What is The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?
Introduction
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, sometimes called “the unforgivable sin,” is a subject that often produces insecurity and fear in the hearts of a number of people. Their underlying question is this one: “Since there is no forgiveness for this terrible sin (whatever it is), what if I am guilty of it?” The quick answer is that God will forgive us of all sins of which we repent. Whether it is “repent and be baptized” to become a Christian (Acts 2.38) or confession and turning from sin after we are Christians (1 John 1.9), forgiveness of all sin is promised by God in these passages. For the biblical explanation, let’s read all three of the passages that mention it before proceeding to a more detailed study – Matthew 12.22-32; Mark 3.20-30; Luke 12.8-10.
Specifics in the Texts and Contexts
The sin is an expression of defiant hostility toward the Spirit. Literally it means “to rail against, to assail, to insult with vicious attacks.” Those involved in the sin were Jewish leaders, who were quite familiar with the Law with its Messianic prophecies, and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus. They not only rejected Christ’s miracles as being from God, but directly and blatantly attributed them to Satan. Since the miracles were done by the Holy Spirit, these people were slandering the Spirit in their vicious accusations against Jesus and His power.
Let’s look at each of the passages and the main points they make about the subject.
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)
Note the key points made in this text:
· All other blasphemies could be forgiven.
· Blasphemy against the Spirit would not.
· Speaking against Jesus could be forgiven.
· Speaking against the Spirit would not.
· No such forgiveness would be given, either in this age or the age to come.
I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)
Now the key points in Mark’s account:
· All other blasphemies could be forgiven.
· This blasphemy against the Spirit would not.
· This blasphemy constituted an eternal sin.
· Note that Jesus’ warning was issued because they were saying “He has an evil spirit.”
Finally, Luke 12:8-10:
“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
· It was related to the acknowledging or disowning of Jesus before men.
· Speaking a word against Jesus could be forgiven; blaspheming the Spirit would not be.
Practical Considerations
This sin lay at the end of a downward progression. People with open hearts saw the miracles of Jesus and accepted him and his message. Others accepted the miracles without yet accepting him as the Son of God (Matthew 16.13-17). His own family thought he was out of his mind (Mark 3.20-21). The ones guilty of blasphemy (or perhaps about to be guilty – Mark 3.30) attributed the miracles to Satan. At any point along the way, people could come to faith, but at the end of this road in question, faith was no longer a possibility.
Saul of Tarsus was once a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man (against Jesus) – 1 Timothy 1.13. Yet he evidently had not personally seen the miracles of Jesus and claimed they were by Satan. Once you had seen the miracles and so violently rejected them, claiming they were Satanic in origin, nothing could wake you up. The more continual the sin, the more hardened one became. Those in the Pentecost audience (Acts 2) were told to repent and be baptized – every one of them (Acts 2:38). Peter did not make an exception for those guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
No one will be denied God’s grace if they truly repent of their sins and come to him. The Spirit’s invitation is to “whoever wishes” (Revelation 22:17). If you are fearful that you have committed the “unforgivable sin,” that is a sure sign you haven’t! However, becoming hardened in sin is a scary thought anyway. It can begin in carelessness, continue in indifference, and end in a point of hardening. In Hebrews, it began with drifting (2:1), progressed to a sinful unbelieving heart (3.11-12), and ultimately led to the impossibility of repentance (6.4-6).
Seen another way, the downward spiral begins by wanting to be a friend to the world (James 4:4), then loving it (1 John 2:15), then being conformed to it (Romans 12.2), and finally being condemned with it (1 Corinthians 11.32). Therefore, the issue is not whether God will forgive; the issue is whether man can (will) repent. Jesus knew hearts and knew that the ones to whom he spoke had passed the point of no return – a complete hardening. Even at that, his words may have been a warning that they were approaching that point of no return (Mark 3.30). The great miracle of the resurrection would truly be their last hope.
