. In our earlier days as a movement, I was often cautioned about how I stated things, lest I offend the leaders. Now I am again being given exactly the same cautions. Something is wrong with that, and I think badly wrong. I can “lay it out” strongly to the average members, but I have to be careful not to offend the older leaders? Wow! Must history repeat itself again? Leaders ought to be able to hear challenges more humbly than anyone.
Certainly Paul argued in 1 Corinthians 8-10 that we must be willing to give up our “rights,” and he used himself as a great example of such. But for whom was he anxious to give up his rights? The weak, immature ones in the fellowship who were struggling with their consciences over past pagan practices, and also for those not yet saved. Hence he was willing to become all things to influence the ones in those categories and to give up all things in order to do so. But he was not willing to compromise or change his approach in teaching to placate the ones who should have been more mature. His question in Galatians 4:16 was “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Rest assured that he was not directing that question to young Christians.
Frankly, one of my bigger concerns for us as a movement is our tendency in the direction of some of the unsavory elements of the churches of which I used to be a part. I suggest that you look up every New Testament passage using the term conscience. The only places that I could find where it was warning against violating the consciences of others were in 1 Corinthians 8–10. Romans 14 contains the same concept without using the word itself. In light of the context of who Paul’s concern was about (immature Christians with weak consciences), and what the issues of controversy were (background pagan practices primarily), we need to be slow to play the “conscience card.”
My best judgment about how to view and use money is not shared by all disciples, and that can bother me. My best judgment about the kinds of movies or TV shows to watch or allow our children to watch is not shared by all, which also bothers me. My best judgment about alcohol consumption (especially where and with whom it is done) is not shared by all of my brothers. So once again I am bothered. But I don’t intend to let those differences of opinion cause me to violate my own conscience by joining in to practices with which I disagree, nor do I intend to become bothered enough to let it affect my love and fellowship with my brothers who have opinions and practices that vary from mine.
What others do in opinion areas is ultimately their choice, and it is not about my conscience. In other areas more related to leadership decisions and directions, I am pretty flexible. If a real biblical issue is involved, we are going to have to hash that one out before proceeding, but if it is a judgment matter, I will for the sake of unity throw in my lot with majority opinion. Those are practical and workable paths to follow in our personal families and in God’s family. Let’s just keep conscience appeals out of places where they don’t belong biblically. Generally, I like the old Restoration adage about faith and opinion, with this one change: “In matters of clear biblical doctrine, unity; in matters of judgment, freedom – but freedom exercised with a strong bent toward practical unity; and in all matters, love.”
“But when the goodness and love for man
appeared from God our Savior,
He saved us –
not by works of righteousness that we had done,
but according to His mercy,
through the washing of regeneration
and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
This Spirit He poured out on us abundantly
through Jesus Christ our Savior,
so that having been justified by His grace,
we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life.” – Titus 3:4-7 HCSB
A few months ago, I wrote an article about our ongoing ICOC 3.0 initiative, focusing on spirituality and the next generation. I am aware of some inter-generational dialogue having taken place, but it is thorny, with divergent perspectives clearly in view. I am prayerful.
On another note, in my observation, there are three big topics that may get short thrift in some of our churches, and they are spiritual intangibles, things we can’t see but are powerful motivators: grace, the Holy Spirit, and heaven. If we don’t rely on our human efforts and traditions (I call it spiritual humanism), we can find deep and powerful motivation in our relationship with God – what He has done for us (initially and continually), what He is doing in and through us, and what He will do for and with us.
I trust many of my friends, Gordon Ferguson and Doug Jacoby especially, to write and teach on each of these topics. They are trained and experienced Bible teachers and leaders in other capacities. There are dozens if not hundreds of others who are well qualified to explain the deep truths of each topic. This article is about how much we focus on grace, the Holy Spirit, and heaven, individually and corporately. I studied the Bible with a friend who became a Christian about a year ago who asked me near the end of our studies, “Do you believe in heaven?’ I said, “Yes, of course!”, and then he replied, “We haven’t talked about it and I have not heard a reference from the pulpit the last several months I have been attending.” As I reflected, I realized that heaven is something I (we?) take for granted, and it is simply too wonderful not to talk and dream about.
One reason we may be a bit tentative with these topics is that there is so much false doctrine such as cheap grace, emotionalism associated with the Holy Spirit, and bizarre and/or worldly views of heaven. But maybe another reason is that we rely too much on the flesh, on human effort, and our theology reflects it.
Some of us (me, especially) are performance-oriented and hard-working by character. I have and can do a lot to give, serve, and lead in the church. But my motivation may be perfectionism and/or the approval of others. I want to do things that are good and right but am too often driven by something that is not spiritual. Spiritually intrinsic motivation will please God. I don’t think a steady diet of worldly intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation communicates to God or others how much I love them.
Grace
“You therefore, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” – 2 Timothy 2:1
“But by God’s grace I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not ineffective. However, I worked more than any of them, yet not I, but God’s grace that was with me.” – 1 Corinthians 15:9
Grace makes confession of sin less difficult. Grace motivates compassion and evangelism more than the expectations of my leaders or friends. Grace motivates me to give – in secret. Grace gives me the fuel to be patient, to be humble, and to suffer. To be strong in grace is something intentional. It requires study, prayer, and conversation. It also deserves teaching and preaching – but not with so many qualifiers that we focus too much on our response, getting the cart before the horse. Let’s talk about grace more and find God’s motivation to live as followers of Jesus. God forgave me at baptism and His continual fountain of grace (1 John 1:7) forgives me every day. God’s grace also teaches me to be gracious towards others, providing a safety we all need. What’s not to talk about?!
The Holy Spirit
“’Repent’, Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” – Acts 2:38
“After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh?” – Galatians 3:3
God has not only forgiven us but he has put His Holy Spirit in us. Let that sink in. I/we tend to focus on the negatives such as don’t quench or grieve the Spirit, or alternatively, putting on the fruits of the Spirit through human effort. Not only did we receive the gift of forgiveness, we received the gift of the Holy Spirit. When we collectively are in step with the Spirit, amazing things can happen. Some have called Acts the Acts of the Apostles. While true, I prefer to call it the Acts of the Holy Spirit.
“As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work that I have called them to.’ Then, after they had fasted, prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them off.” – Acts 13:2-3
When we are spiritual and in step with His Holy Spirit, He can do amazing things through us. We find the power to live as followers of Jesus.
Heaven
“But our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Phil 3:20
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.” – I Thessalonians 4:16-18
I introduced this topic to a group of men and women, and an evangelist confessed that though he speaks regularly on grace and the Holy Spirit, he could not remember the last time he talked about heaven. Maybe we are so concerned with matters of this world that we don’t think, talk, or dream enough about heaven.
“Then I heard a loud voice from the throne:
Look! God’s dwelling is with men,
and He will live with them.
They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them and be their God.
He will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will exist no longer;
grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer,
because the previous things have passed away.” – Revelation 21:3-4
It’s hard not to cry tears of hope and relief while typing these words. Life is hard. There is so much pain, sorrow, and injustice. And it won’t all be made right until the end.
No more grief, crying, and pain. He will wipe the tears from our eyes. How tender, how moving, how comforting. How motivating. He has one more gift yet to give.
Our longing for heaven gives the hope we need to live as followers of Jesus.
Conclusion
What if we talked less about performance and more about our sin and the grace of God?
What if we decided to no longer trust in the flesh but in God’s Holy Spirit? What if we spent more of our thought lives and conversation focused on being grateful for God’s gift of His Spirit? What if we were inspired more by the Holy Spirit than the latest plan or initiative?
What if we put much less hope in this life and rested completely in our hope of heaven?
Grace, the Holy Spirit, and heaven. Thinking about these and talking about these will keep us humble and give us wonderful things to talk about with each other, our families, friends, and those we will meet. Pretty good topics for evangelism, don’t you think?
Grace, the Holy Spirit, and heaven: three incredible gifts!
I was exposed to the now popular futurist teaching as a young person and accepted it as being true for many years. I did not know an alternative was available, and being biblically ignorant, saw no reason to question what I was taught. However, I did not like the impact it had on the leaders who taught it. They often seemed to be caught up in it to the point that they lost perspective of the average person’s needs for practical help in trying to live a spiritual life in a pagan society. They were more intrigued by trying to figure out dates and events of the end times than about how the world could be evangelized for Christ. My present opinion is that people have become materialistic to the point that they cannot envision anything good apart from this earth, including heaven! Also, the futurist teaching appeals to the emotions because of its “mysterious” elements, and many people are looking for mystical fancy rather than biblical fact.
