(The primary material in this article was taken from my book, Dynamic Leadership, Appendix 7, and later expanded.)
We Live in a Negative World!
The subject of negativity is a broad one, and although we are going to focus on a certain highly dangerous type of negativity, some general observations will prove helpful. In case you haven’t recognized it, we live in a negative world. Bad news sells and good news doesn’t. At least that seems to be the message of our modern media organizations. Further, many of us grew up in negative families. I know I did. My parents would not have been characterized as positive thinkers and talkers by any stretch of the imagination.
Then, besides the effects the environment has on our perspectives and subsequent conversation directions, we have our own inner struggles with which to deal. We all develop some forms of insecurities as we grow up, and a common way to compensate for our bruised egos and warped self-images is to tear others down in an attempt to feel less inadequate about ourselves. This brand of negative speaking about others is far more common than the so-called “common cold” (and it makes us a lot sicker!). Those who are consistently critical of others are first of all critical of themselves. They may act otherwise, but rest assured that it is only an “act.”
When I was in high school eons ago, we spoke of certain classmates having a “superiority complex.” There is no such thing. That prideful and smug presentation of oneself was a charade, a cloak used to cover what we called an “inferiority complex.” That last term is relatively accurate, although outmoded in this era. Now we just say that a person who feels badly about themselves is insecure or has a poor self-image. If we are familiar with Schema Therapy, we would perhaps say that they have a defective schema. In other words, they feel defective as persons.
Get Your “Buts” in the Right Place!
Anyone not really comfortable in their own skin has the problem thus described, and one dead giveaway is that they are defensive and handle almost any form of correction (however well-intentioned and well presented) poorly. They already feel badly about themselves, and don’t seem to realize that input from others can help them change – which would result in them feeling better about themselves. Another evidence of this malady is seen in how they view and talk about others. They do tear others down in order to feel better about themselves, but it never works. Sin cannot make you feel better inside your heart of hearts.
Those in the church who have not yet conquered this problem have certain patterns to their negative speech. One pattern is just to talk negatively about others behind their backs, thus committing what the Bible defines as gossip and slander. Another pattern is saying both good and bad things about others, but doing it in a certain order, thus creating a certain emphasis. Compare these two sentences in how they affect your feelings about someone we will call “Betty” for purposes of illustration:
“Betty is a great wife and mother, but she doesn’t seem to get very involved in serving others.”
“I don’t always know what Betty may be doing to serve people generally, but I do know that she is absolutely a great wife and mother.”
The point of the illustration is to show that whatever is said after the little conjunction “but” is what we go away with – it is what we tend to remember. In the first example, we are left with the thought that Betty doesn’t serve those who aren’t in her family very well and in the second example we are left with the warm feeling that this woman really loves her husband and children, and shows it by her actions. Note a couple of things in the first example. The speaker is making an assumption (shown by the word seems) and leaves us with what appears to be a conclusion. If you want to have troubled relationships on all levels, assume what you don’t really know to be factual and state it as a conclusion!
Don’t Be Fooled by One of Satan’s Favorite Tools!
Both of these speech patterns described are negative and hurtful to relationships, but they are not nearly as dangerous as the one about which this article is mainly addressing—objective negativity. The most dangerous form I have ever found of unhealthy talk is also understandably the most subtle. This form is one of Satan’s favorite tools for destroying relationships on both an individual and group basis. I have seen several of his human agents use this tool in an almost unbelievably effective way (in being destructive). But rather than simply describing how they used it, we have the perfect biblical example in the child of a king (and a very good king at that). Turn to 2 Samuel 15:1-6 as we read about Absalom.
“In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate. Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him, ‘What town are you from?” He would answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.’ Then Absalom would say to him, ‘Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.’ And Absalom would add, ‘If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice.’
Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him. Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
Absalom’s work described here very nearly led to the killing of his father and to his usurping of David’s throne. He stole the hearts of the men of Israel, Scripture says. He didn’t merely win their hearts by serving them; he stole their hearts by tainting their thinking toward the king whom they had loved and followed for years. How sad! How powerful is Satan’s tool of objective negativity! Negativity we understand to some degree, but how does the term objective fit in to its use? Now that is a hugely important question, make no mistake about it.
We have all come away from certain conversations saying something to this effect: “Wow, that guy is really something; he’s about the most negative person I have ever heard in my life!” Someone skilled in the use of objective negativity never evokes that reaction, but what they do to a person’s heart is something akin to what a hidden cancer does to a person’s body. It is an undetected destroyer, doing its deadly work mostly in secret until drastic results emerge. The presentation of such soul-damaging information is cloaked by the sense of objectivity created, and the more spiritual it sounds, the better the cloak. With that in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that those looked upon as spiritually mature, or better yet, as spiritual leaders, are the most effective in using this approach.
In actuality, those skilled in this deceptive work are basically “seed planters.” They plant tiny seeds that grow quietly inside hearts until a plant or a tree is produced. Isn’t that exactly what Absalom did? He kept planting seeds as he validated the concerns of people and showed them affection, and those seeds were aimed at undermining trust in his father and building trust in himself. He was one sharp dude, one smart cookie. He knew exactly what he was doing for the four years he did it. Gossips tend to be impatient and have to say it now; the Absaloms of the world are patient and content just to plant and water, waiting for the tree of doubt, discontent and rebellion to grow.
Absalom Types Are Usually Leaders (Often Former Leaders) Themselves
My intent is not to make anyone mistrust spiritually mature people or spiritual leaders—far from it. I think most would say that I would fall into both of those categories. But like Paul, I want to help you not fall prey to those whose skills are found in this form of negativity that we are discussing. In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul said that he didn’t want his readers to be unaware of Satan’s schemes. Thus, his teaching was aimed at exposing Satan’s schemes (and he has many). Paul could not have described a person skilled in the deadly scheme of objective negativity any better than in this passage from the same book. “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).”
The claim that most Absalom types are leaders is demonstrated in the earliest stages of the Old Testament. Numbers 16 contains one of the most chilling accounts in the history of Israel, an event that dates back near the origin of the Israelite nation. We are generally familiar with the names of Korah, Dathan and Abiram because God opened the earth to swallow them and their families for their rebellion against Moses and Aaron (verses 25-33). However, this chapter in Numbers opened with the account of these men inciting the rebellion of 250 other well-known leaders within Israel (verses 1-3). They were not content with being counted among the leaders; they wanted to be among the very top leaders, which led to instigating a rebellion against them. God dealt suddenly and decisively with them, just as he had with those who sowed the seeds of their rebellion. Verse 35 says that “Fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men.” Sadly, Absalomic undermining of top leaders by influential people trickles down to infiltrate the average person, sometimes almost imperceptivity. In this case, the whole Israelite community challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron, resulting in a God-given plague that killed 14,700 of them (verses 41-49). What a sobering and terrifying account of what the work of a few leaders controlled by an Absalomic spirit can cause.
Perhaps you are thinking that all of these examples, including Absalom, come from the Old Testament period. What about the New Testament? Do we find the same phenomenon there? The logical answer is that wherever you find humans, you are going to find this insidious practice. However, as has been noted repeatedly, it is a subtle sin which is not noticed quickly or easily. Read on for the biblical answer to the question.
A Classic “Absalom” in the New Testament
What person in the NT do you think was the classic Absalom type? Pause a minute and think about who you believe it could be (waiting, waiting, waiting…). If you guessed Judas, you made the same choice I did. What do we know for sure about him? One, he was obviously a person of high talent or he wouldn’t have been chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. Two, he was an incredible expert at hiding his true nature from others, for even just prior to his betrayal of Jesus, the other apostles could not guess which of them was going to be the betrayer. Three, and this is the point that directly connects with the concept being developed in this article, he influenced the other apostles in negative directions.
This ability to subtlety lead others into bad paths is perhaps best shown in comparing three Gospel accounts of one event near the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It took place at a dinner being held at the home of a man named Simon. Notice the progression and what it reveals about this aspect of Judas’ nature. Let’s begin with the more general account in Mark 14:3-6 (NASB):
While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
From this account, you wouldn’t know who was objecting to the woman’s use of her costly perfume. You just know that a group was discussing it among themselves. Matthew’s account gives us more details about the identity of the group:
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? 9 “For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. (Matthew 26:6-10)
Now we know that it was the apostles discussing the issue, and it seems that they are becoming more outspoken as the discussion continued. John’s account in John 12:1-8 fills in some striking details:
Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, *said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. 7 Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 “For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”
What are the additional details John provides us in his account? One, Simon must have had a reasonably close relationship with Lazarus, Mary and Martha, since they were present at the dinner and Martha doing her usual thing of serving. Two, the woman with the perfume was none other than Mary, one of the three siblings. Three, it was Judas who almost certainly initiated the complaint that then spread to the other apostles. That is the point most relevant to our discussion. Closely associated to it is the fact that Judas was a frequent thief and the other apostles never suspected anything. His true nature was not perceived by his closest associates. His complaints about the “waste” of expensive perfume sounded quite objective and reasonable to them – even spiritual (helping the poor).