Conclusion
Blasphemy against the Spirit was a blatant, slanderous attack against Jesus and his miracles on a continual basis which led to a complete hardening. Although we are not in the same position of blaspheming the Holy Spirit in our day, any hardening of our hearts is scary business. We must realize that the first step in this direction begins with taking Christ and his word lightly. Keep your heart soft toward the Word, and you will never end up hardened by sin. With our gracious God, it is never a question of his willingness to forgive, but only of our willingness to repent – and at some point, perhaps our ability to repent. But God longs for our repentance and forgiveness, for he is indeed a good God – a perfect Father!
—Gordon Ferguson (October 11, 2009)
Introduction by Gordon
I want to take this opportunity to introduce the co-author of this article (the longer and most important part) and to say a few things about the subject myself. Gary and his wife, Gail, have recently moved from Connecticut to Phoenix to assume the roles of evangelist and women’s ministry leader for one of our four Regions. Prior to moving, Gary had been taking graduate courses at the highly regarded Gordon-Conwell Seminary in the Boston area, and has already been accepted as a student at the Phoenix branch of Fuller Theological Seminary. While a student at Gordon-Conwell, Gary wrote a research paper regarding the ultimate impossibility of integrating Psychology with biblical teaching. The following article by him is essentially the same paper, with a different title and a few edits to make it more understandable for the average reader.
I concur with Gary that Christian Counseling has a valid place in Christianity, but has often been assigned a role that places more emphasis on the validity of psychology than on the Bible. Of course, among believers, this reality is so subtle that it is not generally perceived. That fact makes it all the more likely to yield some damaging effects. Through the years, I have had a number of friends in the church who were counselors, with various types and levels of training. In helping individuals work through deeper problems, they have often been very helpful. But I do believe that disciples need a better understanding of the limitations of professional or even Christian counseling, and some of the inherent dangers involved when viewing it the wrong way. Thus, I invite you to read Gary’s material, after which I will have a few observations in a related area that I believe tie into what he says in an important way. Enjoy the read!
The Integration of Christianity and Psychology
by Gary Sciascia
In recent generations the influence of modern psychology has successfully worked its way into virtually all significant areas of western civilization. From sports, to education, to business, to romance, to music, and even to the church, its ever-increasing sway extends. Much more than a fad or passing fancy, psychology has become ensconced as a permanent cultural fixture. In the words of Johnson and Jones, “It should come as no surprise then to learn that Christian thinkers have also thought deeply about “psychology,” psychology understood as the rigorous attempt to understand human character and behavior, one grounded in philosophical reflection and examination of the “data” of human experience.” The focus of this article is to analyze the issues in the amalgamation of psychology and theology in what has come to be known in some circles as integration.
What is integration? As mentioned above, the popularity and acceptance of psychology has proliferated in our culture, and many now even in Christian circles turn to psychology for answers to many of life’s emotional and mental woes. This can create a tension between the values traditionally held by the Church taken from the Bible, and principles held by those in the field of psychology. Integration, then, is the attempt to blend or mesh these two approaches to life together. As one former American Psychological Association president espoused:
We simply take for granted the truth of revelation found in scripture… [We] also take for granted the essential correctness of what is held, on experimental or clinical grounds, by students of physiology, psychology, and psychiatry. If these two belief systems are both true, we ask what possibilities are conceptually available for accommodating them to one another.
A Brief Biblical Overview
A good question is: what does the Bible have to say about psychology? The answer to that is largely dependent upon one’s point of view. One perspective may point to the fact that the Bible does not refer directly to the field of psychology at all, while another may see the Bible as being replete with passages on mankind’s psychological wellbeing. Passages such as Proverbs 20:5 “The purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out,” talk about the need for people to dig deep within themselves to gain a greater self-awareness. Both perspectives can live in harmony so long as the Bible is not twisted or subverted in some way.
The science of psychology need not be discarded simply because it is not specifically referred to in scripture. Indeed, seeing oneself more clearly and getting in touch with deeper motives and understanding one’s own past better can yield tremendous benefits in the area of emotional well-being. But in God’s Kingdom, the use of psychology must be brought under total submission and subservience to God’s Word before this can be accomplished. Far too often, however, psychology, psychologists, and even “Christian” psychologists do not submit so readily. And so the concept of the integration of psychology and Christianity can be fraught with difficulties. Several of these are discussed below.
