The gospel of Christ is good news! In fact, it is great news! And, of course, good news is always worth sharing. But some may view the good news as bad news, or at least as mediocre news. Then they will not be anxious to share it. Since many who wear the name of Christ do little or no sharing, something simply must be wrong with their view of the good news. Maybe their religion is a burden to them rather than a blessing.
What are the characteristics of one whose religion is a burden? One, he likely has a negative view of obedience. He secretly chafes at the idea of anyone (even God) telling him what to do. We live in a society which is bent on doing its own thing. “If it feels good, do it!” Therefore, words like “commandments” and “must” go against the grain of our spirits. We begin to pick and choose what we want to do, rather than really practicing the concept of “Thy will be done.”
Two, back of this negative view of obedience lies a negative view of God. We think that He is trying to stifle us, to ruin our fun. So we grimly hold on to our sour religion, hoping against hope that maybe heaven will be at least some fun. But the person with this frame of reference usually views heaven as better than hell, but not as good as life on earth. Thus God is seen as robbing us of what we would secretly like to do, if He weren’t watching. Since He is watching, however, we must behave, lest He slap us into hell. The “burdened” Christian sees God as primarily a Judge rather than as his Father. No wonder this sort of person doesn’t share the gospel. He has nothing to share!
What causes someone to develop such a non-biblical, harmful way of thinking? Almost always, the concept can be traced back to the way he first viewed “church.” Many youth are forced to be a part of something they don’t understand. On Sundays, they are roused out of a sound sleep, ordered to eat and get dressed, then it’s off to church we go. The child has not missed the fact that little of a spiritual nature has taken place in the home during the week. He has noticed that the Sunday morning atmosphere in the home is tense and folks are irritable with one another, as if they resented the “duties” of the day. He has heard the negativism about the church leaders and others in the flock. And he surely has noticed that his teaching in things religious has majored in “don’ts” rather than “do’s.”
Of course, not all parents program their children to resent God and church in this manner, but many do. We can force our children for only so long, but if they don’t understand the “why’s” of what we are doing, they will ultimately reject religion altogether, or inherit the negative “fire insurance” religion of their parents. Our children are mighty perceptive about us. They know where our real values are, and they will probably share in them when they are mature. If we love God with all of our hearts, they likely will also, provided the love is obvious in our lives and words. But we must communicate to them what life in Christ is all about, and not simply drag them to church.
Others come into the church from outside Christian families and they may also develop a burdened view of Christianity. Since the “seed re¬produces after its own kind,” they will become like others already in the Body. If they see negative people, they will usually imitate them. If they see excited Christians, they will likely retain their zeal. In any event, our early concepts of what church is all about will normally stay with us for a long time. It takes real effort and determination to change erroneous concepts, because they are implanted more at the emotional level than at the intellectual. We can know right and feel wrong, especially where early concepts are concerned. However, change is possible. Praise God for that! We can learn to enjoy our religion!
Now, what are the characteristics of one whose religion is a blessing? One, he is most often a newer convert from outside a Christian family. Thankfully, some raised in church families have this attitude also, but my experience has convinced me that a minority “raised in the church” feel this way. This is why newer converts are more evangelistic than those from Christian homes. They have experienced the blessings of the good news and are anxious to share it.
Two, the person with a “blessing religion” loves God’s commandments. In our day, the newer convert probably came out of an obviously sinful life-style. He knows that Satan’s enticements destroy rather than bless. He therefore sees grace in perspective. Rather than being resentful deep inside towards God’s commands, he is grateful for the guidance of a loving Father who is trying to steer him away from pain. God has filled the void in his soul, and he is excited enough to want to share the good news with others. Lest this article seem too negative towards us “lifers” (as one brother called those of us raised in the church setting), let me say that there would not be any new converts unless others in the Body taught them.
There are many excited Christians who have been in the Lord for many years. Praise God for you! You have fought Satan’s attacks successfully, becoming stronger as a result. You have refused to lose your first love (Revelation 2:4) and to become lukewarm (Revelation 3:16). When many new converts have started cooling off, you have encouraged them by life and by word. Your religion is a blessing and not a burden.
However, surely no one will argue the fact that far too many Christians do have a negative, burdened view of religion. Being honest about the reality of the problem will allow us to do something to solve it. Playing “ostrich” with our heads in the sand is not God’s way. We must be honest with ourselves and others if change would come.
Several suggestions are in order for helping us overcome a burdened view of religion. First, we must develop a healthy view of God and His grace. He is not waiting for us to mess up; He is waiting for us to start developing a personal love relationship with Him. Listening to taped sermons on grace, mercy, and love will help us a good deal. Reading positive books about Christ are of great benefit. Above all, pray to God by talking aloud with Him as you would talk to any person whom you loved. Be open and honest. Pour out your heart. Don’t say trite religious-sounding memorized phrases. Just talk to God and tell Him how you really feel deep down inside. That’s real prayer. Nothing else will suffice.
Second, begin thinking of the Bible as a Book of Life rather than a Book of Religion. It is practical and helpful in every area of life, from business to sexuality. God made us and speaks to our needs, whether great or small. He is trying to bless us, not stifle us. Learn to hunger and thirst after His words. Read for application to your life, not just for facts. You will begin to find things that are so helpful that you will want to share them with others!
Third, learn to overcome wrong things by doing right things. We cannot survive on a religion of “don’ts.” Overcome evil with good. God shows this approach clearly in Ephesians 4:25-32. Replace falsehood with speaking truth. Replace stealing with working in order to give to others in need. Replace unwholesome words with saying only what will build others up. Replace anger and slander with kindness and forgiveness. Practice a positive religion rather than simply avoiding negatives.
Fourth, learn to verbalize more to your family about God and His positive religion. As Moses said in Deuteronomy 6:5-7, we must first love God with all of our being, do what He says, and then talk about it as a normal part of everyday life. Sharing God with others was never intended to be a fearful burden, but an exciting blessing. Sharing good news is natural, if we really view it as good news.
Satan is pleased if we view our religion as a grim duty. God is pleased if we view it as a blessing. Let’s make Him happy. He deserves it. “We love because He first loved us.” “Rejoice, and again I say, rejoice.”