The modern “end-times” prophets obviously focus much on their interpretation of biblical prophecy in both Old and New Testaments. Some groups, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have set many dates for the return of Christ, and once these dates had passed, they spiritualized the “return” in some way in order to save face. The apocalyptic style of the Book of Revelation has especially been twisted it into some bizarre doctrines. For example, the JWs interpret the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 as being literally descriptive of an exact number of highly spiritual people who will go to heaven (which, by their own admission, does not include most of the Witnesses!). All of the end-times folks also take the “1000 year reign” mentioned in Revelation 20 as being literal, and assume much about that passage that is not even mentioned there – such as Christ being the one reigning. I will include more on numerology later on in the article.
The idea that Christ will reign on earth as a physical king is a widespread belief that crosses nearly all denominational lines. Not all groups believe exactly the same things about it, but the general outline they all accept. This system of interpretation, usually called “premillennialism,” was once rejected by many religious groups who have now come to accept it. The reasons for the current acceptance of the doctrine are not biblical ones, as we shall show. The doctrine of premillennialism, briefly stated, is the view that Christ will come back to earth at some future point and reign for a literal thousand years. A large segment who hold this view believe that, seven years before this return, the righteous will experience a rapture (catching up) from the earth while those left on earth will experience a great tribulation. The concept of such an earthly reign supposedly finds its foundation in Revelation 20:1-10. But in approaching this or other difficult passages, several fundamental rules of interpretation need to be kept in mind.
- Truth does not contradict itself. If two verses seem to do so, there is either a misunderstanding of one of the verses, or possibly both of them.
- Doctrine cannot be based on difficult passages without due consideration of less difficult passages on the same subject. To establish a theory on symbolic passages forces you to completely ignore literal passages which contradict it, and also forces you to apply figurative interpretation to obviously literal Scriptures.
- One does not have to know exactly what a difficult passage means in order to know what it does not mean. For example, a person could be unsure of the exact interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29, but at the same time, be absolutely sure that it does not teach proxy baptism for the physically dead. Too many plain passages render that explanation impossible. In a similar way, one could be somewhat uncertain of the precise meaning of some of the symbolism in Revelation, while rejecting the doctrine of premillennialism itself.
When I began to study the Bible in depth on premillennialism, I soon saw the vast inconsistencies in the teaching. I have read many writings on all sides of the issue, and have no doubt that my earlier indoctrination in premillennialism was not correct. Exciting it was, but accurate it was not! This view removes the book from its original setting of Christians being persecuted and killed in the early centuries of the church. What comfort would a “twenty-first century newspaper” type of prophecy bring to people being killed for their faith? Such an approach is filled with distortions of Scripture and fanciful interpretations cooked with a “dash” of Ezekiel, a “shake” of Daniel, “scoops” of Revelation and “pinches” from other New Testament books. In spite of its popularity, the view has little to commend it from a biblical perspective and many reasons to reject it.
Important Principles in Interpreting Revelation
To begin, God would not include a book in his word that could not be understood. To do so would be contrary to the very purpose of Scripture (Ephesians 3:2–5). Revelation, properly viewed, is an incredible book of impact. Because of its style and content, it is often called the “grand finale” of the Bible. Revelation’s literary structure, beautiful imagery, majestic visions, mysterious symbols and dramatic presentation of eternal truths make this book distinctive from all other books of the Bible.
“Revelation” is the English translation of the Greek word apokalupsis, meaning “to reveal or uncover that which has been hidden.” Revelation is classified as “apocalyptic” literature by scholars. Such literature was popular for about 200 years before Christ and for about 100 years after him. It has the following characteristics:
- It addresses those undergoing some form of persecution.
- It addresses the reader in the nuances and style of the language and time period in which it is written.
- It is dramatic and highly symbolic (expressed in visions and symbols).
- It is sometimes predictive, although the basic message is focused
The book of Revelation is similar to parts of Old Testament prophetic books such as Ezekiel and Daniel. In fact, much of Revelation cannot be understood without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament and its phraseology. But this relationship should not cause us to think that Revelation is the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Rather, it uses a similar style to describe the ultimate downfall of heathen nations and the exaltation of God’s kingdom. Similar symbols may be used in the OT books, but they are describing very different events – events separated by hundreds of years.
Apocalyptic language is used to create a dramatic effect. It appeals to the imagination more than the intellect. In times of persecution, those who are suffering need inspiration from hearing about God’s conclusive triumph over evil far more than academic pronouncements of doctrine. With this in mind, understanding symbolic language is much like understanding parables – get the main points and avoid over-analyzing the details. If more commentary writers and theologians followed this approach, sensationalistic interpretations would be greatly reduced, thus limiting the abounding confusion about Revelation.
No book in the Bible has resulted in more contradictory interpretations than the book of Revelation. It is likely that more false ideologies have arisen from a misunderstanding of this book than from any other portion of the Scriptures. In studying such a book, we would be better off to first consider what it does not teach rather than what it does teach! One rule must be remembered when studying any book in the Bible, namely that an easily understood passage must not be explained by a difficult or symbolic passage. We must let the “easy” passage interpret the “difficult” one. Therefore, Revelation should be studied in close harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.
The Use of Numbers in Revelation
I will use a section of my book, Prepared To Answer, that addressed the prophetic teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to clarify how numbers are to be viewed as symbolic and not literal. Most of the images in Revelation are also to be viewed as symbolic, since that is the very nature of the book. The explanation of numerology regarding the teachings of the JW’s will then help us understand Revelation 20 better.
To the Jewish mind, numerology was very important. Many numbers had well-defined meanings, and they conveyed spiritual lessons. For example, the number “1” carried the idea of unity. Think of the series of “ones” in Ephesians 4:4-6. The number “2” carried the idea of strengthening. Jesus sent out his early preachers two by two. Revelation 11:3 mentions God’s two witnesses. Then, the number “3” was the divine number (Father, Son and Spirit). Next, “4” was the cosmic or world number. In Revelation 7:1, you find four angels, four corners of the earth and the four winds of heaven.
Combine the divine number and the world number and you get “7,” the number of perfection. Thus, in Revelation 4:5, the seven spirits most likely refer to the Holy Spirit in his perfection. The number “6” was an evil, sinister number because it fell short of the perfect number. In America, many of our hotels do not designate a 13th floor. In that Jewish setting, they would not have had a designated sixth floor. The “666” of Revelation 13:18 carries with it the idea of evil and failure. The next significant number was “10,” which signified completeness (all fingers or all toes). You find this number often in the Revelation. A multiple of that number would be 1,000, denoting ultimate completeness. The 1,000 years in Revelation 20 show this kind of completeness, as a look at the references mentioned earlier will demonstrate.
The number of organized religion was “12,” calling to mind the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles. In Revelation 7, the twelve tribes are connected to John’s mention of the 144,000. If you take the organized religion number, multiply it by itself, and then multiply it by 1,000, the number of ultimate completeness, you come up with 144,000. Therefore, if you understood the way that numbers were used symbolically, you would expect this number to signify the ultimate number of a religious group. And we will see that this is precisely what is being done in Revelation 7. Finally, the other key number in Revelation is “3 1/2,” found as three-and-a-half years, forty-two months, 1,260 days, and from Daniel, a time, times and a half a time. This number, in whatever form, symbolized the period of persecution itself, an unstable time, but one with an end to it.
What about the 144,000?
With this explanation in mind, let’s look at the passages in Revelation 7:4-8 and 14:1-5. A careful consideration of how they are misapplied by the JW’s will help us see the fallacy of trying to make numbers (or other symbols) literal.
[4] Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
[5] From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
[6] from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
[7] from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
[8] from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000 (Revelation 7:4-8).
[1] Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. [2] And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. [3] And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. [4] These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. [5] No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless (Revelation 14:1-5).
In chapter 7, the 144,000 are used to represent the church during the time of persecution. Earlier in this chapter, all of them were “sealed,” showing God’s protection of them. See Ezekiel 9:4 for this usage. Since the persecutors were often Jews, or were aided by Jews, it should be obvious that the twelve tribes were not literally the twelve tribes of the Jews. The ones being sealed, or being guaranteed God’s protection, were the Christians, those who were now a part of the new Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). When you look closely at the listing of these tribes, it becomes even more obvious that the list has been “spiritualized.” For example, the fourth tribe (Judah) is mentioned first, because that was the tribe out of which Jesus came (Genesis 49:10).
Also, we find Levi in the list, although that tribe was not normally listed, because they did not inherit a land area in the OT. But, since all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), Levi here is to be identified with spiritual Israel, the church. Furthermore, Dan and Ephraim were excluded from the list, because Dan and Bethel (in Ephraim) were centers of calf worship under King Jeroboam. Therefore, they were excluded here. Finally, Joseph’s name is added, even though, in the OT, his sons were the tribes listed and not Joseph himself. But to the Bible reader, this name has only good connotations.