Ever-Changing Views
Like other sciences, psychology is continually changing. What was very much in vogue just twenty-five years ago on the psychological scene may now be seen as archaic. But are these changes really bringing about quantifiable improvements in the human condition? Few would argue with the results that enhancements in medical science have produced over the last 150 years. Yet based on the current emotional state of our society, it would be difficult to say that modern psychology as a science is producing greater results today than at any other point in time in the modern era. Henry Fairlie put it well: “If we do not acknowledge that the inclination to sin is part of our natures, then why has all our tinkering with ourselves over the centuries, all our sociologies and psychologies and psychoanalyses, reforms and experiments and therapies, not made our lives more virtuous and more happy than they are?” Fairlie continues, “…neither will we pretend that our evil is the result of some maladjustment in our psychologies or our societies, only to find that when the next adjustment has been made we remain as evil as before.” If psychology has fallen far short of being a panacea for man’s emotional maladies, can it cure spiritual ones?
In the psychological world, the schools of thought are many. The founding fathers of modern psychology (e.g., Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, and Carl Rogers) all held varying perspectives on man’s psychological ailments, and they proffered equally varying treatments. A therapist will diagnose and treat a particular dysfunction based on the model under which he or she was trained. And since psychology is far from being unified, there are no universally accepted standards of treatment. Further, psychology in general tends to resist the notion of absolutes stemming from a moral standard. The Bible, on the other hand, abounds with moral absolutes. B.F. Skinner asserts:
“We say that there is something ‘morally wrong’ about a totalitarian state, a gambling enterprise, uncontrolled piecework wages, the sale of harmful drugs or undue personal influence, not because of any absolute set of values, but because all these things have aversive consequences”
So something is morally right to Skinner if it has pleasant consequences, and something is morally wrong that has negative consequences. Morality is not determined by any given moral code or standard.
Such varied, ever-shifting views stand in antithesis to scripture, which never changes. It must be conceded that although the Bible itself does not change, individual’s views about the Bible can and frequently do. Nevertheless, we attempt to adhere to the principle of sola scriptura (the Bible only) and aspire to mold our views to fit try to fit the biblical standard. A corresponding attempt cannot be made in the realm of psychology because of the lack of a set of standard principles and absolute authority.
The Question of Authority
Another issue of essential importance in the question of integration is the issue of authority. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” No version of integration can work so long as any authority (or master) other than God’s Word is vying for preeminence. Only one can truly serve as the standard. An open-arms acceptance of psychology threatens the premise of sola scriptura in the church. This issue of authority has two faces. One, as mentioned above is the question of what will serve as the church’s confessional guide.
A related issue becomes the question of human authority. Traditionally, and scripturally, human authority in the church resides with elders, deacons, evangelists and the like. It is a problem when a Christian confers too much reliance or authority to any man (or woman), even a church leader (over and above scripture). And it is not the goal of any decent counselor to garner power for, or dependence upon him/herself. Nevertheless, our culture has been guilty of vesting a frightening amount of authority to the therapist. Richard Ganz couches the problem in these terms:
Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand that counseling derives from a worldview. Instead, they think of counseling as the tool that one person (the expert) applies to another person who has psychological problems. … The psychotherapist, or counselor, is seen as a kind of “super-mechanic” who locates psychological shorts and disconnections, using his technical expertise to correct the malfunctions. He is the one who, by progressive feats of wizardry, demonstrates a technical mastery of the mind.
In the blending of Christianity and psychology, it is not difficult to see that there can be challenges inherent in dealing with the shepherding of people’s troubled souls when divergent approaches are being employed. Increasingly, these questions and many more like them are not being dealt with thoroughly in the church, or worse yet, are being altogether avoided in places where psychology is being embraced.