“But the men who had gone up with him, said, “We can’t attack these people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” – Numbers 13:31-33
If there is power in positive thinking (especially spiritual positive thinking!), there is also power in the opposite. Of course, this power is satanic in nature, and using it will accomplish his ends rather than God’s. But without question, we are trained by our families and by our cultures to be negative in our evaluations of ourselves, others and circumstances. The most cursory glance at any newspaper will provide plenty of proof for this. Years ago, I vividly remember hearing a radio report of a study that was conducted to evaluate the results of those who characteristically thought negatively and those who thought positively. The findings of the study indicated that the negative thinkers were much more accurate in their assessments of situations, but the positive thinkers were able to produce positive results in negative situations. Even those without true spiritual perspectives have figured out that negative thinking produces negative results.
One of the most graphic Biblical accounts showing the power of negative thinking is Numbers 13, the record of the twelve spies sent to spy out Canaan. In reading this account, several obvious lessons show us paths to avoid at all costs. One lesson is that the negative often excites stronger emotions than does the positive. In spite of the faith-filled pleas of Joshua and Caleb, the two spies with a good report, the nation was easily and strongly swayed by the negative report. They quickly forgot God’s amazing miracles and victories and were absolutely filled with “grasshopper thinking.”
As humans, we are so prone to assume the worst and believe the worst. We focus on what is wrong or on what we are afraid is wrong. Negative thinking is a pervasive tendency. It must be seen as what it is—an unloving, unfaithful response to God’s promises. In terms of Paul’s definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, spiritual thinking which is loving means that we do not delight in evil but rejoice with the truth—always protecting, always trusting, always hoping, always persevering (verses 6-7).
A second lesson gleaned from Numbers 13 is that a majority of people inevitably practice negative thinking. In this case, the ratio was ten to two among the spies and presumably a million to one in the multitude. We would much rather curse the darkness than light a candle. Those who do not jump to negative conclusions and think the worst are thought to be strange. No wonder so many people reacted negatively to Jesus. He was completely realistic about man’s sinful condition, but he was full of faith and confident that men could be changed by God’s power. The leaders of his time thought that he was demon-possessed. The narrow road of Matthew 7:13-14 is the path of a small minority. Only eight people in Noah’s day were able to rise above the crowd and trust in the promises of God (1 Peter 3:20). In Elijah’s day, thankfully there were 7,000 who had refused to bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18), but that was a small minority in Israel. In the aftermath of the crucifixion, how many were confident that resurrection would follow? Next to nil. If we are to follow Jesus, we had better get comfortable with always being in the minority and with being thought of as weird by the majority. I’ve got to love the church—it’s the only place where I am really accepted as somewhat normal.
A third lesson from Numbers 13 is that negativism is deceptive to observers. It seems so, well, normal. Since Satan is the great deceiver, this should not come as any surprise. What does come as a surprise is how completely we can all be deceived by sin at times. We can feel that we are doing right with a perfectly clear conscience, only to discover later that we were clearly wrong in the matter. The problem is that the negative view was quite a lot of reality to commend it, and it’s often mixed with some positives.
For example, in Numbers 13:27-28, we read this report of the spies: “They gave Moses this account: ‘We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there’” (Numbers 13:27-28). Although the negative was prefaced with the positive, the negative carried the day. In our conversation, the content following the conjunction “but” shows convincingly whether we are focused on the positives or the negatives. If we end with the negative, it will lodge in our hearts and the hearts of others. Being realistic with the facts is good, but with faith is better—it’s essential. Note the difference in the two reports given to the Israelites: “Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, ‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.’ But the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are’” (Numbers 13:30-31).
How are you at being focused on the positives about situations and other people? Do you justify negativity by claiming that you must deal honestly with reality? In Romans 4:19, we find that Abraham faced the facts of his situation, but then he “faithed” them. The facts are the facts are the facts, but God is greater than any reality that blocks what he wants done in our lives. It is not, “God is powerful and good, but look at these worrisome facts.” It must rather be, “the worrisome facts are present, but God is bigger and stronger than any combination of them.”
Faith looks beyond humanistic realities to divine possibilities. The physical components and characteristics of water are such that man cannot walk on it, but try convincing Peter of that one! God is God, and we cannot be deceived into allowing our faith to be destroyed in any situation, however challenging it may seem from a human viewpoint!
A fourth lesson from Kadesh Barnea (where the spies were sent out from) should be quite obvious: Leaders have the most responsibility for determining the thinking of the group they lead. However, the followers who are influenced by them are absolutely responsible for their choices. The whole nation was punished for their lack of faith, not just the leaders. What a tragedy! Just think of what might have been. After leaving Egypt, the Israelites could have gone quickly into the Land of Promise. Forty years of attending funerals could have been averted (all of those twenty years old or older would die before the nation could enter Canaan). Negative thinking shows up first in leadership. Only if leaders are positive do you find out who the negative thinkers are back in the pack (and some are always there).
Leaders have the God-given responsibility to lead, but followers have the responsibility to follow. Hebrews 13:17 says: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Hebrews 13:17). The Greek term translated “to submit to their authority” means literally to “be persuaded.” True, leaders must be willing to reason and persuade, but the passage is addressed to followers. They must have a mind to be persuaded, to be open to changing their minds.
This event is a chilling reminder of thinking negatively and unfaithfully. We must see the power of negativity and avoid it like the plague it is. When you begin to lack faith about anything, rest assured that Satan is near. True, we need to recognize when something is wrong, but then we must look for godly solutions. Entertaining negative thoughts with no plan to change the situation is dangerous to our spiritual health and to all the things that God wants us to accomplish in his Kingdom.
“Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.” – Colossians 3:15
What enables us to have such uncommon peace as Christians? Probably the key word is “commonality,” for we share so many essential things in common. But three of these items are unquestionably at the very top of the list of essentials. One is our relationship with God and the nature of that relationship. All of us were baptized into Christ only after the decision to truly make Jesus the Lord of our lives. It was not a selfish decision to simply get saved; it was a selfless decision to surrender our lives in representing him to our fellow man. Therefore, we are intent on imitating him and doing what pleases him. He is, and forever must remain, our top priority of life.