Hence, they joined into the discussion, prodded into it by his initial comments – which most likely were shared rather privately with them in the earliest stages. Good-hearted people like Peter blurted out what they really thought, not fearing either the vulnerability or the correction that often followed their comments. Individuals like Judas were very careful about what they said and to whom they said it. Knowing human nature makes the assumption likely that this discussion began with Judas planting the negative seeds, which the others picked up on and expressed more openly. Like Absalom in the OT, Judas gives us a perfect example of someone skilled in the use of objective negativity.
What about Judas’ motives? Did he always have evil intent of which he was quite aware? In this case, the answer would be yes, based on the wording of the text. In the case of his betrayal of Jesus, some believe that his intent was to force Jesus to become the kind of Messiah that most Jews were looking for by having to use his power to save his own life. If a true hypothesis, it could explain why he committed suicide rather quickly after that plan didn’t bring the desired result. If this were a reasonably accurate assumption, it would mean that Judas wasn’t always aware of his inmost motivations or of the true impact of what he was doing. It was to him second nature, having become so ingrained in his sinful nature through a long series of deceitful choices.
I am not sure if those most effective in the use of objective negativity are always aware of what they are doing. They certainly know how to cloak their true nature from others, and it may be that they are fooling themselves as well. In my own experience, those who resort to spreading negativity in this manner are perhaps self-deceived as they deceive others, because helping them see themselves and the effects they are having has usually been a fruitless endeavor. I’ve seen temporary change that appeared to reflect repentance, but the fact that it has nearly always been temporary perhaps indicates that they are self-deceived. As with all other sins, the long-range changes are the ones that indicate true repentance. I add this thought to help us not be naïve and overly optimistic when dealing with those who commit such damaging sins. I’m not suggesting that we be cynical or faithless, but I am strongly suggesting that this sin indicates some deeply imbedded heart issues that we must be very careful in dealing with. May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we are trying to protect the flock as a whole while also trying to help those individuals who may be hurting it, intentionally or unintentionally.
What is the Solution – the Antidote?
The solution begins with recognition of the types of speech patterns underlying the Absalomic approach. Well, what do such people sound like in everyday life? Here are some samples from a very long list of possibilities:
“I really love our elders, but some people have shared a few things with me that sometimes make me wonder…” But you do have to appreciate their sacrifice of time and energy.
“I think we have a great staff, but I did hear one or two things in confidence that have made me a little nervous. I guess we will just have to trust the Lord that he will work out whatever needs to be worked out.”
“I appreciate the fact that our leaders are following a carefully planned process of looking for additional staff members, but I really hope that they will keep ____________ in mind and not just make decisions out of personal preferences. I am glad, though, that they seem to be focused on finding someone soon.”
“I am certain that our small group leader has a real heart to serve, but I do wonder if he has the time to be serving in that role right now with all that he has on his plate. But don’t you just love their two little girls—they are the cutest things!”
“The couple we have leading our small group really loves people, and that is such a valuable and appreciated quality. I have heard some disciples question whether they had the gift set to be able to do it. But getting people to lead is no easy matter, so I suppose that we should just appreciate their willingness to serve in this way.”
“Betty is one of my best friends and I feel like I can tell her anything, but I am praying that she can keep a confidence. We all need a safe place to share our struggles.”
“I really love this church, and have a lot invested in it for these nine years that I have been a member. I hope our direction for the future is clearer to others than it is to me. I guess I just need to pray more.”
My examples of actual conversations mention leaders quite a bit, as I’m sure you would expect by the time you have read this far. Satan knows that he can destroy churches if he can erode trust in leaders. But let me make one thing perfectly clear: I’m not defending bad leaders in any way. Wyndham Shaw and I wrote a little book a decade ago entitled Golden Rule Leadership should demonstrate that point clearly. Although what we wrote is now “old hat” and generally accepted in our movement today, it was strongly resisted by a number of leaders in high places when it was first published. My most recent book on leadership, Dynamic Leadership, deals much more directly and strongly with ineffective, unbiblical and sinful leadership. Having said that, Satan has always, and will always, do his best to destroy trust in all leadership—not simply that which you and I might agree is poor leadership. Destroy the mom or dad in any family, and you’ll see the family severely damaged.
Maybe you are thinking that those who practice the fine art of objective negativity sound almost the same as those who have their “buts” in the wrong place. Well, they are similar in some ways, but different in key areas. Both use the word “but” as a key part of their processes. However, the Absalomic approach sounds much more spiritual. It not only begins with positive statements; it also ends with them. The effect is much more subtle. When you hear a person like this, especially if you trust them and or look up to them, you leave the conversation feeling mostly good. You can recount the positive, spiritually sounding things they said. On the other hand, the more spiritually in tune you are, the more you leave feeling unsettled, perhaps ever so slightly. Seeds have been carefully planted, and if you do not come to realize that something is amiss, those seeds may well grow. I have seen people thus influenced who eventually left the church that I never imagined would possibly leave.
The further solution to dealing with this malady is to pay attention to your own heart. If something seems slightly out of kilter after a conversation, tending to pull you in a negative direction, go back to the person with whom you talked and start asking questions.
“When you said that some have questioned the leadership gift of __________, who are those some?”
“You expressed some doubt about your good friend Betty being able to keep a confidence. Have you told her that?”
“That statement you made about the direction of the church—what exactly are you questioning here? I think you and I need to go talk to some of the leaders of the church together, because I want to make sure that your doubts are dealt with and not spread to others—including me.”
Bottom line, we need to be very careful about what we listen to that has a negative bent to it about anyone or any group that is not present for the discussion. The Lord knows that we must learn to talk to others about sensitive issues and concerns—but we need to do it with them, face-to-face and not behind their backs. People sometimes ask me if I am feeling something toward them that isn’t positive, and the answer is pretty simple. “If I am, you will be among the first to know it, because we will be talking in an up-close and personal way.” If someone seems to perhaps have funny feelings toward me, I ask them about it. If they do, I want them to encourage them to come to me, but I am quite willing to go to them as well. Matthew 5 and Matthew 18 say that we should meet each other going and coming if relationships are not in a good place.
Disciples are learners. That’s a basic meaning of the term itself. Let’s learn to recognize sinful speech, whether it is coming out of our own mouth or the mouth of another. And by all means, let’s learn to get beyond our conflict avoidance tendencies and resolve relationships that are strained or we think may be unsettled in some way. If we have good marriages, we have done it hundreds of times because we don’t want to be under the same roof with another person with whom we are not at peace. For the Lord’s sake, let’s refuse to live under his same big sky with our brothers and sisters without cultivating and maintaining that same peace. It is the will of our Father, who loves us all as his dear children. Amen and Amen!
Distinct from other groups in the Restoration Movement, mainline Churches of Christ have been known for years for their stand against the use of instruments in accompaniment to spiritual songs. Historically, this position has not been held as a matter of preference or judgment. It has been a stated doctrinal position, and most of the leaders for nearly a century who stated it made it a test of fellowship −a matter of heaven and hell! However, this century-old position is fading fast in this group of churches, but it is not yielding easily. There can be no question that the younger generations in the Mainline Church of Christ are rejecting the prohibitions of using instrumental music in worship. Many in the older generation claim that the younger ones are becoming liberal and are little concerned with the authority of Scripture. Although some among their younger generation likely are becoming less concerned with biblical authority, the reasons for change are not that simplistic.
For example, when I changed my position on this issue, I had not become less concerned with the place of biblical authority and I was definitely not a member of the younger generation. Yet, I became unconvinced by the doctrinal arguments made against the use of instrumental music in worship, although I had made them myself for many years when a part of that group. It is not a matter of indifference when declaring such issues to be matters of absolute faith rather than personal opinions and preferences. Understanding the religion of the Pharisees should help us grasp the sobering fact that binding what God did not bind is just a great a sin as loosing what God did not loose. Legalism and liberalism are both very dangerous ends of the spectrum of using the Bible in wrong ways. Christian freedom extends into many practical areas of the spiritual life, and music in worship is one such area in my studied opinion and subsequent conviction.
Having said that, it is only right to share why my past views of the subject changed. Providing some background of the interpretive viewpoints of the non-instrumental folks is the logical starting place. The key argument against the use of instruments has been the argument on the basis of “silence” in the NT. Only the word “sing” is found there, and no reference is made to “playing.” Therefore, say those using this interpretation, instrumental music is strictly forbidden, and to use it is to go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Another way to describe the reasoning behind forbidding instrumental music involves the alleged principle that a general command or example allows the choice of any specific, while a specific command or example rules out other specifics. One of the oldest and most simple illustrations is one drawn from God’s command to Noah about building the ark prior to the great flood. According to Genesis 6:14, God commanded that the ark be built from gopher wood (cypress in the NIV). Thus, to use any other type of wood in the construction instead of, or in addition to, this type would be going beyond what God said and thus would constitute disobedience. Had he said simply to build the ark from wood, any type or types of wood could have been chosen by Noah, but once a specific was given, that ruled out anything but the type specified.
So goes the argument regarding music in worship. Had God simply said to “make music,” any type of music could be chosen, but since God specified singing (vocal music), this rules out other types of music instead of, or along with, vocal music. If the argument is valid, the use of instrumental music is divinely forbidden. But is this simplistic argument the end of the matter? Does the Bible shed more light on the subject, light that would allow more latitude in the worship of God? Important questions, those.