After the 144,000 are thus described in chapter 7, the next section (verses 9-17) goes on to talk about a great multitude that no one could count. This great multitude was composed of those who “have come out of the great tribulation” and are now before the throne of God (verses 14-15). Therefore, the 144,000 showed the church on earth during the persecution, and the symbolism taught that God knew every one of them and would protect them spiritually, even if they had to die physically. Therefore, the great multitude did not need to be counted, because they had passed from time to eternity. The lesson of the chapter was that God would be with them and ultimately get them to heaven.
In Revelation 14, we simply find a description of Christians, the 144,000 (all of the redeemed). They were not defiled with women (literally, virgins), showing spiritual purity (2 Corinthians 11:2) as opposed to spiritual adultery through idol worship (Jeremiah 3:6; James 4:4). They followed the Lamb by keeping his words (John 10:4-5). They were purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). As such, they were the first-fruits to God. Just as the first of all physical harvests was to be set apart for God (Deuteronomy 26:1-11), Christians are likewise set apart for the service of God (James 1:18). No lie was found in their mouths, but lying was one of the chief characteristics of pagan Rome and emperor worshippers (see Revelation 21:8).
Now, once we understand biblically who the 144,000 actually are, what should we say about the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation? Simply this: if they insist on making the 144,000 a literal number, then you insist on making their description literal. When you do that, the 144,000 would have to all be Jewish (from the twelve tribes), and they would have to be male virgins (had not defiled themselves with women). No Witness would agree to those things, but if the passage is to be taken literally, these points would have to be accepted, because the wording itself is quite clear.
What About Revelation 20?
The actual examination of Revelation 20 reveals some important facts: first, the text does not mention a number of things that people assume are taught there. The second coming of Christ is not mentioned. Christ is not mentioned as being on earth. No mention is made of anyone reigning on earth. A bodily resurrection is not mentioned; and finally, no one living in modern times is mentioned in connection with this 1,000 year reign. The persecuted of the early church are the ones who sit on thrones and reign with Christ. How can a passage which mentions none of these things be said to teach all of them?
Second, this passage is full of figurative symbolic language. If we insist on making the 1,000 years literal, why are not the key to the abyss, the great chain, the beast, etc. also literal? Actually, the Book of Revelation employs apocalyptic language, as it portrays (by means of symbols) the victory of God’s persecuted people over the Roman Empire. This type of writing was well understood in its day, although it may well be unfamiliar and strange to people today. The book dramatizes the victory of good over evil to bring hope to the persecuted saints of the first century. If the book really taught what many people advocate, it would have been of scarce comfort to those in the early church who were dying for their faith!
Now to a brief explanation of the passage: the binding of Satan (verse 2) was to stop him from deceiving the nations (verse 3). The text does not suggest that he would be tied in such a way as to be totally inactive (1 Peter 5:8). The nations as a whole had been deceived into emperor worship (see chapter 13:11-18), but the binding of Satan would limit this blasphemy for a thousand years (symbolic of a long period – see Deuteronomy 7:9; Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10, 90:4).
In verses 4-6, the persecuted Christians in the early church are promised a victory. Their cause looked as if it had been defeated, but here God assures them that Christianity would be vindicated. Their cause would be raised from the dust of defeat into a resurrection of victory. The souls under the altar (6:9) are now elevated to thrones as their cry has been heard and answered. See Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Isaiah 26:13-19 for the idea of a resurrection of a cause in victory. Revelation 20:5 calls this the “first resurrection” to avoid confusion with the general bodily resurrection at the end of time (1 Corinthians 15).
“The rest of the dead” in the first part of verse 5 (which is a parenthetical statement) are the non-Christians, the persecutors. Their cause lies in defeat for a long time-period (1,000 years symbolizes this period), but it will briefly arise at some future date (verses 7-10). Fortunately, this renewed deception of the nations is short lived, as Christ brings his judgment upon the wicked (verses 9-15).
Although this explanation seems logical to me, I claim no infallibility in my interpretation. The passage is a difficult one, and dogmatism is not urged in such cases. However, in spite of how Revelation 20 is to be explained in its various details, it assuredly does not teach the doctrine of premillennialism.
The Reign of Christ
The premillennialists claim that Jesus will not begin his reign until the time of his return (second coming). He will then reign on a literal throne in a literal Jerusalem for a literal one thousand years. When this concept is examined in light of Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah and its New Testament fulfillment, the idea is shown to be false. Zechariah 6:12-13 is one of the key passages disproving the validity of premillennialism. For clarity, we will quote from the more literal New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Then say to him, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD.
Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.’”
The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus built his church, and that his church is God’s temple (Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:11, 16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22). Now look back at the Zechariah passage in light of the church being the temple of God.
Christ would sit on his throne (Zechariah 6:13), and Acts 2:1, 32-35 says that he began occupying that throne on the Day of Pentecost when the church was established. He was to be a priest on his throne (Zechariah 6:13), and he is a priest now (Hebrews 4:14). This Branch was to rule on his throne while sitting (Zechariah 6:13), and he began sitting on this throne nearly two thousand years ago (Acts 2:32-35). Therefore, he is ruling on his throne now. Since he was said to be a priest on his throne, and he is a priest in heaven (Hebrews 4:14), his throne must be in heaven. In fact, he cannot be priest on earth, for Hebrews 8:4 says, “If he were on earth, he would not be a priest.” Therefore, his throne cannot be on earth.
Psalm 110:1, 4 also speaks of Christ ruling as a priest. In this case, his rule will last until his enemies are conquered. In 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 the Bible says, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Therefore, Jesus is reigning now and will continue to do so until the resurrection of the dead, at which point he will cease to reign over the Messianic kingdom as heaven begins. This truth is exactly opposite to what the premillennial doctrine teaches. They say he will begin reigning at his return, and Paul says he will cease! It should be mentioned that as a part of Deity, he reigns over heaven and all of its subjects, which includes all of the redeemed from all ages.
It should be obvious that Jesus is reigning in his spiritual kingdom now. In his earthly ministry he claimed that the kingdom was near, with a fulfillment of prophecy in mind (Daniel 2:44; Mark 1:15; Hebrews 12:28). This kingdom would come in the lifetime of some of the apostles and it would come with power (Mark 9:1). Power came when the Spirit came at Pentecost (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4). Therefore, the kingdom of the prophesied New Covenant was established on the day of Pentecost (although it was present in its preparatory phase when the King himself was present during his earthly ministry). After this time, the kingdom is spoken of as a present reality (Colossians 1:13; 4:11; Revelation 1:6). Furthermore, the kingdom is inseparably connected with the church in Matthew 16:18-19. Any future view of the kingdom is of necessity referring to the heavenly state after the church has been delivered up to the Father by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24).
The Place of the Nation of Israel
The common “end time” prophets typically place a good deal of emphasis on the role of the present nation of Israel. However, such an emphasis can easily be shown to be mistaken. One of the first questions needing an answer is this: Will there be a restoration of Israel in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? The answer is negative, for several reasons.
- Christ is already on David’s throne (Acts 2:30-33).
- The tent of David has been rebuilt (Acts 15:14-17). The saving of the Gentiles is in fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12, according to James, the Lord’s brother. The argument in Acts 15 is clearly that the tent was to be rebuilt before the Gentiles were to “seek the Lord.” Therefore, either the tent here is spiritual in nature (the church), or Gentiles are yet in their sins and the Great Commission is nullified!
- God’s promises to Israel concerning the land inheritance have all been fulfilled (Joshua 23:14). Notice that the boundaries God specified to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 were reached by the time 1 Kings 4:21 and 2 Chronicles 9:26 were written.
- God said, through Jeremiah, that Israel could not be made whole again (Jeremiah 19:11).
- Jesus promised that the kingdom would be taken away from the Jews (Matthew 21:33-43).
- The last state of the Jews would be worse than the first (Matthew 12:43-45).
- God’s special people are spiritual Jews (Christians) and not physical ones (Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; Galatians 3:26-29; Philippians 3:3). Philippians 3:2-3 could not state the point any more directly nor bluntly, as Paul contrasts the physical and spiritual “Jews”: “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.”
But What About Romans 11:25-26?
Does it not clearly state, “And so all Israel will be saved?” The larger context of the passage begins back in Romans 11:11. After establishing the fact that most physical Jews had always rejected God, Paul moves on to show how God intended to use even their wrong choices (Romans 11:11-24). Israel’s wrong choices and subsequent rejection has ended up being a blessing to the Gentiles. They had Jesus crucified, making salvation available. They drove Christians out of Jerusalem, which resulted in the Gentiles being able to hear the gospel. They rejected the message in each city to which the early missionaries preached, after which they preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). However, if the Jew’s rejection of the gospel ended up blessing the world, then how much more their acceptance would do for the world (Romans 11:15)!