Secular psychologists and therapists cannot be expected to hold to the authority of the Bible because they do not accept its truth. But it is possible for even spiritually-minded psychologists to be torn between the teaching of scripture and how they have been trained. If the Christian psychologist is at all confused about what the ultimate authority is, it can result in very dangerous outcomes in the church. Ganz again weighs in: “Many Christian psychologists believe that the therapies based on a secular mind-set are not only valuable, but indispensable. In truth, what has taken place is not integration but substitution, the substitution of secular psychology for the Word of God.” David Fitch has also noted this tendency: “… many evangelicals give enormous authority to modern therapeutic practice in their lives. We see it as science and good medicine.” Whenever and wherever scripture is being replaced with psychology or any other discipline, the church will be in crisis.
Inevitably, there are bound to be similar truths found in dissimilar disciplines. There is nothing wrong with the discovery and practice of common truth. If psychologists make use of the front door to enter a house, it does not mean that Christians must climb in through the window. Wherever truth is uncovered and correctly applied by psychology, it can (and frequently does) coexist happily in the church if it does not undermine the Bible as the authority. Nevertheless, having the occasional truth in common is not the same as having a common standard. And for Christians dabbling in psychology, the issue of which standard will reign supreme runs a high risk of becoming clouded.
Accountability and Responsibility
Another area that is highly problematic in the consideration of integration falls under the arena of personal accountability and responsibility. Sound biblical theology understands the concept and impact of sin. According to the Bible, sin lies at the heart and soul of virtually all of mankind’s problems. In true Christianity, the better one can understand his own sin, his need for repentance, and the saving grace of an all-powerful God, the better he is able to grow and mature spiritually. This is not the case in a large percentage of psychological models. In the Freudian model – the basis for much of modern psychology – taking personal responsibility has often been a foreign concept. Ganz elaborates: “It [the Freudian approach to psychology] affirms a concept that sinful human beings universally hold dear – they are not responsible for their actions. Someone else is to blame.”
In our society, such subjects as sin, guilt, and shame are not politically correct topics of discussion. They are, in fact, to be avoided at all costs. While they certainly can be undesirable primary motivators in life, they do have their place and can be very appropriate responses to moral failure. But dealing with sin is never easy, and there are no simple shortcuts. Looking for psychological solutions can often be more palatable than looking for spiritual ones. And seeing oneself as a victim can be much more agreeable than taking ownership. Again, Ganz is accurate: “Applying psychology is much easier because the sinful nature of man is far more ready to be coddled than confronted.”
Human Nature
Much of psychology teaches that we are either basically good or tabula rasa – a blank slate – neither good nor bad. The pathway to a better life is not found by looking out but looking within. If we will but take an introspective journey back to our pasts we can make sense of our lives and affect the necessary repairs. In the psychological world, this is usually done without God.
Once again, this flies in the face of biblically sound doctrine. First, the Bible is clear that sin renders us incapable of doing or being good or righteous in and of ourselves. In Romans 7:18, the apostle Paul teaches: “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” Apart from God, humans are hopelessly incapable of good. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah 17:9 says that, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” According to Jeremiah, a person could spend an entire lifetime psychoanalyzing their own heart yet never fully comprehend it.
So, according to scripture, the solutions to life’s fundamental problems are not found from looking within but searching without. The truth lies outside of self and must be sought after. In John 14: 6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Truth does not exist within the individual; the individual must go to Jesus to find it. A Christian, then, is never “discovered” but “created” by God and set free from sin as he “holds to the teaching of Jesus” – John 8:31-32.
Conclusion
Such a large percentage of the world’s population experiences difficulties like anxiety, addiction, broken families, depression, etc., that it is understandable why people turn to psychology for remedy. But in a society where the Christian fabric is being slowly eaten away and fewer turn to God for solutions, these maladies are only likely to increase. But psychology will never fill the God-shaped hole that each person has in his soul. As St. Augustine once said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless until we find their rest in thee.”