Although we are not under the Mosaic covenant, the OT setting can teach us some valuable lessons. Read the following passages to get a feel for the approved use of the instruments in that period of time:
David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals (1 Chronicles 15:16).
When David was old and full of years, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. He also gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites thirty years old or more were counted, and the total number of men was thirty-eight thousand. David said, ‘Of these, twenty-four thousand are to supervise the work of the temple of the LORD and six thousand are to be officials and judges. Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the LORD with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose’” (1 Chronicles 23:1-5).
At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the Levites were sought out from where they lived and were brought to Jerusalem to celebrate joyfully the dedication with songs of thanksgiving and with the music of cymbals, harps and lyres (Nehemiah 12:27).
The most notable thing to realize from these settings is that the use of instruments was not a part of the Law of Moses (the original Law given at Mount Sinai). They were actually introduced by David, as the non-instrumentalists correctly affirm. Yet, 2 Chronicles 29:25 states that God commanded their use! “He stationed the Levites in the temple of the LORD with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the LORD through his prophets.” To say the least, God allowed the OT people a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to worship (even under a system which tended much more in the direction of a legal exactness).
As previously stated, the traditional Church of Christ interpretation asserts that the mention of “sing” rules out “play.” But in the OT setting, this distinction is not proved but rather contradicted. The use of the word “sing” did not preclude the use of instruments. 1 Samuel 21:11 says, “But the servants of Achish said to him, ‘Isn’t this David, the king of the land? Isn’t he the one they sing about in their dances: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’?” Note that only “sing” is mentioned in this context. However, in 1 Samuel 18:6-7, a parallel passage, we read: “When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’.”
Another very important consideration concerns the original church described in Acts, which was totally Jewish for a number of years. From the establishment of the church in Acts 2 until Ephesians 5:19 (with its specific command to “sing”), over 20 years had passed. How did those Jews, who were quite accustomed to worshipping with an instrument, know that “sing” ruled out the use of instruments? Other Jewish practices continued for quite some time, with at least God’s tacit approval. For example, Paul took a vow and shaved his head as a part of that vow (Acts 18:18). At James’s insistence, Paul entered the temple with four brothers who had taken vows and were observing the rites of purification (Acts 21:20-24). For a fairly lengthy period (at least up to AD 70 at the destruction of the temple), Jewish Christians practiced many aspects of Judaism as a matter of custom. Are we to conclude that these early disciples with Jewish backgrounds could, for at least this period of time, observe these Jewish ordinances as a matter of custom, and yet be guilty of sin if they continued to use instrumental music in worship? To me, that seems like a huge hermeneutical leap.
What are the key principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) which can help to determine the truth on this subject? Although the OT was much more a code of specific commands than is the NT, even then men added some far reaching practices which were never disapproved of by God. The entire synagogue system was introduced by men during the captivity period. Yet, Jesus went into the synagogue every Sabbath as was his custom (Luke 4:16). The Feast of Purim was added during the time of Esther, and became a regular feast of the Jews. Yet, neither of these practices was mentioned in the Law itself.
In most discussions of the subject of instrumental music, pro or con, much is made of the exact words in the NT words for singing. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the focal point of such discussions. They read as follows: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16).
The Greek word for sing, “Psalmos” (from “Psallo”), is the word which is often discussed most in this connection. The evolution of the meaning of this word is a matter on importance. In ancient Greek, the word meant “to pluck” or something similar. It did not originally imply plucking a stringed instrument, but with the passage of time and the development of the Greek language, it did come to imply the use of a musical instrument. As the language further evolved, the idea of plucking an instrument was no longer inherent in the word itself. In modern Greek, “psallo” means “to sing” and carries no idea of playing an instrument.
The question at hand is just where this evolution of the term was at the time when the NT was written (during the Koine Greek period). Actually, different writers come out on both sides of the coin in their study of authorities on this matter. In reading the writings of these men, and the sources which they quote as their authorities, I am not convinced either way. I do not believe that the Greek either demands an instrument or excludes it. The focus in the NT passages is that we are to sing thankfully and sincerely from the heart. Whether we do this type of singing with instrumental accompaniment or without it seems not to be the focus of God. If he intended to make the use of instrumental music an incidental issue, as I think he did, how could he have done it any better than the way he had the NT actually worded?
The whole issue likely is a very simple one. Singing is the vital aspect of worship that God wanted us to employ and enjoy, but instrumental music is a matter of expediency — it is a choice. If God had commanded the use of instrumental music, worship would have been much less flexible as far as the physical setting was concerned. Jesus said that the place of worship was to be unimportant in the church (John 4:21-24). In other words, worshipping in the outdoors or in a cave during a time of persecution would be a simple, convenient matter. If instrumental music had been bound, then the place of assembling would have been more important and more difficult to arrange.
God evidently did not have the NT writers mention the use of instruments in worship in order to make sure that we did not bind their use. To say that the lack of mention forbids their use is another thing entirely. It would seem that the use of instruments is simply a matter of expediency or choice. God is far more concerned about our hearts in worship than about the physical trappings one way or another. As one who worshipped without the use of instruments for the first 45 years of his life, and who has worshipped with the use of instruments since that time, I can say without hesitation that my heart has been affected spiritually in a positive way more with than without instrumental music. My personal experience cannot be used to displace the authority of Scripture, to be sure, but the truth of God tends to become rather self-evident with the passage of time. Biblically and practically, I would put instrumental music in worship in the realm of Christian freedom and preferences. In time, it will be left there by virtually everyone in the mainstream membership of restoration churches, just as many other similar issues of opinion have been.
(This material was taken from my exposition of Acts, entitled “World Changers,” Appendix 1)
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
(Matthew 6:10, King James Version)
This brief verse has been used as the basis of songs, poems and quotations for centuries. It provides the most basic and ideal definition of the term “kingdom of God” to be found in Scripture – a place where God’s will is done. It pictures that desire disciples have to see all inhabitants of earth submit to the King of kings and the Lord of lords, in the same way that all of heaven submits to him. Who could imagine a better portrayal of life on planet earth than that one? However, looking at all sides of what the Bible says about the kingdom and trying to harmonize it leaves one’s head spinning. It almost defies a description in which all loose ends are tied up tightly. But is that unexpected? Can any human look at everything said about God and describe him in simple terms without similar loose ends hanging out everywhere? Obviously, no. Then we should not be surprised to find the same challenges when trying to describe his ruling realm.
As was stated in the exposition of Acts 1:3-6 in my book, World Changers, the kingdom is a very broad and complex subject. I sometimes find it easier to explain what it is not than what it is. I appreciate other author’s efforts to deal with the subject, but I never finish reading any article or book on the kingdom without questions and without a sense of unsettledness, a feeling that something still isn’t quite clear about the topic. Likely that says much more about the subject itself than about men’s efforts to delve into it. I am quite sure that anyone reading my comments about it will finish with similar feelings. But it is a glorious subject, one of great significance in Old Testament prophecy and one that prompted many comments in the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation. With all of that in mind, please begin reading with the thought in mind that you are going to receive some introductory knowledge that will hopefully prompt in you the desire to dig deeper, and that the subject deserves to have you start (or continue) digging soon.
The Universal Kingdom
If we were to accept the Matthew 6:10 definition of the kingdom as a realm in which God’s will is done, we would soon encounter the complexity of which we spoke earlier. For example, consider these broad, sweeping comments regarding the reign of God:
1 Chronicles 29:11-12: “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all.”
Psalm 29:10: “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.”
Psalm 103:19: “The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.”
Isaiah 10:13-14: “For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings. As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing, or opened its mouth to chirp.'”
Isaiah 37:16: “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
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?”
Daniel 2:21: “He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.”
Daniel 4:17: “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.”
So, what are all of these passages saying? That God reigns over all of creation, animate and inanimate, and nothing happens without his knowledge of it, and in one sense, his approval of it. He indeed is King of kings, and not a sparrow falls to the ground without it fitting into the will of God in one way or another. Because of his absolute sovereignty, he can call Nebuchadnezzar his “servant” (Jeremiah 43:10) and use one wicked nation after another to punish his own people or one another. All of these sinful, rebellious kings were instruments of God to accomplish his purposes, for he is King over all and the whole universe is thus his kingdom!
In this broadest sense of the kingdom, are those in it doing his will? Yes and no. The pigs, lizards, and the like are doing pretty well. They are doing what they were created to do, and without any comprehension of it whatsoever, they are doing his will for them – fulfilling their purpose. Similarly, human beings in general, including those in rebellion, are involuntarily doing his will in some ways. But as we begin this consideration, we have to keep Paul’s words in mind when he wrote: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out” (Romans 11:33). God has always had spiritual goals in mind as he led history toward Golgotha, and while choices have always been left up to man, especially spiritual choices, he still had his way in working all things together for his purposes. As Galatians 4:4 puts it, when the time was fully ripe for his coming, he sent his Son into the world. As McGuiggan described it, “Within the scope of God’s rule are two classes of men, those in his favor (and in subjection to him) and those who don’t have his favor (and who are in subjection to him). (The Reign of God, page 20)
A Kingdom Within a Kingdom
This statement brings us to a consideration of men who are in the favor of God. Everyone from Adam onward who were (or became) people of faith, were a part of a kingdom within a kingdom. They voluntary submitted to their God as their King, which made them a part of two kingdoms at once. The spiritual part of the kingdom has gone through various phases, and can easily be overlooked or misunderstood. Before the Law of Moses was given at the inauguration of the Judaistic kingdom, those who were faithful to God were in his spiritual kingdom – whether it was officially called a kingdom or not. If he was the king, they were his subjects. If his will was being done by them, they were in his kingdom of the redeemed. This kingdom before the cross was nonetheless based on the sacrifice made on the cross, for Jesus was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world – Revelation 13:8. The citizens of that early kingdom understood none of this, but they didn’t have to. God did. They just had to be faithful to the light God had given them.