Next, Paul expresses hope that the Gentile inclusion in God’s kingdom will provoke the Jews to envy, causing them to reconsider the message of Christ (Romans 11:13-14). This section concludes with a warning to the Gentiles not to be prideful and self-righteous. They had not been a part of the olive root (Judaism) in the first place; they had been merely grafted in by the grace of God. The Jews had been cut off because of their faithless rejection of Christ, but they can be grafted back in again if they turn to Jesus in faith. The means of how they might be motivated to respond in this way is discussed in the remainder of the chapter (Romans 11:25-36).
Israel’s hardening is stated to be only “in part” until the “full number” of Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25). Since it is partial, it has the possibility of being reversed. The key to a reversal is the coming in of the “full number of Gentiles.” Paul likely was referring to the completion of his own ministry as the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7), resulting in more and more Gentiles in the church all over the world. In Romans 15:24, we find that his missionary plans were far from completion, for he planned to go all the way to Spain. Once this larger Gentile inclusion had occurred, all Israel could be saved in the sense being discussed in this context.
The word “so” in Romans 11:26 is from the Greek houtos, an adverb of manner, meaning “in this way.” “In this way” refers back to the envy-provoking process mentioned in Romans 11:13-14. (Paul refers to the same idea again in Romans 11:31). Therefore, when the Jews saw the growing number of Gentiles in the church of Jesus Christ, and the blessings from God that they were enjoying, those with good hearts would be envious enough to humble out and reconsider. In this way, they would be saved. The “all Israel” refers to those whose hearts would allow them to become humble and reconsider. It could not refer to every last Israelite coming to Christ at some future point – for a number of reasons.
For one thing, the “narrow road” will never be chosen by a majority from any nation, race, or population group (Matthew 7:13-14). This was true of the Jews even during their heyday, as the early part of Romans 11 establishes forcefully. Two, Paul had already expressed his hope that some would turn to Christ by being provoked to envy (Romans 11:14). Three, even if some future generation of Jews in the majority were to accept Christ, what comfort would that be to the scores of generations that had already died lost? Centuries have passed in which millions of Jews have rejected Christ and been lost as a result.
The key idea of “all Israel” being saved is that of hopeful potential, much like Jesus expressed: “I…will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32, emphasis added) and “By this all men will know that you are my disciples” (John 13:35, emphasis added). Note that the quote in Romans 11:26-27 refers to salvation in Christ, which became available at the cross and will continue to be available to anyone who will accept the gospel in faith. The only plan of salvation that God has and will have to the end of time is this plan, which must be accepted individually! (See Acts 4:8-12.) He still loves the rejecting Jews and desires to save them, for his promises made to the patriarchs still stand. But his salvation can be based on nothing less than the blood of Christ accepted by bowing our hearts and knees to his lordship.
The Second Coming of Christ
Our next consideration involves the second coming of Christ. When he comes, there will be only one bodily resurrection of the dead as good and bad are raised simultaneously to be judged (John 5:28-29). All nations will be gathered for this great day (Matthew 25:31-34). Note that this is a judgment of every person within all nations, not a judgment of entire nations as nations, as some premillennialists claim. (Compare the wording of 25:32 with Matthew 28:19 in this regard.)
As stated in the first chapter of this book, there simply cannot be two separate bodily resurrections. If the righteous are raised on the “last day” (John 6:40), and the unrighteous are judged on the “last day” (John 12:48), both must occur at the time. We must allow the last day to really be the last day! When the last trumpet sounds, the dead are raised and the living are changed – in the twinkling of an eye, no less (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). If the wicked are raised a thousand years later, they will not be awakened by the last trumpet, for it will have already sounded! When it does sound, the physical universe will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10-12; Revelation 21:1). Note that the OT passages that speak of the earth remaining “forever” mean only that it is “age-lasting.” Ordinances such as circumcision and the Levitical priesthood with its sacrifices are also called “everlasting,” but they are simply age-lasting (which in that case was the Mosaic Age.) See in chapter 13 of my book, Prepared To Answer, the related discussion under the heading, “The Sabbath, a Perpetual Covenant?”
Even the “proof text” for the premillennialist view of the rapture falls far short of actually teaching it:
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, emphasis added)
What about the passage would make anyone look for a rapture of the righteous to heaven for seven years, followed by a return to earth for a thousand years? The explanation seems simple enough – we will go to be with the Lord forever, rather than him coming to be with us on the earth. The futurists want him to come and be with them on our little planet, but Jesus wants his children to be with him in his amazing heaven.
Does It Really Matter How We View the End-Times?
A final consideration might be a look at the real dangers of the premillennial view. Surely no one would argue that salvation is based on a perfect understanding of biblical prophecy! However, accepting the premillennial theories has some serious implications.
- Premillennial theory denies that Christ is reigning now, and therefore denies God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Ephesians 3:10-11).
- It contradicts every passage that speaks of this present period as the last days (Acts 2:15-17; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 Peter 1:20).
- It makes Jesus false to his promises when he said that the kingdom was near (Mark 1:15).
- It alternates between Judaism and Christianity by reviving the OT sacrificial system during the thousand-year reign. However, that old covenant Jesus nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15).
- It demotes Christ from the throne of his majesty to the earth, his footstool (Psalm 110:1).
- It denies that Amos 9:11–12 is fulfilled and thus denies salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 15:14-17).
- It is the same mistake that the first century Jews made by expecting an earthly kingdom that was political in nature.
Paul said in Philippians 1:23 that he wanted to go be with the Lord, but the premillennialists in essence say, “Lord, you come be with us; we like it here.” Jesus makes it plain in John 14:1-3 that eternal rewards have absolutely nothing to do with this earth:
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”`
The title reflects a question that people often have, both those who are studying and contemplating being baptized and those who have already been baptized and now are studying with others. Biblical concepts give us direction, along with common sense based on the principles of the Bible. Sometimes these two can seem at odds even though they are not. At other times, the two are at odds because the principles involved in each are not understood well enough to produce their correct application. Let’s begin with the biblical principles, then move to the practical principles that may be involved and hopefully end up with an approach that strikes a balance.
Bible Examples
Of course it should almost go without saying that we are looking only at examples in the New Testament and in Acts particularly. Baptism as a faith response to Christ is found primarily after his death and resurrection, since baptism is a picture of these things. Romans 6:1-4 gives us a clear explanation of how we by faith accept his death in our behalf through our own death, burial and resurrection in baptism. This means that John’s baptism prior to this time was a restoration baptism for the Jews, who had either wandered from what they knew was right or had wandered in another way ─ through misunderstanding what was right. (See my article on this website entitled, “Was Apollos Re-baptized?” for further explanation of John’s baptism.) With that in mind, let’s focus on the examples of baptism in the Book of Acts, that wonderful history of the establishment and spread of the early church.
Acts 2
In Acts 2, the church was begun with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, who then by inspiration spoke to the huge audience of Jews who had gathered for the Day of Pentecost. The day began with the apostles as a group speaking in many languages to those gathered from many nations and ended with Peter being the main spokesman. He preached about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, concluding that God the Father had declared Jesus to be both Lord and Messiah (verse 36). After those with stricken consciences asked what to do, realizing how their sin had led to the death of Christ, Peter told them. He gave two commands and two promises based on their acceptance of the commands. Repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness and the indwelling Holy Spirit (verse 38). Verse 41 informs us that 3,000 obeyed the commands and were baptized ─ on the same day in which they were initially taught.
Acts 3-6
Baptism is not mentioned as directly in these three chapters as in Acts 2, and the indirect references to baptism do not indicate the amount of time prior to baptism for anyone. Acts 3:19 reads thusly: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” Turning to God would evidently correspond to baptism in Acts 2:38 and the times of refreshing would parallel the reception of the indwelling Spirit. Several passages just mention that additional people became believers, without detailing the process. Acts 4:4, 5:14, 6:1, 7 are examples of such passages. When we reach Acts 16 and the conversion of the jailor in Philippi, we will see that coming to believe included baptism. This understanding will help us to avoid the false conclusion that variations of how to become a Christian existed in Acts (i.e. – people becoming Christians without repentance and baptism).
Acts 8
Verse 12 informs us that many in Samaria were baptized, and verse 13 mentions the magician Simon believing and being baptized. In neither case are we given a time frame between hearing the gospel and obeying it in baptism. However, beginning in verse 26, we find the conversion account of the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip taught him about Jesus, using the very passage he had been reading from Isaiah 53 as a starting point. The text simply says that Philip told him the good news about Jesus, but in doing so must have taught him about how to respond to Jesus. The eunuch saw water as they were traveling in his chariot, asked to be baptized and Philip went down into the water and accommodated his request. Hence, much like those in Acts 2, he was baptized as soon as he was taught (on the same day).
Acts 9
The first part of the chapter records Paul’s conversion, with verse 18 mentioning his baptism. Evidently he was baptized very soon after he was taught by Ananias. His conversion account is also found in Acts 22 and Acts 26, with Acts 22 being the most specific. “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (verse 16). Thus we have another account of someone being baptized as soon as they were taught, obviously on the same day. Certainly God had already worked in his life providentially prior to his conversion, but his baptism followed his being taught very quickly.