A second essential that ensures peace and unity is based on that decision to make Jesus the Lord of our lives. This decision means that everyone will be discipled, which ensures in turn that a lack of peace simply will not be tolerated. If we have a problem with another disciple, we go to them or they come to us for a resolution. Actually, we should be going to them as they are coming to us, for in Matthew 5:23-24 Jesus says that we should go to the other person if we have offended them, and in Matthew 18:15-16 he says that we should pursue reconciliation if we are the one offended. Hence, we have God’s double indemnity spiritual life insurance policy which guarantees the dividend of our uncommon peace.
The third essential is that disciples also have the same basic mission-—to seek and save the lost. When we are in the battle together, we are not very likely to attack one another. Persecution from a common enemy as we seek to carry out our mission will actually unify us even more if we view and handle it biblically. An all-out commitment to the mission and to discipling is what separates us from mere church goers. The first gives us our purpose in life and the second, the means by which it can be accomplished. If we stay committed to the mission and to discipling, our unity will stay strong. Obviously, if we begin to waver on either, unity will be threatened. We cannot afford to condone any deviation from the unity for which Jesus prayed—and died.
Biblically, the “daily diet” of the healthy disciple consists of the essentials above. We are to spend time in the Word daily (Acts 17:11) and in prayer (Luke 11:1-4), both of which are elements in our relationship with God. We are to share our faith daily (Acts 17:17) and be open with our lives daily with one another (Hebrews 3:12). Therefore, the first warning sign of approaching disunity comes when we as individuals do not have our relationship with God as our top priority. When either the quantity or quality of time with him is compromised, sin will enter and ultimately permeate our spiritual lives.
A second warning sign appears when there is a lack of commitment to and involvement in the mission of evangelism. Paul’s short letter to Philemon makes this remarkable statement: “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ” (Philemon 1:6). While the context of this verse is likely referring most directly to the sharing of faith and our lives with other Christians, all sharing of our faith builds our faith. Appreciation for our life in Christ grows with our sharing of it. Evangelism is not just to save the souls of the lost; it is designed to keep our own souls saved.
When we are studying the Bible with others, we are reminded of why we became disciples in the first place, our hearts and convictions are strengthened incredibly. We remain excited and thankful about the amazing life that God has given us in Christ. Therefore, if evangelism has become humdrum to us, a burden and not a blessing, a duty and not a desire, we are slipping into the sins described in Revelation 2 and 3: loss of our first love and lukewarmness. If you are not in the mission heart and soul right now, Satan is into his mission with you, heart and soul. Wake up and repent.
A third warning sign is more subtle and deceptive than the other two. It of course ties in to the discipling process. Are we being discipled? Are we consistently seeking advice? Are we being open with what is in our heart of hearts? Do we want to be open with everything? The honest answers to those questions will go a long way in evaluating where we are spiritually. Satan is a master at encouraging us to be partially open, but not to really share our deepest doubts, sins and fears. For God to use us powerfully, we must learn to trust and stay truly open to discipling and God’s Word.
Let us heed the words of Paul, “I appeal to you brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). A clear focus on the essentials of our faith will produce in us an uncommon peace and a powerful people united in faith.
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” —Mark 10:29-30
I needed to go to Philadelphia to help out an old friend. The church leader there, Walter Evans, asked me to speak to one of their ministry groups on Sunday, since I was going to be in town until the next day. We discussed where I was most needed and settled on the campus group. I was pleased, since my personal preference is always to speak to this group—I love their youthful idealism and sharp minds.
However, on that particular day, to be honest, speaking was more of an assignment than a passion, so I did not have high expectations for the service. Thankfully, God did. I was looking forward to seeing my daughter’s husband, Jeff (whom we call our “son by marriage,” not “son-in-law”), who was in town for a wedding. When I arrived, I learned that a groupof the HOPE Youth Corps would also be in attendance.
The service began with enthusiastic singing. My heart started stirring. Thank God for singing. The welcome by the campus ministry leader followed. Although I did not know the brother well at all, I was most impressed and thought to myself, “This is an amazing introduction to a service. I need to steal it!” Then after some other passionate songs, a campus ministry intern began the communion message. As it turned out, he was one of the top college debate team members in the country, and he spoke well. I was moved even more. Thank God for young leaders! He then introduced a campus woman from North Carolina who was to share what the cross had done in her life. I was unprepared for what was about to happen.
As she came up to the microphone, her physical beauty was apparent. Soon her spiritual beauty would be. Something about her voice was unusual, and for a few moments I couldn’t identify why. I had heard similar voice and pronunciation qualities before, and suddenly I realized that Kelly was deaf. She shared about how her physical father had rejected her because she was deaf and therefore imperfect. She went on to share how her stepfather had rejected her and forced Kelly’s mom to choose between her older children from a previous relationship and him (she chose him). She described the heartache, heartbreak and rebellion fostered by such rejection. Toward the end, she shared her conversion experience and closed with a profound but sad statement: she could picture God as Creator, as Savior and even as Husband, but she could not picture him as Father. Her concept of a father was seriously damaged by her life experiences.
By this time, tears were spilling down my cheeks and down Jeff’s as well. Most of those young people in the audience were brushing back tears. I quickly wrote down Mark 10:29-30 on a note to Kelly, and offered to “adopt” her as my daughter. God had really moved my heart, and then he used me to move many other hearts during the sermon that followed. The whole experience could only be called a “God thing.” After the lesson Kelly gave me a big hug, and I sensed that God was going to use all of this to do some healing in her.
The idea of being a spiritual dad for young people did not have a welcome beginning in my mind and heart. I had moved to San Diego to lead the church there when I was forty-two years old. One of the young interns asked to talk to me after a staff meeting. He shared that he felt really close to me, almost like I was his dad, and then he asked if he could call me “Dad.” I replied, “Absolutely not!” I rebelled at the idea of being seen as that old. When I shared the experience with one of the elders there, he gave me a much different perspective. He talked about how many young disciples either do not have living fathers or they have poor relationships with them. He thought that being a dad to them was one of the best roles we could have. In essence, I said that that was fine for him, but not for me! (He was a couple of years older.) The years have shown me just how right he was. Being a dad to many people in the church has been such a joy and honor.
Several years ago, Bryan and Renée (our “natural” children) gave me a ring for Christmas which displays the word “Dad.” They understood that I was not just a dad to them, but to many others. They often ask us to “adopt” some of their friends who need the spiritual love of mom and dad figures. Mark 10 has become one of my favorite passages because it gets at the heart of love in the kingdom—family love, adoptive love.