Of course, not all of the goals and methods of psychology are anti-Christian. Understanding oneself better and getting in touch with emotional truths and understanding how issues and events from the past can affect the present are all worthwhile endeavors. As appropriate, they can even be encouraged in the church. But that is very different from integrating psychology into the church in such a way that the two lines of thought compete with one another. Nothing, not even the traditions of the church, should be in competition with scripture. The meshing of these two very different belief systems on a macro scale will never work because one is dynamic (ever-changing), while the other is static (never-changing). One has no established authority, while the other is completely ruled by an embraced authority. One resists the thought of taking personal responsibility for sin, while the other insists on it. One asserts that introspection will yield truth, while the other sees truth as coming from a source external to the individual. While individual professional counselors may not exemplify all of these strong tendencies, it must be repeated that to one degree or another, all of us are conditioned by our training and experiences. Thus, these potential tendencies must be kept in mind, and one’s approach to counseling must remain in a state of being evaluated by self and by other mature biblically grounded persons to ensure that biblical truths reign supreme.
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 teaches that Christians are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers because light cannot have fellowship with darkness. This of course applies to any sort of binding relationship (e.g., romantic, business, etc.) between the believer and the unbeliever. The dilemma of integration is similar. It seeks to yoke two very dissimilar interests, and the paths these interests take to achieve their goal. Again, Ganz weighs in: “Often well-intended “Christian psychologists” have welcomed into their counseling rooms methodologies and perspectives that have at their root a denial of God.”
Thus the integration of psychology and Christianity is fraught with pitfalls. Instead of a blending, what often takes place is a giving away on one side and a plundering on the other. On the giving side is the theology of Christ’s church and on the stealing side is psychology. Taking theological concepts and dressing them up in psychological terminology does not mean that integration has been successful.
When Christian counselors try to integrate biblical principles with modern psychology, they run into trouble. Many end up redefining biblical terms to bring them into harmony with psychology. For instance, Gary Sweeten redefines the theological term sanctification to mean “mortifying the flesh and developing our new self or our personal self.” Sanctification (theological) becomes the “development of our personal selves” (psychological). Once unchristian terminology is accepted, unchristian theology is the next logical step. When theology is compromised and replaced with the teachings of psychology, then the bride (the church) is something significantly less than what God designed her to be for the groom (Christ).
Final Words of Caution
This article is in no way meant to discourage individual disciples of Jesus struggling with emotional and/or psychological problems from seeking professional help as appropriate. So long as a disciple does not confuse or otherwise diminish the place of God’s word, counseling can be extremely beneficial. But I would suggest that seeing a secular psychologist must be done with a degree of caution – it can become a very slippery slope for reasons enumerated in this article. It is good for believers to understand some of the potential pitfalls before seeking help. Having said that, many have benefited from counseling where spiritual convictions are not compromised. And there are excellent Psychologists that are disciples of Jesus. Getting advice before seeing a professional from several mature Christians who understand your situation will always be a wise thing to do.
Psychology, Psychologists and the Church
by Gordon Ferguson
In spite of the limitations and potential downsides of viewing psychology wrongly, good counseling can be a highly valuable addition to Christian service. But several cautions are important in helping us view psychology and Psychologists correctly − and in helping them view themselves correctly. One of the most needed cautions is that counseling individual disciples and leading groups of disciples are two quite different things. Applying principles used in counseling individuals to working with groups is fraught with very serious challenges and can be downright dangerous. The goal of good counseling is to help people mature. Another way of saying that is that they are being helped to become self-starters, learning to make good choices and to accept full responsibility for those choices. That is also the goal of good parenting. However, seeing our children mature into making good choices and accepting full responsibility for those choices is a pretty long and tedious process. Demanding that they do it at any juncture before their training is reasonably completed will inevitably lead to some dire consequences.
Christian Psychologists must have the patience on an individual basis to help people grow into this type of maturity. However, some appear at times to believe that ministry decisions for an entire group should be based on all of the members essentially being self-starters already − which does not square with reality. Such an approach does not recognize the need many members have for very specific directive leadership while they are being trained into more mature states. This training process (as with our own offspring) should include structure, expectations and accountability. We usually have no trouble understanding the need for this type training for our own children, but some counselors tend strongly toward an impractical idealism in working with God’s children as a group − as a spiritual family. Any counselor who shies away from the exercise of definitive authority in the church, and from the elements of structure, expectations and accountability (all done biblically, of course), is moving in a wrong direction.