In verses 31, the church is said to have increased in numbers and verse 42 simply says that many people believed in the Lord. Such summary passages leave out the details of just how the people became disciples and they also omit any time factor between being taught and responding in baptism. We obviously have to conclude that these details would parallel what occurred in the other passages that provide the details. Something as important as salvation is not going to be non-specific. All of the passages that do mention baptism definitely form a discernable pattern.
Acts 10
This chapter describes the conversion of Cornelius and his family, the first Gentile converts. The last two verses of the chapter mention their baptisms. In the preceding verses, we are told that the Holy Spirit came on them prior to their baptism, an unusual occurrence not found anywhere else in the NT. This was a miraculous work of the Spirit, not to convince the Gentiles to become disciples but to convince the Jews present (including Peter) to allow them to become disciples. Hence, they were evidently baptized right after the miracle convinced Peter that God was opening the doors of the Kingdom to Gentiles. For further help with this passage, see my article on this website entitled “Baptism With the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 11-15
In these chapters, the conversions are mentioned in broader, more general terms. In 11:21, we are informed that a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. Acts 11:24 describes the effects of Barnabas arriving to teach in Antioch, stating again that a great number of people were brought to the Lord. Acts 12:24 states church growth in even more general terms, just stating that the word of God continued to spread and flourish. Acts 13:12 says that the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, believed ─ again a general summary without the specifics being included in the account. Acts 13 continues in the same vein with Paul preaching in Pisidian Antioch, as verse 43 shows Paul encouraging the Jews and Jewish proselytes to continue in the grace of God, implying that they had already been saved. Then in verse 48, the Gentiles honored the word of God by believing.
Acts 14:1 says that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. Then in Derbe, verse 21 says that Paul and Barnabas preached and won a large number of disciples. In Acts 15:3, we find Paul traveling from Syrian Antioch to Jerusalem and reporting on the way about the conversion of Gentiles. Interestingly, these conversion accounts use different terminology describing the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, but the variations are all found in summary type reporting when specifics not included. When we reach chapter 16, the specifics will again be found and found in a way that is extremely informative.
Acts 16
This chapter begins with a general report of church growth in verse 5, “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.” Verse 15 says that Lydia and the members of her household were baptized. The text doesn’t say that they were baptized immediately upon hearing the message, but it strongly implies such. The next conversion account is one of the most helpful in the Book of Acts, showing the specifics involved and ending up with a summary that enables us to fully grasp what the other generally stated accounts no doubt included.
The jailer’s question in verse 30, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” has generated much discussion. What was he asking? Simply to be saved physically, as some allege? Paul and Silas had been preaching in the city for a number of days by this time, and the jailer may have even heard them or at least heard about them. Further, he was surely aware of what charges had been lodged against his prisoners, and he may have heard them singing and praying earlier. The point is that he knew enough already to be asking about spiritual salvation, even if it was a hazy concept for him.
The answer given by Paul and Silas was as basic as the man’s question: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:31). The answer was the introduction of Paul’s message to a pagan man who needed to start at square one. That statement is Paul’s topic sentence, but its meaning must be spelled out before there can be a response. Since faith is predicated on hearing and responding to the Word (Romans 10:17), the jailer and his family had to first hear message. Therefore, Acts 16:32 informs us that the next order of business was to preach that message.
After they did hear the message of who Jesus was and what a response to him would involve, they were urgent about baptism. With the dust not yet settled from an earthquake, they were baptized “the same hour of the night.” A remarkable statement! What more could one need to understand that baptism into Christ is at the very center of the conversion process? Delay cannot be tolerated when it comes to baptism, once a person understands what they need to do and are fully ready to do it. Churches that wait until a “baptismal service” once or twice a year to baptize certainly do not connect it with the forgiveness of sins and initial salvation.
The jailer heard the message, believed it, repented (shown by washing the wounds of the preachers, among other things) and was baptized—all after midnight. When were he and his family saved? They were saved when they, in faith, accepted and responded appropriately to the message. Verse 34 provides us with a wonderful summary as it describes the entire faith process in these words: “The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.”
The “believe” in verse 31 is defined in verses 32–34, and it quite obviously includes baptism rather than excludes it! Additionally, we see once again that those becoming saved in Acts did so through baptism and did so immediately upon knowing what to do to be saved and being ready to do it ─ understanding the implications of what they were doing (giving their lives to Jesus as Christ and Lord). The conversion process for Gentiles in this chapter was precisely the same as in Acts 2 for the Jews. Again, something as important as conversion was destined to form a distinct pattern, a pattern for those in the first century and the twenty-first century. For more details regarding this, I suggest reading the article on this website entitled, “Are We Saved By Faith Alone?” In it, I examine six different ways that the term faith is used in the NT, using this same passage to demonstrate the comprehensive use of the term.
Acts 17-28
These chapters mainly describe conversions in general terms by way of summaries, although Acts 18:8 uses both the general and the specific: “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.” If we are to understand the conversion process as it is described in Acts (or in any other NT passage), we must grasp that the specific descriptions clarify what is included in the general descriptions. Acts 17:4 describes those converted in Athens as being “persuaded” and “joining” Paul and Silas. Acts 17:11-12 describes those in Berea as “receiving the message with great eagerness,” resulting in them becoming believers. Acts 17:34 shows some people becoming “followers of Paul” and believing.
Acts 18:26 contains the very interesting account of Priscilla and Aquila taking Apollos aside to explain “the way of God more adequately” to him. My article about Apollos’ conversion previously mentioned takes the position that Acts 18 doesn’t describe his conversion but rather his enlightenment about John’s baptism. If you read that article, you will definitely find it interesting! Then in Acts 19:5, those who had apparently been taught wrongly by Apollos were “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This for them constituted a “re-baptism.” The remainder of Acts has no direct references to conversions, although Acts 19:20 speaks of the word of the Lord spreading widely and Acts 28:31 speaks of Paul proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ. With that exciting comment, the Book of Acts closes!
Practical, Common Sense Principles
Since most of the churches in our movement (the ICOC) use a series of studies to lead someone to conversion, the question naturally arises about why this is done. After all, conversions in Acts seemed to happen quickly. Those hearing the message of Christ were baptized the same day (Acts 2), as soon as they were taught (Acts 8), and even the same hour of the night (Acts 16). Another question that should arise about our typical use of a series is not only “why” but “must we?” Of course the answer to the last question has to be no, if we take the biblical examples seriously. We must be able to distinguish between a useful approach and a necessary approach.
Our main reason for using a series and not baptizing people as quickly as we read about in Acts is that so much religious confusion exists now. When Christianity was new, false teachings regarding the conversion process had not yet arisen, but now they abound. Originally, the process was a one-step process of simply learning about Christ and accepting him through faith, repentance and baptism. Now, the process is most often a two-step process, at least in parts of the world where some form of Christianity is popular. Those who have been taught falsely must first unlearn the erroneous teaching and then replace it with proper teaching. The confusion between the two often lengthens the conversion process.
That being said, we also have to understand that our series of studies cover not only the first part of the Great Commission (“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19), but also a good deal of the second part (“and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” verse 20). Honestly, our standard approach should raise a number of related questions that we should be able to answer clearly.
The Questions Raised
Why Do We Use A Series?
As we have already explained, primarily to clear up confusion for those who have been taught falsely about conversion. Additionally, to help those whom we teach to understand enough to resist other false teaching that friends and family may introduce after hearing about their decision to be baptized biblically. We do not want someone to be baptized only to become a part of a church that does indeed teach wrong things about topics as vital as conversion. If we are studying with a non-religion person, perhaps the second reason would still apply and perhaps it would not, or if it did apply, perhaps to a much lesser extent. In that case, we might well decide to baptize someone much more quickly.
Must We Use A Series?
The short answer is no. If we who are teaching know the Bible reasonably well, especially the basics about Jesus and what it takes to accept him as Lord and Savior, a series is not absolutely necessary. I have found that using a series is helpful in most cases, since many of those with whom we study are fairly illiterate biblically and often confused with the myriad of false teachings in our American society. Along with this, many are reluctant to make Jesus the Lord of their lives quickly, once they understand what this actually means in their lives. Thus, the answer to this question depends on the person with whom we are studying, their understanding and their heart openness. As we deal more and more with the younger generations, we will discover that their questions, concerns and possible obstacles are going to be different than those we dealt with in the past. We need to continue to re-examine our approaches and adapt to sharing the gospel in ways that will be most effective.