After the Philadelphia experience, I received a card from Kelly, asking if she could visit us with Theresa and me, if only for a dinner. She had taken the adoption thing seriously. I make the offer on a widespread basis, and some take me up on it in a special way (no doubt those who need it most). Kelly is one of those. She seemed to sense what John the apostle sensed in his relationship with Jesus. He felt totally at ease reclining on Jesus’ bosom (the literal translation of John 13:23) at the Passover meal. He described himself in the same verse as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Do you really think Jesus loved him more than he loved the other disciples? I rather think that Jesus loved all of them more than any of them could come close to grasping. But I do think that John was best at accepting and internalizing Jesus’ love. He perceived at a deeper level what kind of relationship was there for the taking. People like John and Kelly simply claim what is actually available and soak up the love as a result.
Kelly came to visit for a few days, and we shared our story at a workshop for singles. She later visited again for a few days with her younger sister, hoping to influence her by showing her what love in the kingdom is all about. Kelly has become a special daughter to me and Theresa and has found a lodging in our hearts and lives that will outlast this life. Kingdom relationships are closer than mere physical relationships. I may have trouble appreciating some things in the kingdom as much as I should, but the relationships I do understand and appreciate.
I, like untold numbers of others, am the product of a dysfunctional family. When I was younger, I looked for love “in all the wrong places,” as the song says, but now I have discovered the true love of the family of God. He has granted me the high honor of being a dad to his family, and Theresa a mom. And the reason for this is that others might feel his love through us, and through every disciple, as we come to understand what his family is to be to the world and to one another. Then we will be able to lavish on others what he has lavished on us.
If we are not filled to overflowing with gratitude for the family of God, we simply have missed the essence of the gospel. Figure it out, for within these relationships are housed some of the most unbelievable blessings which will ever be known to mankind on this side of eternity.
“Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother’” (Mark 3:34-35)
Another Kind of Adoption — the Story Continues
My article, “Another Kind of Adoption,” was originally written as a chapter in my book, The Power of Gratitude. (Read the article in the Articles section on this web site if you have not read it.) I had met Kelly, the star of the story, in July of 1998 and then wrote the chapter in my book in May of the following year. Therefore, the story was less than a year old when I described how our relationship began, and even though it progressed quickly, much has occurred in the nearly fifteen years since. Kelly was twenty-four years old and single back then; she is now thirty-nine, married with three children. I am writing this article to update you on how God has continued to work in our lives and relationship, and in the process will add in a few details that were not included in the original article.
Kelly is one amazing young woman, who has now earned her doctorate and teaches at the university level. When she and her husband, Kye, decided to start a family, she had her heart set on having twins. Then on a biblical tour of Rome, she decided that she wanted those twins to have their genesis in Rome. In spite of the fact that twins do not run in either her family or Kye’s, she indeed conceived twin boys in that ancient city, one of whom is named Roman. Keep in mind that we are talking about a woman who has been basically deaf since she was a toddler. That’s why it takes words like “amazing” to begin to describe her adequately.
But, let’s run the clock and the story back to that fateful meeting in July of 1998. As stated in the original article, Kelly invited herself to Boston for a visit. She stated on the card she sent me that she knew I was a busy man, but still had to eat, and so asked if she at least could have a meal with me. Talk about being starved for the love of a dad! I wept when I read the card. (I’m weeping now.) So I wrote her back and said, “Just come up and spend a weekend with us,” which she soon did. I set her up on a date with a good young man from MIT, and the four of us went up to the North Side (all Italian) for dinner and hanging-out time.
Going back to the car after dinner, Theresa was walking and talking with Kelly’s date, and I was talking with Kelly. She was looking at me with lights in her eyes, like a kid in a candy store, or as if she had somehow entered into a fairy tale. I told her something like this: “Kelly, whatever love you are feeling from me now (and I hope she was feeling all that was there), multiply it several million times, and you will be starting to get the picture of how much God loves you.” You recall that her communion message was that she could see God as a Creator or a Judge, but not as a Father. Well, it was some weekend, as you can imagine.
She came back a second time with her sister, hoping we could influence her, and on that trip, I think we spoke at a Single’s Service and shared “our” story. We’ve come a long way together since then. She came a third time to introduce us to Kye, to whom she was engaged or about to become engaged. Our next time together was at their wedding in Savannah. She told me that since I was her dad, she wanted her step-dad to walk her only half way down the aisle, and then have me take her from there, and then perform the wedding. She also wanted Theresa to share some thoughts for them in the ceremony – all of which we did. It was a beautiful day in a beautiful setting. As I was waiting in the garden where it was to be held, someone came for me and said Kelly wanted to see me upstairs in the Bride’s Room. She, the bridesmaids and her Mom were all fully dressed and ready, but as I entered the room, “Butterfly Kisses” started playing and Kelly came over to me for a father/daughter dance in front of that small, but special audience.
That girl is so far down in my heart she couldn’t find her way out if she wanted to (and, of course, she would never want to). But to me, here is perhaps the biggest shocker of all. Several years after our relationship began, her biological father (who had rejected her earlier because of her not being “normal”) got in touch with her and wanted to get with her, to which she agreed. He expressed regret about not being there for her when she was growing up and wanted to have a relationship with her now. She told him that she was fine with having an adult relationship with him, but that she couldn’t go back to being a little girl again and make up for all of those missed years. Then she added the kicker. She said, “Gary (I think that’s his name), as I said, I’m happy to have an adult relationship with you, but to be honest, I don’t need an emotional relationship with you as a dad. I have that with Gordon.”
Knowing the longing that adopted kids and others in similar situations to Kelly’s have to connect with their biological parents, this one blew me away – totally! I still find it almost unbelievable that I could be the chosen one for such an exalted role. Kelly is as much of a daughter as anyone could possibly be, bloodlines notwithstanding. She is probably more like me in character and personality than anyone I know, which can only be one of those “God things.”
So those are the highlights of the continuing story. Pretty good ones, wouldn’t you say? Sadly, there have been long periods when I haven’t stayed in touch with Kelly very well. I recall writing her once (probably more than once) and apologizing for being a poor dad to her by not keeping up with her better. (That has been one of my weaknesses in the past with loved ones.) In reply to my apology, Kelly said, “Dad, you were there for me when I needed you most. We’re good.” I don’t deserve that kind of love, but it has helped me repent – with her and others.