Then historically, the kingdom of the Jews was established at Sinai. God’s will was for all of those descendants of Abraham to be a spiritual kingdom under his kingship. He made this clear through Moses in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” However, although this lofty goal for Israel represented God’s ideal will, it didn’t play out in an ideal fashion. In fact, by the end of the Wilderness Wandering period, Deuteronomy was written to correct legalistic views of observing the Law that had developed in just a forty year period, which explains why so much in this amazing Book was addressing the heart. But Deuteronomy did not halt the slide into legalism (and worse). From its inception, the nation of Israel became a nation within a nation, a kingdom within a kingdom. The whole nation was used as God’s instrument to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and to produce him. Sadly, only a remnant (the spiritual kingdom within the physical kingdom) was faithful to him.
Paul certainly made this principle clear with his comments in Romans 9-11. For example, in Romans 9:6 he wrote, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” In those same chapters, he made it abundantly clear that it had always been the case that only a remnant was faithful and a part of the true Israel. The reason the majority were not right with God during the first century can be traced back to their mistaken view of what being an Israelite meant, and did not mean, spiritually.
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone” (Romans 9:30-32).
Thus, the Jews (particularly the religious ones) believed that they were right with God by virtue of being the physical descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist addressed this mistaken view by saying in Matthew 3:9, “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”
This explains why there had to be a kingdom within a kingdom, a spiritual kingdom and a physical kingdom existing concurrently. The nation may have become a nation at Sinai, and although God used them for his ultimate purposes, they were often a nation in rebellion. Praise God for the encouragement we get from knowing that there was a remnant even in the worst of times, Ruth being a shining example of that – even though a foreign proselyte. Even in the largely apostate Northern Kingdom during the time of the divided kingdom, Elijah was told by God that the remnant numbered 7,000 (1 Kings 19:18).
The most important phase of the Israelite kingdom began when David was made king, for God promised him that someone from his lineage would remain on the throne forever. Saul’s family lost the throne due to his sin, but David’s family would never abdicate the throne to another family. Of course, the ultimate Davidic king who would reign forever and ever was none other than Jesus the Messiah.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7).
As mentioned in our earlier comments under Acts 1:6, the apostles’ question about restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a dumb or naive question. The kingdom of the Messiah was a restored kingdom, especially relevant historically because from the time of the Babylonian captivity until Jesus was crowned, there was not a king on David’s throne (meaning from his lineage). Read back over the comments in the Acts 1 exposition if this is unclear to you. The kingdom of Christ was given first to the Jews as a fulfillment of many OT prophecies, and it was a number of years before Gentiles began flooding into his kingdom. Of course, the OT foretold the inclusion of the Gentiles, but the Jews evidently understood this to mean that they would come in through the funnel of Judaism. That misinterpretation led to the Jew/Gentile controversy in the early church that nearly split it.
The Ultimate Kingdom of David
This phase of the kingdom became a reality in conjunction with the Messiah. In this phase of the kingdom, the “kingdom within a kingdom” scenario was destined to become a thing of the past. Although God used the physical kingdom of Judaism for his ultimate purposes to bless mankind, this kingdom essentially failed as a spiritual kingdom, for several reasons. This failure is described by Jesus in Matthew 21:43 thusly: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” In this case, he is saying that the special purpose of the physical kingdom was ending and being given to those who would comprise the Messianic spiritual kingdom. The whole approach to God was undergoing a radical change – a change that few of the Jews understood. The author of Hebrews gives us insight into that change in Hebrews 8:11, as he describes the difference between the old covenant of Moses and the new covenant of Christ. “No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”
In the old covenant, a person was born into the covenant and had to be taught about God (which was a part of the failure mentioned previously). In the new covenant, every person has to be first taught and then born (reborn spiritually). That marked a monumental change and insured that none could enter the covenant of Christ without knowing what they were doing and choosing to do it. Hence, the introduction of the new covenant of the risen Christ marked the end of having a kingdom within a kingdom in the same sense as during the Mosaic covenant.
The term kingdom is used over 100 times in the four Gospel accounts, and about a third that often in the remainder of the NT. Jesus’ uses of this term were quite varied. Many times, especially in parables, he spoke of kingdom growth (mustard seed, leaven) or the judgment of his kingdom (tares among the good seed, fish in the net) or kingdom value (pearl of great price, treasure in the field). Passages like Matthew 13:38 seem to use the term in the universal sense that we spoke of near the beginning of this article, for the field was referred to as the whole world in this passage.
The Inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the Messianic kingdom comes in trying to ascertain when it actually was instituted. Keep in mind as we move to this consideration that I believe that the church and the kingdom are not exact equivalents. I said that in the Acts 1 exposition, but I will need to say it again here to avoid any possible confusion.
Traditionally, leaders in our movement have equated the church and the kingdom, and have thus taught that the kingdom (church) was established in Acts 2 – as Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 converged on the Day of Pentecost. I can see what seems to be fairly compelling reasoning for teaching it in this manner. On the other hand, I see passages in the Gospels that seem to clearly say that the kingdom was in existence during the ministry of King Jesus. This complexity is not easily solved, at least in my mind.
The main passages that are used for pointing to the kingdom being in existence during Jesus’ ministry are easy to find and list. (All are from the NIV unless noted.)
Matthew 4:17: From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Matthew 12:28: “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’”
Matthew 21:31: “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”
Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”
Luke 10:9: “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’”
Luke 12:32: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.”
Luke 17:20-21: “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!‘ or, ‘There it is!‘ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (NASB).
In looking at these passages, it cannot be doubted that the kingdom of Jesus was present in his ministry. After all, in Matthew 9:6 Jesus said that he had authority on earth to forgive sins, and if one’s sins were forgiven, they were a part of his kingdom. However, the greater question to me is in what sense his kingdom was present. Other passages seem to point to a sense in which the kingdom was not yet present, and I don’t refer to the kingdom in heaven after the resurrection. Look at these passages also from the Gospel accounts.
Matthew 3:1-2: “In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'”
Matthew 11:11: “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matthew 16:18-19 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 20:21: “‘What is it you want?’ he asked. She said, ‘Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.'”
Mark 14:25: “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Mark 15:43: “Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.”
Luke 19:11: “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.”
Both John and Jesus said that the kingdom of God was near. Given what is said about John in Matthew 11, it doesn’t seem possible that he was saying that the kingdom of God was then present when he said that it was near. The apparent interchangeable use of church and kingdom in the same context of Matthew 16, combined with the fact that the apostles didn’t begin to use their binding and loosing authority mentioned there until after Pentecost gives pause as well. In Matthew 20, the request of James’ and John’s mother seemed to indicate that she saw the kingdom as yet future. Correctly or incorrectly, I’ve long thought that Jesus joining us in communion (Mark 14:25) happens in the church in a spiritual sense. Joseph of Arimathea evidently wasn’t aware of the kingdom being present. Luke 19:11 seems to have been spoken to clarify that the kingdom of God was not going to appear immediately. Of course, it could be argued that this passage was referring to the heavenly stage of the kingdom.
But then we come back to Acts 1. Jesus had opened the minds of the apostles in order to teach and prepare them for all that was soon to occur. The teaching took place over a forty day period. They still were asking about when the kingdom was coming, regardless of what you choose to do about the word “restore.” These men who were closest to Jesus all during his ministry and personally were instructed by him in this forty day crash course about the kingdom topic didn’t see it as being in existence yet – even after his resurrection from the dead. Something much bigger was to come regarding the kingdom.
Therefore, while it seems apparent that the kingdom of God was present in the person of Jesus during his earthly ministry, those who saw and heard him did not seem to grasp much of what that meant, including the apostles. To assume that it was as much in evidence before Pentecost as afterwards strains my sense of knowledge and my sense of logic. As another writer stated it, could there really have been a crown without a cross? I know that the fairly popular “now, not yet” formula sees two phases of the kingdom as being an earthly phase instituted during the ministry of Jesus and a heavenly phase when time is no more. At this point of my own study, I would propose a “now, not yet, not yet” formula from the vantage point of Acts 1. The now was largely the preparatory phase of Jesus’ ministry, in which much groundwork was laid for the future and much teaching was addressed toward the Jewish mindset. The first not yet phase was ushered in at Pentecost when the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was first publicly proclaimed after it became a reality. It was still a not yet phase during the ministry of Christ. And of course the final not yet phase would refer to the kingdom after it is delivered up to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).