When I am studying with someone who is biblically literate and spiritually involved in Christianity in broad terms, I don’t use a series. I explain that discipleship is the issue, for Jesus said in the Great Commission to make disciples. I further explain that discipleship has both a vertical aspect and a horizontal aspect. The vertical is about us and Jesus. We must be fully committed to him as the Master (Lord) of our lives. The horizontal is about the relationships we have with other followers of Jesus, the “one another,” “each other” responsibilities we have within God’s family as defined in the NT. I go to the passages that deal with both of these aspects and ask if the majority of the members of their present church are practicing them. Then I ask if they as an individual are practicing them, and if they say yes, I dig more deeply to see whether they are accurate in their answer or not. Obviously in this process, I am using many biblical passages that are applicable to their personal situation.
Ultimately, I am going to deal with their conversion, but usually not until I find out where they are with their current beliefs and practices regarding discipleship. Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38) are issues of Lordship, so this response will be covered as a part of examining initial discipleship. For those who are seriously involved in their church, topics like the inspiration of the Scriptures and Jesus’ death for our sins are already familiar topics to them. I will ask enough questions to make sure that their understanding is in line with the Bible, but it doesn’t take an entire study on common Christian topics to establish that. Therefore, while I am not against using a series by any means, I don’t want anyone to believe that such is a necessary part of the process of becoming a Christian. Otherwise, we have taking something that is often helpful and turned it into a law and a tradition.
Must We Use A Certain Series?
Again, the answer is no. I’ve used several different ones and helped developed several others. When faced with helping a seriously ill person come to Christ, I use a very basic approach that covers only the essentials. Among those would be God’s love for every person; the Bible as God’s word; what sin is and does between us and God; the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross; the definition of faith and repentance; and the church as the family of God and how that family should function. Surely these basics understood and accepted would cover enough to prepare someone to be baptized into Christ. Any study, whether carefully written out or not, that covers these basics would be sufficient to lead a person to Christ. We should be able to ask enough questions to discover which areas might need more attention, and we should know enough Bible to provide that attention.
On this website is a rather lengthy article, actually a series of articles, with the title “Paradigm Shirt Evaluation.” The Paradigm Shift series called into the question much of what I am questioning in this present article regarding the conversion process. As I stated in that evaluation, my main concern was not about the content of the series, but the tone of it. Those presenting the series seemed to me often condescending and arrogant, totally unnecessary and unhelpful attitudes. I agreed with the main focus of the series, which rejected the idea that a series of studies must be laboriously followed in order to bring every person studied with to Christ.
What Should Determine How Quickly Someone Is Baptized?
In a word, readiness. Readiness is shown by three things: head knowledge, heart knowledge and urgency. Head knowledge is the easiest to determine. Heart knowledge is shown by a person’s emotional reactions to God’s love, especially as demonstrated in the cross of Christ. Different people show genuine emotions in different ways, which means that our expectations have to match those individual differences. For example, tears may or may not show the right emotional response. The human part of the study process is one of the most fundamental. The one being studied with is trying to figure you out, to see if what you are teaching them is being shown in your life. You should be trying to figure out the one with whom you are studying, to grasp their head and heart knowledge and their level of urgency.
The urgency factor cannot be overlooked. You cannot allow your urgency to see someone be saved to push them beyond their own urgency. That is a serious mistake that has been made far too often. I explain very clearly and fairly frequently that while I am urgent to see them accept Jesus, they have to be motivated by their own urgency. I provide them with enough information to help them develop urgency, but it still must be their own that drives them to the ultimate decision to turn their life over to Christ. I often wonder if focusing more on Jesus and less on man’s response might prompt more urgency of the right kind. After all, that is the gospel message, according to passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
No matter what study approach I am using, when a person says that they understand that they are lost and are urgent about getting saved, we are most likely going to move forward quickly. When a lost person’s urgency level reaches a certain point, they are most likely going to get baptized soon. I do not want them going to someone else to accomplish that if I am the one studying with them. If they are reaching that level of urgency, I will determine their readiness through asking questions. They must be ready to repent and make Jesus the Lord of their lives, present and future. In the event that I think they are just responding based on a temporary emotional reaction, I will either keep asking more questions that are increasingly probing or ask another person to join us and ask the questions. If either or both approaches show that they are in fact as ready as those three thousand in Acts 2 were, I will baptize them.
What About Making People Wait Longer?
If the one being studied with wants to wait until a different day, regardless of the reason, this shows their lack of true understanding and urgency. If the one studying with them suggests waiting until a certain time or date in spite of the lost person’s urgency, they are the one with a problem. For example, sometimes it has been suggested that one should wait until a church service is held in order to encourage the Christians. When something of that nature occurs, the lost person’s urgency is not the issue; it is the one making such suggestions. When any person understands that they are lost until they are baptized into Christ, trying to make them wait is unbiblical and unloving – if the readiness factors are in place. If they are not in place, you cannot proceed until they are. It is a judgment call, to be sure, but I am going to err on the side of urgency. I do not want to be the one holding another back without very good reasons. It should go without saying that the goal of finishing a study series is not a good reason (but I will say it anyway!).
One of the most popular Christian writers of last century was C.S. Lewis. He wrote a book with the title that I’m using for this article. Pain is a problem. It is a problem physically to be sure, but it is a bigger problem emotionally and spiritually. It can fill up our hearts and lives. Viktor Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, was a survivor of the Holocaust. Once, after he had told his life story to a group, particularly regarding the Holocaust and the pain he endured, a woman in the audience came up to him with an understandable response. Emotionally distraught, she shared that after hearing about his suffering, she felt guilty for feeling her own pain so deeply, because it was so much less than what he had gone through.
His reply is an oft-quoted one. “To draw an analogy: a man’s suffering is similar to the behavior of a gas. If a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little. Therefore the “size” of human suffering is absolutely relative.”
If one were to know the precise number of times they had been hurt by someone else, the number would be staggering. If that same person knew the precise number of times they had hurt others, that number would also be staggering. The human race is a fallen race, and but for the grace of God, the whole lot of us would have been annihilated long ago. The real issue is which side of that equation we focus on the most – the “victim of hurts” side, or the “perpetrator of hurts” side. By focus on, I refer to that side which occupies our minds most. It is easy enough to feel that we have been hurt by others more than we have inflicted hurt on others. So what – even if true? Do you think that erases your sins, or somehow makes you better than someone who may have sinned more than you?
Many years ago, I was involved in the cleanup phase of the aftermath left by a harsh leader in the church. As I worked with other leaders under his influence, all but one had a similar reaction. They immediately thought about how this leader had hurt them. The one exception listened to me describing the negative impact of this leader, and then he broke into tears and just wept. I asked him what he was feeling, to which he replied, “I’m afraid I’ve used the same leadership style and hurt those under my leadership.” He was a rare bird. Most folks think first of how they have been hurt rather than how they may have hurt others. Not good.
What is God’s Perspective?
The only real issue is God’s perspective on the matter, not yours or mine. Everything that comes into any of our lives comes because God either directly causes it or indirectly allows it. Nothing has happened to you that God has not at least allowed. But why does God allow pain in our lives, especially devastating pain? That’s a question that we are prone to ask very quickly, at least in our minds, when hard times strike.
I think God must feel his own pain when we ask that one so quickly and yet do not ask nearly as quickly why he allows us to hurt others. We are very aware of our pain but not nearly so aware of the pain we cause. That is why Jesus said that the first requisite of following him is to deny self. There are scores of hyphenated words in the dictionary that begin with “self” for a good reason. We humans are selfish to the core. But if the Bible is true, then the only two options available regarding our suffering are that he causes or allows it, both our pain and the pain of others.
Is God in Control or Not?
Any number of verses could be quoted to prove that point, but it is so obvious that we will only include a couple here before going further.
Isaiah 45:7 — I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Lamentations 3:37-38 — Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”
The most important question is why God allows pain and suffering. Agnostics and atheists often rest their case on this very question, believing that there is no logical answer. The agnostics would frame their concerns more in this manner: “If God wills evil, he is not good. If God does not will evil, but it occurs anyway, then he is not all-powerful. Therefore, since evil exists, God must be deficient either in goodness or in power.” The atheists would state their case even more strongly: “A good, all-powerful Being would eliminate evil completely. But, evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist!” Sadly, many believers struggle mightily with faith in God to the point that they never comprehend the God described in Scripture. That is indeed sad, but oh so true.
Do We Believe the Bible?
Our problem starts with a failure to accept the fact that God is in control of everything in the universe, including each of our lives. We may never figure out in this life why something we deem as bad has happened, why he has caused or allowed it, but he has nonetheless. Our problem continues with a failure to accept the very clear statements about how God wants to use suffering in our lives. We are so quick to blame other humans for our pain, not being willing to accept what God says about that pain. If we can’t get enough satisfaction blaming others, then we likely will turn to blaming God and questioning his direction in our lives. Do we really believe what the New Testament says about the purposes of God in allowing or causing our suffering? Do you believe it? Not unless you are able to work through it and surrender your heart and attitudes to him. Look at the key verses that should be determining your thoughts and attitudes when suffering:
Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Hebrews 12:7-13
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. 13 “Make level paths for your feet,” so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed.