Something over a year ago, I was teaching a Texas staff training session in Dallas while working with the Houston church, and Kelly and Kye were in San Antonio visiting his family and their church friends there. I flew down for a day to see her. She and Kye took me out for lunch when I arrived, and then he went back to visit his relatives, while Kelly and I sat in a Starbucks outside seating area and talked for hours. (I have to fine-tune my feminine side for such lengthy conversations!) Not long before we moved to California, Kelly visited us in Phoenix for a few days, and we had another one or two dad and daughter times at Starbucks (her favorite coffee place, being a Seattle resident!). She is now planning a trip to visit us in California at our new home. Thankfully, Kye is always willing to keep the kids when she spends time with us because he understands the importance of her being with her adopted dad.
And so the story continues with Kelly, as Jesus’ perspective about his church being true family continues to be fulfilled in our relationship.
Mark 3:31-35
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 10:29-30
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields–and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.”
Paul’s Actions in Acts 21
Paul was not only the designated apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8; Romans 11:13), he was a staunch defender of Christianity against attempts to force it into a Jewish mold. A cursory reading of Galatians is enough to see his strong resistance to those Judaizing teachers who would bind aspects of Judaism on Gentiles, or bind it on Jews as a matter of necessity in pleasing God. Clearly he was the most influential voice in the early church against all efforts to blend the religion of the Old Testament with New Testament Christianity. Therefore, after reading about all of his teachings and his battles in this regard, we are somewhat shocked to read about his behavior in the following passage:
When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” 29 (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)
30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. (Acts 21:17-32)
After reading this passage, it is natural to ask the question posed in the title: “Did Paul sin in Acts 21?” The answer to the question is neither simple nor brief. However, it will lead us into some deeper truths that are highly important in understanding the early church and one of the primary challenges it faced.
What Was Paul Thinking?
Reading this section of Scripture without understanding the underlying issues can leave us perplexed and confused. This many years after the cross, with its subsequent termination of the old covenant and inauguration of the new, how could James and Paul be parties to such a blatant observance of Mosaic Judaism? After all, these men were two of the top leaders in the movement. Articles and books have been written by biblical scholars accusing or excusing Paul’s decision here in Acts 21. Did he give in to the influence of James (who was perhaps too close to the forest to see the trees), and just make a serious mistake in judgment with even more serious consequences? Many have alleged this very thing. And then another question looms large. If what he did was permissible, even advisable, what does that say about people continuing to observe many aspects of their former religion today? Some see the possibility of a broader application of the “disputable matters” in Romans 14, extending to non-Judaistic religious practices which would correspond to denominational practices in Christendom or practices in other religions. However, the thrust of Romans makes such applications questionable, for Paul is therein consistently correcting the understanding of the basis of salvation held by those with Jewish backgrounds. But these are good questions to wrestle with, don’t you think?
Let’s examine the denominational issue first, for it seems simpler. Biblical Judaism (not tradition-bound Judaism as we find it during the ministry of Jesus) had been originated by God. Denominationalism was neither introduced nor approved by him, and certainly other world religions were not. The two really don’t compare. Much in the OT is still quite applicable in principle today, excepting the ceremonial laws. Therefore, knowing which biblical principles were to remain in effect required, both then and now, good judgment and discrimination. Even the ceremonial type practices could be viewed as nationalistic and cultural rather than a requirement for pleasing God. Consider Timothy’s circumcision by Paul in that light (Acts 16:1-3), in contrast to Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus, a non-Jew (Galatians 2:3-5). Therefore, with God’s tacit approval, much of the Law continued to be followed in one way or another during what I believe was a transition period.
Ultimately, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD ended this transition period. Hebrews 8:13 states: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” In other words, the old covenant was obsolete and no longer binding after Acts 2 and the establishment of the church. However, this had not become obvious to non-Christian Jews, but should have become obvious even to them in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed, forever ending Biblical Judaism with its temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices. Thus, it disappeared. But until that time, the God-given Law could be honored by those with Jewish backgrounds, as long as they met two requirements: they could not bind their Judaism on Gentiles; and they could not trust Judaic practices for salvation. Denominationalism is a perversion of Christianity, and as such, does not compare to the first century transitionary period of Judaism.
Now to the other key question: did Paul go too far in trying to please his Jewish brothers in Christ and make a serious error in judgment? The text says nothing to indicate that God was displeased with what he did, unless the ultimate result of going into the temple – false accusation and arrest – is taken to mean that. Certainly his concession did not accomplish its desired end, but this cannot be viewed as proof that he made a mistake or sinned. The principle of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22, that of becoming all things to all men, was to achieve only the saving of “some.” My opinion is that Paul did not sin in what he did, but went as far as possible to satisfy his critics. The failure was with them, not him.
We face similar challenges today. We try to do all that we can to answer logically and sensitively those who criticize us. When we are guilty of making mistakes and committing sins, we must repent and learn from those mistakes. But we refuse to compromise biblical issues, although we are willing to make concessions if we think such will yield favorable results in the overall mission. How well does it work to make concessions in the interest of relating to others? Usually not very well, but we still try to obey the principles of 1 Corinthians 9:19–22 and Romans 12:17-18, which reads: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” The real issue is not whether what we do will be approved by men, but whether it will be approved by God. However, we still want to do all we can to be viewed by non-Christians as those deeply desiring to do the right thing. 2 Corinthians 8:21 puts the principle in the apropos words: “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.”
The early church was soundly criticized and condemned for their determination to follow Jesus. Did they make mistakes which could be rightly criticized? Probably so, since they were human. Certainly we have made our mistakes and committed our sins, but we have continued to repent of them and learn from them. The condemnation of our first century brothers and sisters by the large majority of the society in which they lived was not due to their well-intentioned mistakes. It was because of their convictions and lifestyle which condemned the sins of their fellow man. When young disciples today hear the charges of persecutors, with the old “where there is smoke, there must be fire” adage loudly alleged, they are tempted to doubt the movement and its leaders. “Maybe we really are doing something wrong,” they may think. Just remember that the founder of your religion was God in the flesh, without sin, and yet charged as a blasphemer of God and murdered as a criminal. We can make all of the concessions possible without compromising principles, and the result will often be the same as Paul experienced: emotion-filled outrage and shameless slander. When the modern-day movement of which you are a part is falsely charged, stand tall for Christ. You are in good company with the saints of old.