One final consideration leads me to the conclusions stated above – namely, the connection between the Messiah’s kingdom and his covenant. Ezekiel 37:15-28 is without doubt a Messianic passage, predicting the new David (Jesus) reigning over his kingdom forever, ruling it with an everlasting covenant of peace. The reign of Jesus as King occurs in conjunction with his new covenant. Therefore, the question must be asked, when was the new covenant instituted? That cannot be other than in Acts 2.
Hebrews 9:15-17: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.”
The new covenant is compared to a will, which only goes into effect after the maker of the will dies. The period from the death of Christ to the Day of Pentecost, when I believe the new covenant went into effect, was something like a probationary period before a will becomes totally legal. That is at least the case with manmade wills.
To my way of thinking, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom that took place during the earthly ministry of Jesus had to be primarily preparatory preaching. The very foundation of the kingdom gospel message is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 was not heart and soul of the message, it was yet an incomplete gospel. Of course, Jesus taught about his death and resurrection during his earthly ministry, but who really understood it? The apostles certainly didn’t, and they were of all people the best candidates to understand it. Instead, even immediately after the resurrection they were fearfully hiding behind closed doors – until the Spirit came on Pentecost. From that time forward, they were boldness personified, preaching and living the gospel of the resurrected, ascended King and spreading his new covenant everywhere. Passages like Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 come together in Acts 2 in a way that they do not come together elsewhere – including during the earthly ministry of Jesus.
What Are the Real Issues Here?
I don’t think the real underlying issue is when the Messianic phase of the kingdom was instituted. 2000 years have passed. In my Appendix about Apollos and whether he was re-baptized or not, I make it clear that it really doesn’t matter at all now, one way or the other. You can read that Appendix if you like, but my opinion is that those baptized before the cross and who remained faithful were not re-baptized. That would have included the apostles and others. But what difference does it make to us two centuries later? The same circumstances don’t (can’t) exist now, so it is a moot question. The same principle could be applied to the institution of the kingdom. Whether that occurred during the ministry of Jesus or on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of the Messiah has been around for a long time and the real issue for us is to discover exactly what being a part of that kingdom now should mean to us and how it must show up in our thinking and doing. If we are indeed kingdom people, we must live like it! That’s the real issue.
It seems to me that the renewed emphasis on the kingdom in the Gospels comes at least partially from the desire to avoid the malady of equating the kingdom with the church, especially in combination with the strong tendency to have an institutionalized view of the church. I understand that malady, and malady is a good word to describe it. Most who claim to follow Christ have indeed developed a very institutional view of the church, and tend to preach the gospel of the church rather than the gospel of Christ. However, we have two problems to address and hopefully solve – wrong views of both the kingdom and of the church.
If I am correct in my assumption regarding one motivation behind the renewed kingdom emphasis, we have somewhat of a parallel in the motivation behind using the term disciple rather than Christian. The word Christian is only used three times in the NT, and not defined well at all. Perhaps for that reason, the word has come to be used in so many ways that violate Scripture that those in our movement have opted to use the term disciple. It is used many times and is defined from many angles. In perhaps a similar way, using the term kingdom gets us back into the Scripture with fresh eyes and helps reduce the focus on the term church, which is so misunderstood and misapplied in our day.
However, a real difference exists in these two word choices (kingdom and disciple, in lieu of church and Christian). It is true that Christian is little used and defined in the NT. Conversely, it is not true that church is little used and defined in the NT. From Acts through Revelation, kingdom is used 35 times, whereas church is used 75 times. Most of the times the word church is used, it refers to a local assembly of believers. Perhaps that makes the term easier to institutionalize. However, some of the passages about the church are as lofty as could be imagined, and in these cases, using the word kingdom interchangeably would seem appropriate. Read the following verses and see what you think.
Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
Ephesians 1:18-23: “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
Ephesians 3:14-21: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.”
Hebrews 12:22-29: “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.”
Again, I think I understand the reluctance some have of in any way equating the kingdom with the church. But both terms need to be clarified, sanctified and perhaps fumigated. I am totally supportive of all efforts to help us see what Jesus envisioned his kingdom to be (regardless of the date of its institution), for we have lost our radical edge as a movement. At one time, using the term disciple called us to that radical edge, but it too has become an institutionalized term for many of us. To those in that category, it means little more than being a part of an ICOC related church. Therefore, if using the term kingdom can direct us back into studying the kingdom life, which is biblically a very radical, cross-cultural life, I say “Amen and Amen!” I just want to make sure I get to that point by employing a correct hermeneutic in the process.
I deeply desire to help us see the kingdom of God in its eternal significance, reaching back into eternity before the world was created and reaching forward into the eternity of which I long to be a part. I also want to help us see the church as the blood-bought Body of Christ, consisting of all the saved on earth, who are at the same time a part of the kingdom – called to be his spiritual representatives to do what Christ did while in his earthly sojourn. While the church is not equal to the kingdom, it is certainly a part of God’s kingdom. In the church, we are subjects of the King and we subject our lives to the rule and reign of God. It may not all be simple and easy to understand, hence the need to keep digging, but our study should lead us to a deeper understanding of the kingdom and its ever increasing glory as we await that day when “Thy Kingdom Come” is fulfilled in the grandest way possible, for all eternity.
In discussing this subject, I can only attest to my own experiences in the Mainline Church of Christ. Although the Christian Church shares a common ancestry in the Restoration Movement, I don’t know exactly what their beliefs and practices are regarding congregational autonomy. However, I do know historically that the early restoration movement held this teaching as one of their major foundational tenets. In arguing for local church autonomy, the early Restoration leaders were more mistaken than evil in intent. They were coming out of religious denominations where complex hierarchies had developed who lorded it over the members and, in their view, forced upon them compliance to unbiblical traditions. They saw their teaching about local church autonomy as a return to a more biblical pattern where there would be “liberty” to follow the Scriptures as they read them, and not as they were interpreted by some cleric caught up in ecclesiastical politics.
But what started out of sincere motivation ended up becoming one of the most damaging, unbiblical traditions of the Mainline Church of Christ. This doctrine has received much emphasis, most often with a spirit of certainty and even smugness. It has been a part of the Church of Christ creed for so long that few in their group bothers to question it. I can remember personally preaching about how congregational autonomy was God’s plan to keep one bad apple from spoiling the whole bunch! Even if one church went liberal, that departure would not hurt the entire brotherhood, we argued. In this way, we could supposedly never become like the Catholics! However, looking more closely, the fact of universal unity in the Catholic Church is not their problem. It is their means of gaining and keeping that unity. They do it through positional only authority, and with edicts passed down by the Pope and his Cardinals. The unity in the NT was based on leader relationships, as the Book of Acts demonstrates.
Even if the kind of congregational autonomy practiced by the mainline group kept at least some of them away from doctrinal heresy, much more is at stake. Sound doctrine in and of itself is not the point. Evangelizing the world is the point, and that cannot be done under the stifling umbrella of congregational autonomy! The mainline church has surely proved that one. But God desperately wants the world to be reached with the gospel of his Son. All of leading is either directly or indirectly related to evangelism. In order for the world to be reached, brotherhood unity is an absolute must. John 17:20-23, along with other similar passages, makes this necessity unmistakably clear. Unity based on agape love (John 13:34-35) demonstrates to the world that we are genuine disciples. The great mystery of the gospel is that God can unite all kinds of people into one loving group, all over the world (Ephesians 3:1-11). Not only does true unity demonstrate that we are of God, hence attracting people to him, it also is necessary on a practical level to accomplish God’s purpose. Unless we are “perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10), we cannot work together in the evangelization of the world. But with this kind of unity, nothing is impossible within God’s will.
Although each congregation obviously has responsibilities on a local level, we are still one body. The idea of a non-cooperative, and often prideful, separation from each other as congregations is absolutely non-biblical. It guarantees that the world will never be evangelized. It is therefore contrary to the very purpose of God and is sinful. The early church knew nothing of such isolation. Each member was a part of one body on a brotherhood basis. They worked together with an amazing lack of sinful competitiveness. They cooperated in the prime mission which God has given the church, and as a result, they reached the entire world as they knew it with the message of Christ in about 30 years (Colossians 1:23)! Such marvelous unity was based on a united leadership, brotherhood-wide. Leaders are the ones who produce unity and they are the ones who promote disunity.
After Paul wrote that there was one body (Ephesians 4:4, a universal church), he went on to describe the leaders whom God has placed within that one church (Ephesians 4:11-16). Notice that these leaders were given by God to build up, unite and mature the body. This “body” is no different in verse 12 than the “body” in verse 4—it is the church as a whole rather than one congregation. In other words, the church in the first century considered leaders to be brotherhood leaders rather than simply congregational leaders. A careful study of Acts will demonstrate that key leaders had a striking non-attachment to any one congregation. They went where they were most needed at any one time. They were sent to the places where they could best serve. The example of congregational independence, produced by leadership independence, is absent from the pages of Scripture. The “church autonomy” of the Mainline Churches of Christ, no matter how sincerely conceived, is a most harmful tradition.