We have two considerations when evaluating what the Psychologist/counselor brings to the table in terms of their views of how ministry groups should be led: how do they view themselves in what they are actually qualified to offer, and how do the rest of us view their opinions? I realize that the problem is most often in how we view a professional’s abilities in realms outside the scope of their training. We tend to attach more relevance to their views in areas outside their expertise than most of them do themselves (thankfully). Any person in a profession that is highly regarded may be in a position to promote invalid assumptions regarding other fields. We often see recognized experts in one field being used to promote a product or service in a totally different field, simply because they are admired and trusted for their expertise in their own field. I’m old enough to remember doctors in white coats advertising certain brands of cigarettes on TV. (Let’s hope that practice dates back to the days of black and white TV’s!)
However, even though the problem is often in how we view the professional, I must say that I have encountered professionally trained counselors who did not have a sober estimate of themselves with regard to their limitations in the understanding of church leadership principles. To be perfectly clear, they extrapolated valid principles of counseling individuals into applications that are invalid in working with groups, and did so with a certainty that overly influenced other disciples in a negative manner. This situation calls for a better understanding of the limitations that professional counselors may have in the realm of group leadership. One, their training and/or experience is much greater in the counseling field than in the field of church leadership − unless they are actually trained and experienced in both fields, as is the case in a few instances of which I am aware. Frankly, I have often found the input of business and educational professionals more on target regarding leading groups than the input of counselors, because the former types are trained and experienced in group leadership whereas those in the latter group are trained and experienced primarily in working with individuals.
Two, their counseling of disciples with emotional problems can give them an unbalanced view of what is going on in the church or with the leadership practices of a given leader. They can be overly influenced to improperly assume that the feelings or experiences of a few provide an accurate barometer to the feelings or experiences of the majority. I used to meet regularly with a counselor friend (whose practice was made up mostly of disciples) just for the purpose of answering questions and clarifying issues in order to help him gain and maintain a balanced picture of what was and was not true regarding the church overall. He needed that decompression and clarification help, as do all counselors whose practice includes members of his church. Otherwise, unwarranted assumptions are certain to be made. If any of us hear mainly one side of any story, we are going to find it difficult to maintain a balanced view of that story without some help. That is the human tendency, and we must all be aware of that tendency if we are in the people business in any capacity. If we have learned anything from the upheavals in our movement of churches in the past four years, it is that those who reacted most strongly to ministry mistakes usually have other life issues that caused them to overreact to those mistakes. This is not said to minimize the mistakes, for some were serious and seriously sinful, but focusing only on mistakes made without also looking at the good done is a very unbiblical approach.
Another challenge for the professional counselor in gaining and maintaining an accurate view of how church leadership should function is in realizing the differences of how he must approach helping individuals and how group leadership should be approached. The counselor usually only hears from the one being counseled and usually can only exert influence on that person. This means that the counseling is pretty much confined to helping the counselee deal with his or her situation according to their perspective of the situation, regardless of how accurate that perspective is or whether their outside life circumstances have any hope of being changed. This reality ties in to what I mentioned earlier about the counselor’s goal of helping the counselee become a self-starter, with all that this term implies. If nothing of their circumstances can be changed, they still have to learn to cope successfully in the midst of those circumstances.
On the other hand, church leadership may well have the opportunity to deal directly with other persons involved in the counselee’s life and with any particular situation promoting the problems that led to the need for counseling in the first place. What should be obvious is the limitation the counselor normally has in helping people, which limitation the church leader probably does not have. Therefore, if the counselor assumes that groups should be dealt with in the same way that he is limited to dealing with individuals, he is going to espouse some opinions that sound far more valid than they are.