Introduction:
A briefer form of this article was originally written in August of 2009 just prior to the International Leadership Conference in Denver, Colorado. The purpose was to present a brief explanation of this term and the reasons for discussing it in the Delegates Meeting of the Cooperation Churches. The Teacher Service Group is one of nine groups selected by the delegates to offer recommendations on a variety of subjects that are of interest within our movement of churches. Three of these groups – the Evangelist Group, the Elder Group and the Teacher Group – are viewed as a type of team to help provide direction in a number of areas. Biblically, these three roles are certainly key roles of leadership in the church, and to have them working together as a team is fundamental to unity within both congregations and our movement as a whole. Therefore, although the Teacher Group was specifically requested to study this subject and make a presentation, representatives from all three groups actually addressed the subject orally in the Delegates Meeting. These brief presentations by me, Mike Taliaferro and Steve Staten can be heard on the Disciples Today web site, and my original article can be read there as well.
In my oral presentation of the article, I gave more details than were in the article, and at the suggestion of others, decided to expand the printed version of the article to include some of what was said orally and to generally broaden the material into a more comprehensive and definitive version. This expansion is reflected in the new title. The original version is presented first, followed by the deeper look. My prayer is that those who read this article will be helped sufficiently to make my additional efforts worthwhile. Enjoy the read!
Question #1 – What Is It?
Baptismal cognizance simply means what is understood or needs to be understood at the point of baptism to experience a valid baptism. In one sense, it is a more narrow way to define who is a Christian and who is not; who is saved and who is not – based on having experienced a biblically valid new birth.
Question #2 – Why Are We Discussing It?
There are at last three related answers to this question. One, in our leadership apology letters of 2003, we apologized for being too judgmental toward people in other churches, but we did not define what we meant by being too judgmental. That failure proved to be a serious one, allowing many of our members to assume that almost any sincere believer in Christ was likely acceptable to God, regardless of conversion experience or church affiliation. We went from one extreme to another. The old extreme was to teach or leave the impression that no person outside our ICOC boundaries of fellowship could have been converted correctly. The new extreme is to assume almost the opposite. Both are extremes and both are wrong.
What I think we meant by saying that we had been too judgmental was that we had stepped outside our responsibility to teach exactly what the Bible says about conversion and had stepped into the Judgment Day role that belongs to God alone. In other words, we were teaching in a way that didn’t leave room for God to be God in determining who would ultimately be saved and lost. While we must avoid that posture in the future, we cannot go to the other extreme and pronounce final judgment in favor of sincere religious people whose conversion doesn’t square with what the Bible teaches about entering a saved relationship with Christ. Extremism, however popular, is dangerous territory for all of us.
Two, several brothers (not many, and most are not currently in our fellowship) have written papers on the subject, and tended toward the extreme of a broader acceptance of conversion experiences. The impact of such writing has exerted influence on some people, but probably not that many. These papers have led to more discussions among leaders, but the average member is likely unaware of most of these discussions or the source of them.
Three, because of the undefined leadership apologies and the unsettled state of churches, particularly in the few years immediately after 2003, singles started dating or wanting to date outside our fellowship. We as leaders should accept our responsibility of having helped cause this reaction, but we must now also accept our responsibility of clarifying what the issues in this realm are – both biblically and practically.
Question #3 – What Are the Bottom Line Practical Issues?
First of all, there can be no apology for preaching what the Bible says about the place of baptism in a faith response to Christ – by which we enter the death of Christ, are initially cleansed by his death and are raised from the waters of baptism to the new life of a Christian. We cannot soften or alter the message of passages like Acts 2:38; 3:19; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Titus 3:4-7 and 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism is inseparably connected to the forgiveness of sins as we come out of darkness into God’s marvelous light, and no man has the right to disconnect it. Period.
The real issue that is worth discussing comes with the possible distinction between having an erroneous understanding of the purpose of baptism and having an incomplete understanding of its purpose. Having a wrong understanding would include the very common evangelical teaching that one is saved at the point of believing in Jesus and “accepting him as Savior.” Whether we call this type of conversion a response to the so-called “Four Spiritual Laws” or the “Sinner’s Prayer,” it is not biblical. In essence, evangelicals teach that a person is saved first and baptized later – and that is a false doctrine according to the Bible.
Regarding a baptism experienced with an incomplete understanding of the purposes of baptism, this question may be asked: “Does a lack of understanding that baptism is the precise point that sins are forgiven invalidate the baptism?” If someone is baptized to obey Jesus, knowing that baptism is a part of the plan of accepting him, just what specifics beyond that does he have to understand? Our focus as a movement came from the Mainline Church of Christ focus, which arose in the debating days with the Baptists. Baptists insist that a person is saved before baptism, which explains their view that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. In reaction to that, the Church of Christ folks historically have said that one could not get baptized correctly with a false doctrine in mind regarding what he was doing.
Those who would raise questions about our past rigidity on that subject make a distinction between having an incomplete understanding of the purposes of baptism and an incorrect understanding of same. According to this reasoning, a person who was baptized simply to obey Jesus but was perhaps unclear about when his sins were actually forgiven might be acceptable to God, but the one who was taught and who accepted the wrong doctrine about the purposes (saved before baptism, maybe months before − given denominational practices) would not be acceptable to God. A further question that could logically be raised is why is it so important to understand that baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins,” and not as important to understand that it is when we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit? Both are joined together in passages like John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:4-7. Actually, the NT teaches that over 20 results follow our baptism into Christ.
It is important to note that this discussion is becoming less theoretical than in the past. More churches and leaders in various churches are coming very close to the same teaching that we have historically espoused regarding the purpose of baptism. In the past, it was extremely rare to find a person whose conversion experience sounded as if it could possibly be valid. In the future, we are more likely to find those whose baptisms may in fact be biblical (whether their church is biblically sound or not). In that case, we will have to be wiser in how we study with them, and decide each situation on an individual basis (which we should always do anyway). As we help decide these matters, especially with those having a Restoration background (Mainline Church of Christ and Christian Church), the bigger issue will be whether the person had really repented by making Jesus the Lord of his life and embracing Christ’s mission. Saying that someone has been baptized “for the forgiveness of sins” is not nearly all of the issue in the first place. Did they biblically repent and are they open to biblical discipleship – vertically (with Christ) and horizontally (with fellow Christians)? The lordship issue and the discipling issue are more significant than the baptism issue for those with a Restoration background.