The early church was united because leaders viewed themselves as belonging to the body as a whole. They were in fact the key “supporting ligaments” which joined the “whole body” together, making growth a reality rather than an unreachable dream (Ephesians 4:16). One of the most significant ways that these leaders became united was in their training. From the inception of Christ’s discipling of leaders, he never left any impression that they would be limited in influence or presence to one location on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. They were taught to be “movers and shakers!” This approach of Jesus in his personal ministry was predictably followed by the apostles in their training of leaders. The importance of building this mindset in our training cannot be overestimated! It produced a brotherhood unity which in turn produced an evangelized world. We must return to the approach used by the early church. Nothing else has worked!
Jesus called men to be with him and then to be sent out to preach (Mark 3:14). The apostles followed the pattern. After Philip had been with them, he was sent out to preach (Acts 8). After Barnabas had been with them, he was sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22). He, in turn, went for Saul, a man of great potential, in order to disciple him in practical ministry; and jointly, Barnabas and Saul discipled many other leaders in Antioch (Acts 13:1; 15:35). Then they were once more sent out to preach in other places. Paul continually called men to be with him for further training. Sometimes, these disciples were simply called his “companions” (Acts 13:13). Sometimes, their names were mentioned. Timothy, a young leader who had influence in two cities, was called to be with Paul for further training (Acts l6:13). Later, he and Erastus would be sent out to preach in Macedonia (Acts 19:22). Still later, he would be sent out to preach in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). Paul was always looking for leaders and potential leaders to be with him and then be sent out. He pulled in Gaius and Aristarchus from Macedonia (Acts 19:30), perhaps leaving Timothy and Erastus in their place. Acts 20:4 mentions a number of other such “companions” (disciples): Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus and Trophimus. A united approach to training this mindset into disciples produced a united brotherhood!
These men were leaders for the brotherhood of believers. They were world Christians, not simply Philippian Christians or Ephesian Christians! Leaders with less training were “pulled out” and later “plugged in” by more fully-trained leaders as the need dictated. Additionally, the world-Christian concept was not reserved for full-time supported ministry people; other leaders espoused the same view. They, too, were discipled to think just like the apostles (Matthew 28:19-20). We are first introduced to Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth. They are later sent to Ephesus, then to Rome, and then back to Ephesus (Acts 18:2, 18-19; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19). Leaders in the early church were indeed movement leaders—they moved and led a movement! Their main focus in life was the mission of Jesus to seek and save the lost. These principles were once practiced widely within the discipling movement, and still are, but on a more limited basis than in the past. This is one point where the ICOC needs some reexamination, in my opinion.
It must be stated that our own early form of unity in the ICOC, while it has produced some wonderful results in world evangelism, has also produced some very damaging results. In earlier days, we had a type of forced or dictated unity through using too much of a military style leadership model. Now that we have repented of that, we are in the process of developing a forged unity—which implies that some tensions will be produced and demand resolution. I think we are doing well with that process at this juncture in our history. While we recognize that congregations should not be independent from one another (the wrong kind of autonomy), neither should we be dependent in wrong ways. Interdependence is the better word to describe biblical unity between congregations. New churches planted will require much more direction from the planting church than when they are older and more mature, after having developed their own leadership group. But regardless of maturity level, all congregations need close connections to sister churches for input and help, in order to avoid inbreeding and closed circles of thinking.
Just as individuals need others in their lives to help them continue growing, congregations need similar relationships with other congregations for similar reasons. My favorite analogy to illustrate how this should work is with the family. Children become less and less dependent on their parents as they mature, but they never become independent to the point of not needing the relationship. The nature of the relationship changes, but the need for it will always continue. It moves from dependence to interdependence, but never independence.
I have often told leaders of churches planted by the church I was in that, as they matured, I viewed them in much the same way that I view my grown children. I want a close relationship with them; I want to be able to give input as an older person with more life experience; but their decisions are their decisions. There are going to be differences in the relationships between different congregations, depending on maturity and resources, but there should never be a time when we don’t seek input and help from one another. The writer of Proverbs stated this principle in many ways and in many verses—one of which is this classic: “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). The concept of an independent, congregational autonomy simply will not stand up under biblical or practical examination. Let us continue to seek interdependence as congregations within a united movement, for the continued evangelization of the world for Christ!
Introductory Note: Back in 2010, some of the teachers in the International Churches of Christ were asked by the editors of a scholarly quarterly periodical published within the Mainline Churches of Christ to write articles for one issue of their publication. I was one of those writers for the December 2011 issue of Leaven, and the following is the article I contributed.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Introduction
Any writer who starts an article with this title must do so with a sense of fear and trembling. Simplistic answers will not do in the realm of hermeneutics. Yet, the two millennia of Christendom’s history have demonstrated that men will seek for, and expound upon simple answers. The varied approaches to biblical interpretation are enough to demonstrate that the answers are anything but simple. We are not talking about only the differences between liberal Protestant theology that made such a bold entrance into the theological world in the nineteenth century and in what we would all recognize as conservative theology. Those variations are to be expected. What might be unexpected and even unwelcomed are those variations among conservative Bible scholars and the religious groups they represent. Claiming to accept the Bible as the inspired, authoritative, and infallible Word of God does not guarantee a uniform understanding and application of it.
What causes such variations among Bible believers? The answers to that one are beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that our level of accurate biblical knowledge and our own spiritual background experiences are likely the most significant factors in determining how we view and use the Scripture. While we may view Scripture in lofty ways as God’s Word, inadequate or inaccurate training in the handling of it will lead to misusing it. Hence, one’s view of Scripture generally may be highly commendable and even idealistic, while one’s use of it may be quite flawed – with all good intentions. Thus is the challenge of hermeneutics, a challenge that has been faced by Bible believers from the beginning of the Christian era.
Much could be said about this subject from an historical perspective or from a general theological perspective. However, the stated purpose of the series of articles in this edition of Leaven is to introduce the reading audience to a lesser understood segment of the broader Restoration movement of churches. Therefore, I will address the rest of my remarks to this particular group of which I have been a member for about twenty-five years.
My own view and use of Scripture has been shaped by many varied influences. My early years were spent in a very narrow splinter group among the Churches of Christ, commonly referred to as the “one cup, no-Sunday-School” group. As a young married man, I became associated with the more mainstream Churches of Christ. While in this group, I attended the Preston Road School of Preaching, a very conservative training school, and later taught there for a number of years. During those years, I completed an M.A. degree in New Testament studies at Harding Graduate School of Religion.
Hermeneutical Principles
Since the campus ministry movement stage of our history was influenced most strongly by a graduate of Harding College, Chuck Lucas, it would be expected that biblical interpretation would follow certain lines. The basic fundamental view of Scripture as the only guide for faith and practice was indeed embraced by his young campus converts. Their hermeneutics were essentially the same as those in other Churches of Christ.
Dating back to the early American Restoration period, one of the cherished mottoes was stated in these words: “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.” This emphasis on “doing Bible things in Bible ways” led to some amazing applications of what might be termed patternistic theology. Attempting to follow examples of the early church, hence their patterns, was far easier to espouse than to apply consistently.
Just after the turn of the twentieth century, the break in the Restoration Movement between what became known as the Christian Church and the Church of Christ movements allegedly had to do with this hermeneutic. Those in the latter group claimed that those in the former group had now reversed the revered motto. Hence it had supposedly become “We speak where the Bible is silent, and are silent where the Bible speaks.” This difference was said to account for the use of instrumental music in worship. Seemingly logical arguments can be made for either side of this old adage, which suggests that both ways of stating it have both pros and cons.
It is interesting to note that this hermeneutical challenge has been present since early Reformation days. According to the church historian, Bruce Shelley, Luther would allow whatever the Bible would not prohibit, whereas Zwingli rejected whatever the Bible did not prescribe.[1] This difference states in slightly different terminology the aforementioned Restoration mottoes. While simplistic mottoes may be appealing, no one can totally follow either of these to the ultimate degree. Attempting to limit ourselves to only what we can actually find an example of in the Bible would result in a 21st century quagmire. On the other hand, claiming the freedom to do anything the Bible did not specifically prohibit would lead to practices that would surely result in some type of bondage. Such challenges of biblical interpretation should lead us in the direction of striving for much humility toward self and extending much grace toward others.
In what became known as the International Churches of Christ , or what some term simply the International Churches (IC) , our earlier stricter hermeneutic, particularly as related to a “pattern” to be followed, gave way to a broader interpretation that was quite similar to the supposed reversal of that early Restoration slogan. In the 1990s, our churches began to use instrumental music in worship, and to generally have more relaxed views toward things like the moderate use of alcoholic beverages and a broader role of women in the church.
Additionally, in this movement there was much more focus on what were seen as “weightier matters” and less interest in some of the peripheral issues that seem to occupy an inordinate amount of time in Churches of Christ in the 1960s. All this involved a hermeneutical shift, one that left us with more in common with the Christian Churches than with the root system out of which we grew. While there are some variations in thinking among individual members about such matters, most of our members do not come from a Restoration background, and the majority of those who do have made the shift in thinking relatively easily. On matters like the use of instrumental music in worship, we would be equally comfortable in any part of the present Restoration groups, although our preferences would tend in the direction of a less stringent interpretative approach.
A Different Theology?