Personally, I think input from many types of sources can be helpful. But if input from a professional in one field is weighed too strongly in application to another field, poor results will undoubted ensue. And given all that Gary has noted in his excellent and insightful article, we simply must recognize our tendency to overvalue the opinions of those in esteemed professions in fields outside their own. To sum it up, expertise in the arena of psychology does not directly translate to expertise in the field of ministry leadership. While their input can be helpful in ministry issues, any tendency to think they know more about group leadership than those trained and experienced in it is a huge mistake with potentially huge negative consequences. And any tendency they have to exert their influence in the direction of being critical of church leadership, whether in subtle or blatant ways, is potentially divisive. May God help us all to recognize our limitations and to remain humble when offering input in any area outside our own area of training, experience and expertise!
In writing my part of this article, I realize the potential of offending some counselors. Since I have a number of counselor friends whom I esteem highly and whose work I appreciate greatly, that is obviously not my intention. But as the old saying goes, if the shoe fits anyone, they need to wear it. Through the years, I have written many things in a straightforward manner about what disciples should be and should not be, and what church leaders should be and should not be. None of it was intended to be critical, but rather to point out potential problems and dangers. However, in spite of intentions, some disciples have been offended, as have some leaders. The question always is why some have been offended. Is it due to what has been said or the manner in which it has been said? If stated in the wrong way, I am always anxious to repent. But if people are offended by the truth, I just say “Bingo.” A nerve has been hit that needed to be hit, in order to get things out into the light and dealt with biblically.
It is past time that the issue of psychology and the influence of Psychologists and counselors needs to be addressed. I appreciate Gary’s highly insightful article, and I appreciate the opportunity to add my own perspective. My prayer is that we will all give more thought and discussion to this area. Professional counseling and professional counselors have much to offer that we need in the church, but as with all good things, if they are viewed and used improperly, they also have the potential for producing negative effects. With God’s help, let’s make sure the positive is fully utilized and the negative fully eliminated.
—Gary Sciascia and Gordon Ferguson (December 2007)
Introduction
This article is a written form of a spoken message delivered on February 29, 2004 to the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ. Due to the subject matter and its broad nature, I wanted to enable our members to be able to study out this material in more depth, and the written format will allow that possibility. (Incidentally, having author’s prerogative, I will likely add a tidbit or two that was not included in the oral presentation of the lesson, and leave out a few other items in interest of space.) I just returned from Abilene, Texas, where I and several others from our movement participated on a panel in the Forum part of the Abilene Christian University Lectureships – an annual event among the mainline Churches of Christ. A brief report of the Forum is available as a separate article. I suggest you read it before proceeding further with my sermon, since I do make mention of my Abilene experience several times within the sermon.
The title of my sermon reflects a question that I have received repeatedly in one form or another during the past year. We have as a movement gone through major upheavals, and our members are left wondering what we will be left with when things are totally settled back down. We have historically held to certain convictions and practices that have made us who were are as a movement – hence, the question. However, although the title definitely suggests the direction of the sermon, it is actually meant to be humorous. A reading of Acts 17:11 will show why I say that. “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Do you understand the humor in the title? I cannot tell you what we now believe. I can tell you what I believe, and urge you to do as the Bereans and decide what you believe based on the Bible. I will say that I have discussed these things with the ministry staff, and I think they are in agreement with my convictions and conclusions. I pray that you will be as well, but not until you take the time to develop your own biblical convictions.
As I have repeatedly said since coming to Phoenix, I think that we as a movement have done many right things in many wrong ways. I believe that we must own the wrongs in order to repent and change, but I don’t want to stop teaching and practicing the right things, for they are based on important biblical principles. What are the right things, the wrong ways, and what should we now believe and do? Let’s proceed by asking and answering ten questions that are arranged in logical fashion, but not necessarily in order of importance.
What About Our Preaching and Teaching?
One of the panelists from the mainline church at Abilene made some very interesting comparisons between their movement and ours. He claimed that both had substituted the message of the movement for the message of Christ. Sadly, I had to agree in both cases. The mainline church has generally preached about doctrinal correctness within their movement, and we have preached about our successes within ours. Without doubt, our preaching and teaching have been far too much about the movement and man’s accomplishments, and even responsibilities, and far too little about God and what he has done. Therefore, we must have more of a God focus and a Bible focus, delivered with more of an expository approach generally.