The surrender of our hearts and lives to the will of Jesus is the bottom line of a saving faith. Certainly our mistakes as a movement in the past included our strong tendency to judge for God who was going to heaven and who was not. As one old Church of Christ preacher put it, “We are not the judges; we are the policemen − we can say if someone broke the law or not, but we cannot say what the judge is going to do with the case.” The illustration goes only so far, of course, but the fact that the judge (Judge) will make the final decision is correct. As for me, I intend to always teach what I believe to be correct, but will also always leave the final decision about one’s final salvation up to God. In that way, I believe I can still teach decisively without being judgmental. Obviously, however, that will always be a fine line to walk, but my teaching about conversion is exactly what it has been for decades and I have no inclinations to change it.
THE DEEPER LOOK
As mentioned above, our root system as a movement traces back to what the normally call the Restoration Movement, but specifically one part of that movement – The Churches of Christ. For some, that terminology may sound a little confusing, since the majority of our congregations use the same term now, and the rest of us use “Christian Church,” which also can be traced back to the other major segment of the Restoration Movement. A study of our historical root system is one that I highly recommend to every person in our movement of churches, to avoid confusion if for no other reason. In the new Second Edition of my book, Prepared To Answer, I deal briefly with this history and footnote other sources that address the subject as well. That would give you a good starting place for such a study, one that I think is needed.
Many of those within the Restoration Movement (and I would include our churches in that broader movement) are asking questions about whether we in essence are still satisfied with our views on baptism. The main reason we are asking this question is because our traditional stance on the subject brings the salvation issue into consideration regarding a number of writers and church leaders in other religious groups for whom we have respect and appreciation in many areas. We read their writings, note their obvious dedication to what they believe, and wonder whether we have been too narrow in our own thinking about initial conversion. Frankly, if we weren’t caused to do some wondering and questioning, that itself would be concerning. It is human nature to focus so much on one area that we miss seeing ourselves clearly in other areas. We feel reasonably sure that we know what those in evangelical or other denominational churches are missing regarding conversion; are we as aware of what we ourselves may be missing – on subjects perhaps just as important? As I say, if we are not asking some of these questions of others and of ourselves, we simply are spending too little time thinking. But just how we handle our questioning is the issue here, and it is a significant issue.
Let me begin by saying that my considered opinion is that in our earlier days as a movement, we accepted too easily the standard Restoration teachings about baptism, and at points became as legalistic as many groups and individuals were in our “root system” historically. That legalism was demonstrated most especially among us in the rash of “re-baptisms” we had back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. I am in no way discounting the need that some of us felt to be baptized again, given our lack of understanding (especially of true biblical repentance) when we were originally baptized. My wife and I are in that number, just to give a clear example. But many who had been baptized “as disciples” (meaning that they were taught and understood biblical repentance) also came to question their baptism and were re-baptized. During the phase of “Reconstructions,” this phenomenon was especially evident. To say that said practices went too far during these settings is a mild way to state it, in my opinion.
I personally know one former leader who got so caught up in the questioning of his own baptism that he was baptized seven times. Why? Because so much emphasis was placed on “doing it right” that a combination of his insecurity and sincerity led him to a very legalistic way of thinking. I think this particular phase of our history produced some very harmful results back then, and may well be connected to an over-reaction now by at least a significant number of average disciples and some leaders. Since we as a group (although never everyone within the group) swung too far in one direction, it is almost certain that a significant number of us will swing too far in the other direction. And that is where my present concerns for us lie.
No biblical subject should be off limits to a reexamination, and surely a subject as important as conversion should not be. My main concern is that we not enter such reexaminations with a predisposition to either rubber stamp our previous conclusions or to reject them in favor of new conclusions. Either predisposition is in fact an emotionally driven reaction. In the older, root system Restoration churches, I see the latter tendency frequently, and among us, I see the former tendency also frequently. If the very idea of restudying such issues disturbs you, you have a problem. If the study is entered with a strong predisposition in either direction, you also have a problem. God’s truth is God’s truth. It was here before we were born and it will still be around when we are not. From my perspective, two approaches to a broader type of biblical interpretation are of concern – one becoming prevalent in Restoration churches from our root system and one seeming to be finding traction among our discipling movement churches. Let me address them in that order.
A New Hermeneutic In Studying Acts
Denominational churches which have rejected baptism as an essential component of the salvation process have used this particular approach of which I speak to interpreting Acts for decades. Now recognized scholars within Restoration churches are buying into the approach, howbeit often using some new terminology. Briefly stated, the hermeneutic asserts that the conversion accounts in Acts vary so much from one another that no “standard” conversion process can be ascertained. Therefore, the one thing of which we can be sure is that faith is the essential item in conversion, while baptism cannot be confirmed as essential. As I say, this viewpoint is gaining ground among scholars whose historical restoration background had pointed them in quite the opposite direction.
Frankly, this new approach to interpreting Acts is amazing to me, for at least two reasons. One, even without the conversion accounts in Acts, many other passages in the Epistles clearly connect baptism with conversion. Two, the alleged differences in the conversion accounts in Acts are quite easily explained. It is true that sometimes only faith is mentioned and sometimes other things (including baptism) are mentioned, and it is also true that faith is mentioned most often. What are we to make of these differences? Some people are prone to line up the majority passages against the minority passages, claiming that faith is essential while the commands in the other categories are optional. This approach pits Scripture against itself and is therefore erroneous.
One biblical and logical explanation would be that biblical faith is used as a common figure of speech (synecdoche) where the part is used to represent the whole. Usually faith is mentioned, since it is the beginning point out of which all other conditions grow and also the most central quality needed for continuing in the Christian life. However, other terms are used in other passages in this same way. For example, Luke’s version of the Great Commission (24:44-49) mentions that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached.” Since faith is not mentioned, it is obvious that repentance is mentioned as a part of the whole process of salvation, which would certainly include faith (and baptism). Obviously, when the term “faith” is used in this manner, it is meant to include all other aspects of the salvation process, including both repentance and baptism.