Those who are even vaguely aware of the Campus Ministry Movement history among Churches of Christ in the 1970s and 1980s are aware of the conflicts that occurred when campus ministry groups grew within existing Churches of Christ. Most of these conflicts resulted when young campus ministers were trained in an “in house” setting (primarily at the Crossroads Church) and sent out to serve as campus ministers in various Churches of Christ. In these settings, it was not the nature of their theology that caused frequent conflicts with the other leaders and members in those churches, it was the primarily the practical application of same.
Prior to their arrival, the accepted definition of what constituted a faithful member of the church was well understood, as was the terminology used to describe their commitment. The incoming campus ministry group had different standards defining their commitment and different terminology describing it. Their definition of commitment was not about attending all the services of the church, giving consistently and significantly financially, and avoiding the outward sins of the flesh. Those things were presupposed. Now the talk was about “sharing one’s faith,” “being fruitful in evangelism,” having daily “quiet times with God,” and getting with your “prayer partner to practice one another Christianity.”
The stark differences in defining what constituted a committed Christian led to significant upheavals in nearly all congregations who hired young campus ministers trained in churches like Crossroads. These differences were too great to overcome, and reactionary sins on both sides were all too prevalent. The seeds of yet another division in the Restoration Movement were too deeply sown to ultimately be avoided. But it is important to note that it was not the view of the Bible or theology as much as practical application that led to the parting of the ways in the 1980s.
Perhaps a story told me by a close friend in our family of churches illustrates the point. He was brought to Christ in Gainesville and trained there for the ministry. Later serving in another church near a large campus, he eventually was relieved of his duties by the elders during the time of nationwide controversy. As he was leaving, one of the elders told him this: “It is not that you preached anything all that different from what we already knew. It is just is just that after you preached, you expected us to do it.”
Helpful Views and Uses of Scripture
The comment made to my friend reflects one of the early oft-stated views of the Bible within the movement: The Bible is intended by God to be a standard for life, not simply an ideal for which to aim. Many of the young converts in the Campus Ministry Movement phase had been repulsed by what they saw as gross hypocrisy in the lives of professing Christians. In their view, outside “the right acts of worship” and the right doctrine of baptism, most church people viewed the Bible as only a lofty ideal to be admired rather than a standard that was expected to be seriously followed. For these zealous young disciples, no selective obedience was allowed – it was all or nothing, a total commitment of one’s life to the Lordship of Christ. He was either Lord of all in one’s life, or Lord not at all.
This emphasis (and a biblical one at that) led to what was pejoratively referred to as “Lordship baptism.” Young people from all religious backgrounds, including the Churches of Christ, were asked to seriously examine whether their original baptism was based on making Jesus their Lord, and if not, they were urged to be baptized again with a true biblical understanding of conversion.
At bottom, it was an issue of repentance. For many who had been brought up in Churches of Christ, repentance was defined primarily as ceasing to do wrong. Biblically, refusing to do wrong is only the stepping stone to doing what is right, and that part of repentance can be defined as making Jesus the Lord of your life. Making him Lord means that we, as a part of his spiritual Body, will do what he did in his physical body while on earth. We are now his representatives, called to imitate his heart and life and commissioned to carry out his mission on earth, particularly to seek and save the lost.
That commission, as stated in Matthew 28:18-20, has two parts. “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” The first part gave the command to go and make disciples initially, which culminated in baptism into Christ. The second part was to teach them to obey all things Jesus commanded, another way of saying to mature the converts into the image of Christ. Discipleship must have both a vertical aspect (total commitment to Christ) and its horizontal aspect (helping mature one another), commonly called “discipling.”
I have been asked many times why I became a part of the IC, and why I have stayed with them in spite of the systemic sins that have become painfully apparent, especially in this century. The answer is threefold: dedication of the large majority of our membership to evangelizing the world, teaching and practicing full biblical repentance, and discipling one another to become more and more like Christ. The latter presupposes a real openness with one’s personal life and a strong desire to keep changing and growing. A failure among some leaders in regard to the last two of these led to a crisis. But through that crisis I saw a return to the practice of them all. I have never encountered these three things in any other group in the measure I have found them in the IC fellowship. But having listed the helpful things, for which I am most thankful, the sinful things which have regrettably been a part of our movement culture must also be addressed – honestly and candidly.
Harmful Views and Uses of Scripture
What is said next is not an attempt to shift blame, although it could at first appear as such. However, the influence of one man on our movement for years was so significant that it has to be mentioned and explained. What those of us who had more biblical training did in either following his lead or allowing his influence to be widely exerted is our own fault, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. We either knew better or should have known better, but were blinded to some extent by the rather amazing results in converting large numbers of people and planting churches all over the world. I clearly speak of my own guilt in this matter, and I think I speak for many more who share much the same viewpoint and present convictions. The well-known leader to whom I refer is no longer a part of our family of churches, and ultimately it was the determination to return to a biblical model that led to the end of his influence. In the final analysis Scripture was allowed to rule the day.
In spite of the more in-depth biblical teaching of Chuck Lucas in the Campus Ministry Movement days, that leader just referred to took a different approach to the Bible and to ministry training. Chuck was a good student of the Bible and a preacher of expository sermons. Further, he not only led “on-the-job” ministry training, but also encouraged further academic training. This resulted in some of our present older leaders receiving biblical training at the graduate school level some decades back. However, the eventual leader of the movement had a very negative reaction to his attempts at further academic education at one of the Christian graduate schools. As a result, he began touting the “on-the-job” type ministry training as the only type needed and eschewing religious training in academic classroom settings. His argument was that he was training “just like Jesus trained.” Since no human trainer is Jesus, I would judge that he was half right and half wrong in his approach. Some ministry training is best accomplished through a direct mentoring relationship, an apprenticeship, but some training is best accomplished in the classroom.
Too many holes in our biblical knowledge and an often distorted hermeneutic more influenced by pragmatism were the results of turning a “both/and” need into a “one and only choice.” We are now digging out of that pit that we dug ourselves, through availing ourselves of a variety of different educational opportunities, some of which we are establishing in our own ranks by those having the needed academic credentials.
Combining this former incomplete philosophy of ministry training with a strong emphasis on practical ministry generally, it would be natural to expect teaching and preaching that was almost exclusively topical in nature, and those expectations would not be unmet. The impact of this is still felt in our churches.
Effective biblical teaching and preaching on a congregational level should contain a good balance between historical context and present application, stated by some simply as “God’s then” and “God’s now.” My experience in Churches of Christ in former years left me with the feeling that we were focused too much on God’s then without enough direct application of Scripture to our present life situations. My experience in the IC in later years has left me with the opposite feeling. Both are extremes and both yield incomplete or even damaging effects. Our present challenge in the IC is to help equip leaders and members alike with enough in-depth Bible knowledge to enable them to accurately handle Scriptures contextually.
Finally, it should be stated that all strengths can become weaknesses, if we are not careful. I mentioned previously that what drew me to the IC and has kept me here were the strong focuses on evangelism, discipling and repentance. Each of these has been applied well at times and applied sinfully at times, and I will mention some examples.
Regarding evangelism, motivational approaches too often degenerated into something akin to pressure tactics and a performance orientation in our relationship to God. Clearly, the ends do not justify the means, and faulty building resulted in the upheaval in our movement that came to a head in 2003. Regarding discipling, an increasingly authoritarian approach resulted in more of a military model than a Jesus model. A very good thing done in very wrong ways leads to bad results. Understanding repentance as not only a decision before baptism (Acts 2:38), but as a continual, all-embracing part of the Christian life is undoubted biblically correct. However, the challenge is to keep the emphasis on imitating our Master, an emphasis which produces the ongoing repentance – rather than focusing on the acts of repentance themselves. The latter focus results in a works mentality that cannot continue to yield good fruit and will not sustain us as joyful Christians for a lifetime.
Conclusion
I would say (with apologies to Dickens) that the history of the IC has indeed been the best of times and the worst of times. But the underlying commitment to the Lordship of Jesus and his Cause has enabled even the more influential leaders among us to truly repent of the wrong and to recommit themselves to the right. To me, that is both remarkable and commendable, and a strong indicator of many great things to come.
What is our present view and use of Scripture? About the same as it has been throughout our brief history – we see the Bible as the inspired, authoritative Word of God, to which we are committed to keep following as we rejoice in the victories God gives and humbly repent at the discipline he provides. Our desire is still to be a “restoration movement,” which means that we know that we have not arrived at a complete understanding of all biblical truths nor will we ever. Only God is at the end of that rainbow. We must stay open to seeing our blind spots and learning new things. On the other hand, we do believe that we have solid footing on a number of foundational issues regarding how we view and use the Scriptures. We are changing, we are growing again, and Jesus is still Lord!
________________
[1] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995), 250.
Let me give you one bit of advance notice: this article is not really about an old movie or about the Black history behind it. However, since I love Black history, it seemed a good way to segue into the real subject, which I predict you will find both surprising and fascinating. So, stay with me until I reach the real reason for writing the article.
The 1967 movie, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, was a very controversial movie in that era, but starred some of the best-known actors of the day: Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier and also featured Hepburn’s niece, Katharine Houghton. The film is about interracial marriage between blacks and whites, which historically had been illegal in most states of the US, and was still illegal in 17 states when the movie was being filmed, mostly Southern states. However, on June 12, 1967 (two days after Tracy died), laws against such marriages were struck down by the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Loving vs. Virginia. (Shockingly, Alabama became the last state to officially end its unenforceable ban on interracial marriages – in 2000!)