James 1:2-4
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4 Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
Again, Do We Believe the Bible?
Do we believe the Bible regarding the purposes of suffering? A more sobering question is whether we believe what it says about being forgiven? Those who feel justified in nursing their hurts on a long term basis, rather than working through them and surrendering them to God in a reasonable time frame, may be in for a very big surprise when they meet God. Look at the following passages very, very carefully and prayerfully.
Matthew 6:12-15
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’ 14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Matthew 18:21-35
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
When I was just a young minister, I heard an older minister preach a sermon based on the above passages. He essentially said that even though we may not be able to completely forgive, that God was well beyond us in his ability to forgive and would still forgive us even if we didn’t forgive others. I related that puzzling sermon to my mentor, who was older than the one who delivered that sermon, and he simply replied, “So, his God is a liar then!” Well said – you either believe all that the Bible says, or you might as well throw it out the window. At least that would be an honest response.
Have You Forgiven? Really Forgiven?
How do you know if you have forgiven or not? If you want to keep hashing and rehashing your hurts over an extended period of time, you have not forgiven. A decade ago, I went through one of the most painful times of my ministry career (which is saying quite a lot, by the way). I knew myself well enough to know that I hadn’t forgiven some of those who had dished out the most pain. I also knew that God did not want me to waste the pain, based on the Scriptures quoted above. I went to a friend’s remote lake house and spent three or four days alone, praying, reading, listening to spiritual music, and crying. I re-read the book “Exquisite Agony” by Gene Edwards. I believe the current title is “Crucified by Christians.”
Thankfully, I had forgotten the punch line of the book (and is it a powerhouse!). It had been some years prior since I had read it. When it hit me afresh, I was staggered. It took my breath away. I nearly fainted. When I then went out into the woods and cried out to God, I ended up thanking him for the intense pain he had allowed in my life and for the privilege of being crucified in pain as was my Savior. As Edwards pointed out, our “Gethsemanes” usually come after our crucifixion instead of before it like Jesus. I felt so one with Jesus and so one with the Father. Words cannot describe the joyful exultation in my heart as it soared beyond my imagination. It was truly an out-of-body experience, and it left me at peace with God and with the world, including those who had in my mind crucified me.
Am I motivated to tell the stories of those painful days before my surrender? Of course not. They are long past and God used them to bless my life, just like Romans 5, Hebrews 12 and James 1 promised. But they only work if we surrender and trust God. Of course, I retained some of the lessons learned through that time of suffering, but I don’t have any inclination to dig up the details of the experience and I don’t have any emotions connected with them now. Having our emotions aroused when thinking about past painful experiences is a dead giveaway. It shouts out, “Unfinished Business!” I surrendered and God blessed me through the whole process. Isn’t that what he calls us to do in his Word?
Do Our Attitudes Demonstrate Faith?
The proper attitudes to maintain as we face human suffering are based on the possible purposes behind the suffering. As we consider the several alternatives which God may be trying to accomplish in our lives, we learn the appropriate responses of faith. One, God may chasten his children in order to mold them, in which case we humbly submit. Two, we may suffer persecution because we are sons and daughters of God, in which case we rejoice. Three, we may not be able to understand just why we are suffering, in which case we trust. In all things, we look to the cross of Christ and see that God shared in our suffering, experienced it to the full degree and in so doing, showed us the greatest love possible. Now he calls us to follow him, trusting that our eternal rewards will far outweigh the temporary struggles. Once we are able to remove the obstacles to faith produced by the problem of pain and suffering, we are in a much better position to see God more clearly.
Two Books Worth Reading
Some of the thoughts expressed in the preceding material came from other materials I have written, whether articles, books or outlines for oral teaching and preaching. The following material comes from the last section of a chapter in one of my books – chapter 4 in Dynamic Leadership. I’ve written 15 books, starting in 1995. Many of the older ones are in the second or third editions by now, and a number of them have been translated into other languages. Dynamic Leadership is one of the newer ones, being published in 2012.
People sometimes ask which of my books is the most popular or which one I like best. The crowd favorite has been The Victory of Surrender, and it is probably my favorite as well. I would put Dynamic Leadership right up there with the book on surrender, believing these two to be the most important I have ever written in terms of the impact they have had or could have. When Wyndham Shaw was writing the Foreword to Dynamic Leadership, (a Foreword well worth reading), he told me that he thought it was the most important book I had ever written. Given the fact the he and I co-authored Golden Rule Leadership, his comments were striking.
As I close out this article, please read the following paragraphs very carefully, prayerfully and personally. Look at your own heart. Don’t think about others whom you think need the lessons contained therein. Fittingly, the following material comes in a chapter entitled “Leadership Styles.” Please continue…
Bitterness Destroys; Grace Heals and Strengthens
No matter what you’ve been through, maintaining a victim mentality will indeed destroy your righteousness. The first Bible Talk I ever attended (as an observer) was on a university campus, led by a single college student whose spirituality was most impressive to me as an older minister. He had a sincere, gentle spirit about him, but courageously laid out the biblical message in an admirable way. Experiences like that one drew me like a magnet into the discipling movement (as I called it then), although it took me a few years. After his graduation, he married a wonderful young disciple, whose spirit was just as refreshing as his. They had what seemed to be the ideal marriage. On a recent trip to their home state, I was told that they are now divorced. Hearing that news shocked and depressed me. We had started a friendship back in that campus Bible Talk that meant something special to me. His influence on me was profound, even though our times together were few and far between over the years. What happened? I don’t really know, but what I do know is that he was a frequent contributor to a certain website where bitterness was fertilized incessantly by former church members who refused to handle hard times and hurts God’s way. Bottom line, bitterness may enter our hearts through different avenues, but once inside, it is only a matter of time before it destroys our own hearts. I have watched this process over and over in the past few years. Satan must be rejoicing.
You might be thinking, “Wait just a minute, Ferguson! You don’t understand my situation. I’ve been hurt, and hurt badly!” I am moved quickly to respond to statements like that by saying, “I’m truly sorry, I really am.” But I am also moved to follow that statement up by saying, “Join the club—the human club, and then the Jesus club.” The human club is a large one indeed, because we have all experienced hurts at the hands of others, but the Jesus club is a very small club, comprised only of people who have chosen to respond as Jesus did (and does, by the way). Am I critical of the military model of leadership described in this chapter? Yes. But do I also understand the environment that produced it and the good that occurred all over the world in spite of many types of sins by the leadership? Yes. If I could redo those years, would I do things a lot differently? Yes. If I could just remove those years from my life, would I do that? Absolutely not! God has always worked his will through sinners. He has no other choice.
What does he expect of us sinners? That we do the best we know, and keep striving to learn and become better in every way; in other words, to be disciples of Jesus: followers and learners. Will we make mistakes and hurt people? Let’s get real here. The person I have hurt most in this life is the one I love most: my wife. But she will tell you that I came from a very dysfunctional home and did the best I knew in our earlier days of marriage, and that over the years I have also kept striving to learn and become better in every way. And by her grace and God’s grace in my life, I have come a long, long way. Yes, I still have a long way to go, but I’ve come a long way. As the old saying puts it: “I’m not what I ought to be, but thank the Lord I’m not what I used to be.”
Some years ago, I was walking around my basement praying. The week before had been a bad one for me (for reasons I no longer remember). As I prayed, I confessed that I had been a mess the week before, and I promised to work really hard in the new week and make up for the bad week. I remember exactly where I was in the room when I said that, because I stopped in my tracks and said aloud, “That’s really bad theology, Ferguson.” No one can make up for anything in the past. Even if that new week I was entering went really well, it still would have contained quite enough of its own sin. That’s the “reality show” that we all live in every day, every week, every month, every year, for our whole life.
What shall we do with our bad days, weeks or months? I discovered an approach to prayer that day in my basement that I think is not only practical, but also biblical. I started most of my prayer times long after that day with this approach: “Lord, here is what happened yesterday—the good and the bad. For the good, I thank you so much. For the bad, all I know to do is confess and repent and then learn from it. So, my plan for today is to learn from both the good and the bad of yesterday, shut the door on yesterday and set out on my journey with you today determined to make this the best day I can, by your grace.” If you are unable to process your past like that, you are in a heap of trouble.