We use synecdoche commonly in everyday life situations. If someone asked what I had to eat when I ate at a restaurant, and I replied that I had the steak, they would not assume that all I ate was a steak. They would automatically assume that there were other parts of the meal, such as potatoes, salad, a drink and a dessert. But I only said steak, because that was the main course around which all the rest were accompanying items. Similarly, faith is the “main course” in our becoming Christians, but that does not invalidate the other items which grow out of faith (notably repentance and baptism).
The existence in Acts of variations in conversion accounts is sometimes explained by the variations in where different people were in the conversion process. In three such cases, the teaching sounds like it differs, but it simply corresponded with the people’s present position and need. A man traveling from Texas to New York may ask what the distance is while still in Texas. The answer he receives will be different from the answer to the same question asked when he is halfway to New York. In both cases, the answer is based on his present position. Similarly, the Philippian jailer was told to believe (Acts 16:31) because he was just beginning his trip to salvation. The audience on Pentecost had already believed, so they were told to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Saul was already a repentant believer when he was told to “get up and be baptized” (Acts 22:16). In each case, the command was based on the position and need of those being addressed.
To use such variations as “proof” that no standard conversion process exists in Acts is to approach the subject with a predisposition to come to a conclusion that broadens the conversion path. Even though some who follow this line of reasoning (or lack thereof) would be called scholars, their hermeneutic is anything but scholarly. Having been too legalistic at one point historically does not justify becoming biblically evasive at another point. The Bible has not changed.
An Over-Focus on Grace
This concern is one I have for those in our movement, one that I believe is growing in its application to initial conversion. To be very candid, I express this concern with personal pain. I have labored for years to help people understand God’s grace in ways that were hopefully life-changing. Romans is my favorite book in the Bible, and the writing and teaching I have done on this one book alone is significant indication of my own desire to propagate a better understanding of the very foundation of our salvation. Paul’s description of this foundation is stated beautifully in Ephesians 2:8-10: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Given our legalistic background historically, we have a continuing need to be taught more about grace in our relationship to God (and to one another). Granting also our human propensity to feel too much guilt and to be fairly unsuccessful in letting it go (even with God’s approval biblically), the subject of God’s grace cannot simply be a subject among subjects. It deserves the place of highest honor, for it focuses on God and gives him the glory. That cannot be a wrong emphasis.
On the other hand, the emphasis cannot be placed in isolation, causing us to have an unbalanced view of God. Paul also addressed this danger quite directly in Romans 11:22 with these words: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” In the current leadership training I have been doing, leaders are recognizing the issue of becoming unbalanced in our view of God and his grace, and are requesting help from my teaching. A course I have entitled “Sound Doctrine and Church Discipline” has been requested with vigor in several places. I just taught it in our newly begun Ukrainian Institute of Ministry in Kiev. It was also one of the earliest courses requested in the Asia-Pacific Leadership Academy. I was also asked to conduct a teaching day in the Oahu church on the subject, although we changed the title to “Developing a Balanced View of God.” This four lesson video series in DVD format is now available through Illumination Publishers International (IPI).
In teaching this material, I strive to present a balanced view of God’s kindness and sternness from both Old and New Testaments. As much as I love the subject of grace (and need it personally so badly for time and eternity), I cannot just dismiss what I read about God’s call to fear him (in the sense of having great awe and respect for him) and the consequences in the lives of so many people when they did not heed that call. Accounts in the OT about people like Cain, everyone except Noah and his family during the time of the flood, Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, King Saul, Uzzah, and many, many more like them fill me with fear and trembling before the King of the universe. And these accounts are designed by him to do just that (1 Corinthians 10:1-11; Hebrews 4:1-3, 11; Hebrews 12:15-17). It will hardly do to claim, as did the Gnostic heretic Marcion, that there is a more graceful God (Jesus) in the New Testament, in contrast to the Creator God of the OT (which included Jesus too, by the way, as the eternal Logos – John 1:1-3). The NT, compared to the OT, cannot be taken less seriously, if we are to believe passages like Hebrews 10:26-31 and Hebrews 12:25-29.
So what am I saying? Simply that we cannot swing the pendulum between legalism and an unbalanced view of God and what he expects of his creation – as the Bible describes those expectations. It is a delicate balance of which we speak. The emotional impact on my heart of thinking that sincere, dedicated, spiritually minded people are not right with God is huge and heavy. But I cannot allow that impact to drive me into teaching that those people can discount, even through ignorance and with the best of intentions, what God’s Word says about conversion. I cannot quit teaching what I sincerely believe the Bible teaches about the subject. Nor will I assume the role of Judge in the final analysis of who spends eternity with God. His biblical standards are perfection, which means that none of us lives up to those standards. I cannot guarantee exactly how God is going to apply those standards to each of us. That is his job and his alone. Just why he tolerated some things like slavery among his people (in the OT and NT) and had zero tolerance for other things like idolatry is somewhat of a mystery to me. But those mysteries of God and his nature keep me from trying to occupy his seat.
I pray for much grace in my own life, for that is the only way that I am going to get into heaven. I also pray for much grace for all who appear to be sincere seekers of him. I hope that more will receive that eternal grace than most of us might now be aware, but that is all in his hands. Once I heard a statement by an older, very conservative minister in one of the branches of the older Restoration movement that resonated with me. He said (surprisingly, given his conservatism): “I have hope for sincere believers in other religious groups, but I do not feel that I have the right to give them hope.” In other words, in his heart of hearts, he wished strongly that God’s grace would be applied liberally to those who had not embraced and experienced biblical conversion as he believed the Bible taught it, but he could not fail to teach them what it taught – unequivocally. He could not assume the role of God as Judge of all men.
That position is where I find myself, and have found myself for most of my 40 year career as a preacher of the Word. I know it will take much grace to save any of us. Just how God ends up applying it in every possible case is up to him. All that is up to me (thankfully) is to preach the Word, try as best I can to first of all live it myself, then try to get everyone else to obey it (in or out of the church), and let God take it from there. I can live with that. I have lived with that for years, and will continue to live with it until I meet him. I cannot live with anything other than that, which brings me to the statement with which I concluded that original article: “I believe I can still teach decisively without being judgmental. Obviously, however, that will always be a fine line to walk, but my teaching about conversion is exactly what it has been for decades and I have no inclinations to change it.” Amen!