The movie is about a young white woman who has a whirlwind romance with a young, idealistic black physician she met while in Hawaii. The plot centers on her return to her liberal upper-class American home in San Francisco, bringing her new fiance to dinner to meet her parents. Although her parents were very broadminded for their day, having taught their daughter to treat blacks and other minorities as equals, they have a difficult time with their daughter’s choice, as do his parents with his choice. The prejudices went both ways, as was quite common in that time period (and not absent in our day).
The movie can be viewed on YouTube, and I encourage you to watch it. It was quite ahead of its time in a number of respects. Not only did it deal with such a controversial subject for that era, but it confronted head-on the stereotypical views of blacks commonly held by probably a majority of the white population (especially in the South). The lead black character played by Sidney Poitier was the most intelligent, best educated, nicest and most moral of the whole cast. He was clearly the hero of the movie. For that cast of characters to have the courage and convictions to have made that movie in those times is both striking and highly commendable. I understand an update has been made that majored in humor, but I haven’t watched it (and won’t). The original classic was serious business, and I shed tears on several occasions when viewing it recently. Watch it if you haven’t or if you haven’t in many years.
Now fast-forward to 2010, the latest year for which I could find related statistics on the subject. Recent studies have shown that 8.4 percent of all current U.S. marriages are interracial, up from 3.2 percent in 1980. Although Hispanics and Asians remained the most likely to marry someone of a different race, the biggest jump since 2008 occurred among blacks. In another recent study, 83 percent of Americans say it is alright for blacks and whites to date each other, up from 48 percent in 1987. As a whole, about 63 percent of those surveyed say it would be fine if a family member were to marry outside their own race. Obviously, tremendous progress has been made since 1967 in the area of racial prejudice, but we still have a long way to go before Martin Luther King’s famous statement is a universal reality: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Well, now that we have learned a bit about an old movie and something about black/white romantic relationships and marriages in our present day, what is the real point of this article? Good question with a very interesting answer. As all know who have heard me speak very often, I typically mention my affinity for black people and in fact express fairly regularly my opinion that I must have some black blood in me. I have certain characteristics in common with most blacks that make it highly likely, at least in my mind. My favorite introduction to the concept is found in my oft-repeated statement that “I have too much soul to be a white man!” Of course, by that I mean that I could not be simply 100% white, in spite of my light skin color and Caucasian features.
Not only do I have an affinity for blacks that dates back to my very early years, I have always had a very strong aversion toward watching most racially oriented movies based on the period of time when I was growing up. A few years ago, at a small group leader’s meeting in Phoenix, our Region Leader showed us the movie starring Denzel Washington, “The Great Debaters.” After seeing the movie, I was so emotional that I went outside, sat on a bench for at least 20 minutes and just cried. When I thought I had my emotions back in control, I went back in with the group, and a young black brother just looked at me and asked, “Are you OK?” I just melted into his arms and cried on his shoulder for another few minutes. Later in a discussion time, I discovered that the younger black men were not nearly as affected emotionally by the movie as I was. A part of the difference was simply age, because I lived through the years when racial prejudice was very high and very real in my environment. I have many stories about what I both saw and heard, and so it is not just history with me; it was reality, if only as a pained observer.
During 2011 and the first half of 2012, I worked with the Houston church as much as my schedule allowed (which was quite a lot). We clicked from the beginning, and I fell in love with the church to the point that I dedicated my new book, Dynamic Leadership, to them. During the last six months of my work there, I was an interim lead evangelist, while helping them find a permanent couple to fill the slot, which ended up being Doug and Angella Wens. Likely I referred to the race subject more often in Houston than in other churches, simply because of the larger percentage of Africans and African Americans in the membership than in other churches I have worked with. However, it is a topic that I have addressed consistently for years just about everywhere – both in sermons and in writing. I have a chapter in one of my books about the Big Black Brother’s Club in Boston, a group that became somewhat famous there, or in the minds of some, perhaps infamous! We watched Monday Night Football together, and they voted me black on Monday nights, and all signed a certificate to that effect! These brother brothers still call me fairly regularly to stay in touch, both because they know how much I love them and also because they appreciate me thinking I’m part black, no matter what their personal opinions about the matter may have been.
Most of those in my audiences, regardless of their own race, probably think I am just injecting humor in speaking of having black blood in an effort to establish rapport with the black constituency present. The blacks who know me well know that I am not just kidding – I really believe it. In my first speaking visit to Houston back in January of 2009, Ronnie Ricks, one of the elders and himself an African American, may have taken me more seriously than many do because he told me about several services available to test one’s DNA to determine race and ancestry. I very quickly researched the web sites of several of these services in an effort to determine which one seemed to be the most scientifically accurate in their approach. But as I mentioned in my last sermon there back in May of this year, I procrastinated in taking the test, not because of the fee involved of several hundred dollars but because of the fear of disappointment that would accompany finding out that I in fact had no black blood in me.
I did think of a way to deal with the disappointment if that proved to be the case. Our physical bodies come from our parents through the procreation process. However, according to Zechariah 12:1 and Hebrews 12:9, God places our spirits in us directly. Thus, if he decided to place a black man’s spirit in a white man’s body, he certainly could do it, couldn’t he? With this thought in mind, if the DNA test proved that my bloodlines were void of any African blood, I could still believe and state that I had too many black characteristics for it to be mere coincidence. This explanation makes reasonable sense, right?
After we left Houston in May, I did finally get the test done. The company even had a sale and I saved $100 on the fee! The test involves a very thorough process and took a couple of months to complete before they provided the detailed results and explanations. You would have to be more scientifically grounded in that field than I am to fully understand the manual that accompanied the results. Thankfully, the results themselves were easy to understand. So what were the results, you ask? I am of 88% European descent and 12% African.
In looking back at my family tree and what I knew about my ancestors, my best guess is that my paternal great-grandmother is likely the main one who introduced the African American element into our family, and if so, she must have had a very significant percentage of black in her for me to have 12%, although the family kept it hidden with an alternate explanation for her dark skin. She and my great-grandfather were both deceased before I came on the scene, but my oldest uncle said that she was an American Indian (Native American, as current terminology would word it). However, since I had absolutely no Native American ancestry show up on my DNA test, she must have been African American passing as Native American. That was not uncommon in that period of time, due to the intense prejudice against blacks. So that is my best explanation for my African descent, and the 12% fits just about perfectly into that scenario. But who knows, given my crazy Louisiana and Arkansas relative chain, the black blood may have come from several sources. The how of it coming about in those days would most likely have been shamefully sinful if it didn’t come solely from my great-grandmother. That’s the sad part to contemplate.
The important part now, to me at least, is that I have a scientific basis to help explain how a 70 year old white boy raised in the Jim Crow South always had a different spirit toward blacks than most of his contemporaries, and shared many emotional connections that almost demanded that something in his heritage was involved. I also was fortunate that my parents didn’t possess the prejudicial spirit that was definitely present in many others in my extended family. The stark reality is that if my racial profile been known publicly in my early years when the “one drop” rule reigned supreme, I, and at least one of my parents would have been drinking from the water fountains marked “colored” and using public restrooms with the same sign on the door. The list of humiliating indignities and hatred we would have endured would have far exceeded the mere observations we made of others being treated so inhumanely.
I am glad as I write this little article that the atmosphere in which I spent my boyhood has changed significantly. I am not so ignorant as to think it is fixed, and given the sinful human element, it never will be completely cured until and unless sin is cured. And that only occurs in one person at a time when the blood of Jesus purifies and provides a common bloodline of all people who have made Him Lord and Savior. But praise God that much progress has been made in our country overall. Further, I rejoice to be a part of a movement that is about as diverse as any group in the particular geographical area where each congregation is found. Even in Arizona, which is primarily white and Hispanic, our contingent of blacks in the Phoenix church is far larger than in the local population as a whole. In God’s kingdom, it is not the color of one’s skin or racial makeup that matters – it is our hearts and our love for Jesus, one another and the lost.
I once wrote that our goal spiritually in the racial realm is not to be color blind, but rather color aware and color appreciative. Every race and every culture adds something special to the mix. When God made fish and flowers, the amount of variations found are a marvel to behold. When he designed humans, it would have been flat-out weird had he only planned for one color to exist. As it is, he designed us to enjoy similar variations as those found in the rest of his creation with the treasures they contain. I appreciate all races and cultures, and I appreciate that my own composition racially and culturally is basically Heinz 57, and that mixture includes 12% African. So now who’s laughing at old G-Dog and his comments about being a brother brother? I don’t always get the last laugh on my doubters, but I do this time, and I must say that I’m enjoying it immensely!
It will be interesting to see what my friends and family think about my uncovering of some family secrets and having much more than “one drop” of black blood coursing my veins (and heart). And maybe when I am having dinner again with some of you, you will see me in a different way. That is not a concern to me, since I am much like the old cartoon character Popeye, who often said, “I yam what I yam!” And I yam 12% African! What I am concerned about now is that I know for sure when I said hundreds of times that I had too much soul to be a white man, my statement has now been validated scientifically. How ‘bout them apples?!