Is not Paul saying basically the same thing in Philippians 3:15–16 that I said in my prayer? After describing some lofty goals in his own life, he then gets practical with these words: “All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” I’m not as good a leader today as I will be next year, but it’s not next year yet. What I am today, I am, and I have to be content with living up to what I have attained at this point. And guess what? The people under my leadership are going to have to be content with that as well—it’s the best I have to offer. Can you follow that principle, for your leaders’ sake? Can you follow that same principle, for your own sake? Can you give others grace and can you give yourself grace? If not, you are cooked—no way out. If you cannot accept mercy and if you cannot give mercy, I pity you. We are all a bunch of sinners, trying to get to heaven and help each other get to heaven, and that’s going to require enormous amounts of grace from God and from one another.
Nineteen Reasons—Stumbling Blocks or Stepping Stones?
In this chapter, I listed nineteen evidences of our military model of leadership in the past. For you and for me, that list contains either nineteen reasons to be bitter or nineteen reasons to learn and grow spiritually and not make those same mistakes in the future. It is not what happens to us that ultimately matters; it is how we process what happens to us that matters. We need to learn from our mistakes, but what then? We will make some new ones! We are sinful human beings. This life is not heaven, nor will it ever be. The challenges of life, including all sins you commit and that others commit against you, will either be stumbling blocks or stepping stones. The old bumper sticker said, “Life is tough—and then you die.” That’s true, isn’t it? The real issue is how you handle life when it’s tough. Will it be Satan’s way or God’s way? Those are the only two choices we have, and we have to make that choice on a daily basis, usually many times a day. Jesus said that there are two paths: The narrow path is difficult in the short run, but is the only choice in the long run; the wide one seems deceptively easy in the short run, but is deadly in the long run. If we hang in with God, no matter what happens to us in this life, the long run will be unimaginably wonderful and wonderfully long.
The evolution I wrote about in the Introduction has occurred once again, hasn’t it? In talking about a bad style of leadership, we have ended up at the cross once again. It’s interesting how that will keep happening over and over, if we allow it to happen. The Latin word for cross is crux. The crux of the matter is not man’s leadership style, although I deem it important enough to write a chapter with the title. The real crux of the matter is the cross—God’s leadership style. That is the style I want to employ in my own leadership and to experience as I follow others, but no matter what people may do, God is still my leader, and yours. Whatever he causes or allows in my life, he already has my permission. Otherwise, life will make me bitter. But if God really is the architect of my life, I can handle whatever design he develops in my life. You can too—but the question is: Will we?
A number of people have asked me what my thoughts are about the current ICOC 3.0 discussions taking place among leaders in our family of churches. It perhaps goes without saying that ICOC 1.0 would be a moniker for our earlier days as a movement; 2.0 would have begun after our unsettled days starting in 2003, and 3.0 would describe where we would like to go in the near future. I had an opportunity to participate in one of the earliest discussions of ICOC 3.0 in Dallas when three of the Service Teams met. The sessions were lively, as each began with a presentation and was followed by small group discussions. Evangelists, elders and teachers were mixed in each of the groups, to gain perspectives from those in each role in all groups.
Discussions and Tentative Conclusions
Since those meetings, leaders (staff and non-staff) have been discussing specific questions in each of our geographic families of churches. Roger Lamb of Disciples Today recently posted a second update on the progress of these discussions, which included the following:
The results are pouring in and a clear picture is coming into focus. We have overwhelming agreement on a wide range of topics including:
- We are, and want to be, a global brotherhood
- We want to be organized globally
- We long to see more souls saved by the grace of God
- We are willing to share our financial resources to meet “brotherhood” needs
This brief segment from the update gives essentially what the topics of discussion include. Bottom line, the specific assigned questions address how people feel about having more of a global organization to accomplish a greater global impact in evangelism. Of course, this organization would also include the sharing of resources to accomplish these goals.
My Thoughts
My thoughts about the matter are pretty simple. How can any organization have a global impact without a global structure and how can you have a global structure without sharing the financial needs in a defined, understood and accepted way? So yes, I am quite in favor of what the majority of other leaders evidently are feeling, based on the update report. This is hardly rocket science, is it? I doubt seriously that any example exists of a global organization of any type making a high impact on a worldwide basis without the components of structure and shared finances. Of course, the organizational aspects have to be developed and implemented to fit the resources available and the goals of the group. That part must become the primary focus of the discussion much sooner than later.
Not All Will Agree
However simple this whole matter seems to me, it is not to others. While those others are evidently in the minority, they should be (and are) a part of the discussions. Unity is not unanimity, but it should include a broad consensus. Disciples, especially younger ones, also ask me why those who have issues with cooperation on a global basis have such issues in the first place. It seems odd to them. Understanding history helps us grasp the reasons behind the reluctance, and I think two aspects of history are most fundamental in explaining this phenomenon.
One, our movement history had for some years a much more organized approach to evangelizing the world. The organizational structure aided in planting churches in over 150 countries. The downside of that organization was in how it functioned. A few people at the “top” made decisions for everyone else, with little inclusion sought or accepted. It was a combination of military and corporate models, the former of which I discussed in chapter 4 of my book, Dynamic Leadership.
But was the problem with the structure itself, or with the implementation of said structure? We seem to have a difficult time ascertaining the difference between something wrong in and of itself, and something good but implemented wrongly. I personally had no issue with the structure of the past, but definitely had issues with how it functioned. Can we not have a global structure while avoiding the mistakes of the past? Surely we can! If we cannot learn from the past and change as a movement, we cannot learn from our past as individuals and repent. Resistance to moving forward when we are stuck (and we are) is scary business. Failing to build is just as bad as tearing something down once it is built, according to Proverbs 18:9: “One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys.”
Two, based on my experience, the majority of those who have difficulty accepting cooperation on a broad scale (which includes structure and money) share a common spiritual heritage – the Mainline Church of Christ. That also was the case when we were discussing the Unity Proposal some years back. I too share that religious heritage, which helps me understand those with whom I share it. One of the foundational tenets of that particular movement is congregational autonomy. It is in the DNA of those with a Mainline background, especially those who were raised in it from youth.
Saying that is in the DNA of that group is another way of saying that it is systemic, like nationalism or racism in the United States. You can have it whether you realize it or not, and it can drive your thinking without your being aware of it. The exception would be those like me who rebelled against it, believing that church autonomy as we saw it practiced was a guarantee of failure in evangelizing the world. Just be prepared to expend much patience in dealing with all of us from that background – the typical “heel draggers” and the atypical “toe pushers” (me being among the latter)! But it is a fact that the Mainline congregations are dying and have been for decades now. A well-known minister among them was on a panel back in 2004 and made the statement several times that they were in the last days of a dying movement. His fellow panelists from the Mainline didn’t like what he said, but he said it and he was right. Their statistics clearly prove it.
Statistics Don’t Lie
Our statistics in the ICOC show that we are starting to follow a similar path, in that our growth is slowing down and unless it reverses, we too will soon enter decline. It is that phenomenon that prompted the introduction of ICOC 3.0 in the first place. I have followed our statistics for years. When I first became an elder in our then flagship church, Boston, in 1989, my fellow elder Al Baird showed me a graph that hit me like a kick in the gut. It showed one line for the baptisms and one line for those leaving the church. The latter was moving in an upward direction faster than the former, meaning that when the walkaway rate (by whatever term you prefer) intersected the baptism rate, the overall membership decline would begin.
As a movement, we are now in a similar place. I mentioned some statistics last year in my book, My Three Lives. The overall growth for our movement of churches in 2015 was 1.9% and that of the US and Canadian churches was 1.3%. Our movement growth dropped from 1.9% in 2015 to 1.2% in 2016. Do you think we need an updated version of our IOS (operating system) in the ICOC? The answer seems obvious.
Not unexpectedly, the younger generations among us loved the honesty and the urgency with which I wrote in my book, while some older leaders had quite the opposite reaction. I suppose they didn’t like me making our statistics public, but we have to remember that the church is first of all the church of God and then the church of the people. It is decidedly not just the church of the leaders. Our members have a right and a need to know where we are as a movement. They are a part of the problem and must be a part of the solution.
An Introduction and Commendation!
That statement provides us with the ideal segue into the article I am introducing, written by a dear friend of mine, Jim McCartney. Jim is a member of the Boston church and one of the most reasoned and reasonable brothers I know. Jim understands that being a disciple means by definition that you must be a learner, and that being a learner means you must be a listener. He listens to those in all segments of the church, especially those of the younger generations. He is one of the most in-tune older brothers I know. His article is entitled “ICOC 3.00,” described by him in this way: “my thoughts are ancillary to ICOC 3.0, not a recommended revision or next version.”
To me, ICOC 3.0 is quite an obvious need, while the details of designing and implementing it are not yet so obvious. Having said that, I agree with the thrust of Jim’s insightful article, that deeper needs must be met if any organizational structure is to help in the long run. In a word, spiritual issues are far more important than organizational issues. I don’t think it is an either/or situation, but a both/and need, and an urgent one at that. Please read what Jim wrote, carefully and prayerfully – and keep your seat belts buckled tightly! Enjoy!