I do think it is highly important to say that we still need challenge, not just being made to feel good no matter what. The strength and honesty of the preaching and teaching that I heard in the earlier days of the movement were a big part of what attracted me in the first place. Those preaching were obviously serious about serving God and carrying out his mission on the earth. Paul’s inspired directions to the preachers of his day are unmistakable along these lines. Read carefully the following passages:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work–which is by faith (1 Timothy 1:3-4).
Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching (1 Timothy 4:11-13).
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life (1 Timothy 6:17-19).
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. [4] They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry (2 Timothy 4:1-5).
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you (Titus 2:15).
It has been said, with a bit of humor, that the preacher’s job is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable! Whatever else may be said, we need more and better teaching – which calls for a better exposition of Scripture, a clearer focus on God, and the challenges that keep our hearts set on God and his will for our individual lives. We are looking for ways to better meet these needs, and we welcome your suggestions as we are thinking and planning the teaching diet of the church.
What About the Need For Leaders and Leadership?
We need leaders and leadership in the church, as does any organization on earth. Our families certainly need leadership, and this being true, it is logical that God’s family does also. However, the history of our movement has some glaring weaknesses in how our leadership has functioned. These weaknesses prompted the writing of a book entitled “Golden Rule Leadership,” by me and Wyndham Shaw, a fellow elder and friend during our years in Boston. An authoritarian manner and a hierarchical structure too often defined what we thought leadership should be. To many of us who were leaders, our structure seemed to have more in common with a military organization than a family. Another of the panelists from the mainline church commented about his early experiences in the campus ministry movement, stating that most of our young leaders seemed to be too anxious to become leaders and too anxious to correct others – including other leaders.
Although I did explain to this panelist that in a fast growing ministry, new leaders had to be raised up quickly, I essentially agreed with his assessment. I do think we have glorified the idea of becoming leaders, and have too often appointed leaders whose worldly talents outdistanced their spirituality. The idea of appointing leaders with natural gifts and then trying to make them spiritual is an idea that has failed time and time again, leaving a wake of negative consequences behind. If our greatest ambition was to imitate Christ, we would have no shortage of leaders or of those exercising any other spiritual gifts. All such gifts are from God, and leadership gifts are just one category. Why exalt those gifts to the point of making those with other equally important gifts feel like second class citizens? There are no second class citizens in God’s kingdom, for we are all sinners on level ground at the foot of the cross.
Having said that, I hasten to say that we still need leadership in the church, and strong leadership at that. By strong leadership, I do not mean harsh or prideful leadership. I do mean that we need leaders who lead by example and call others to follow that example. The passages quoted above clearly indicate that leaders in the church must be decisive leaders who call God’s people to obey his teaching and commands. As leaders, they have both the authority and the responsibility to do so. Two verses that bring these principles into sharp focus are found in Hebrews 13.
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7).
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 literal translation of the last verse carries the idea of “being persuaded” by leaders. This means two things: leaders are in the business of persuading with the Scriptures, not simply commanding; and, followers must have the heart of wanting to be persuaded. Is that your heart?
In recent weeks, we have talked about the need for leadership to be of the Golden Rule type, to be carried out in a team leadership style. We want more inclusion and input from all quarters to insure that we really understand the needs of the church. Please help us lead in this way by keeping the communication flowing between those leading and those being led. Those of us who are leading are grateful for the opportunity to help others spiritually by exercising our gifts, and the purpose of our leading is in large part helping you to develop and exercise your gifts. When this is being done, the Body of Christ is truly reflecting him to the world and to one another.
What About Commitment?
In past years, I recall others calling us the “Total Commitment Movement” because of our emphasis on being sold out for Christ. This concept is a good one generally, although we went to some unfortunate extremes in trying to carry it out. Matthew 6:33, which reads, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well,” was often misapplied. “Seeking first the kingdom” was interpreted in ways that defied both common sense and Scripture. Interestingly, one of the panelists from the mainline church made an intriguing comment about the concept of total commitment. He said that this terminology put too much emphasis on man and his work, and not enough on God’s part in our life. He said that we should think of being “totally captured” rather than “totally committed.” I see his point, and I like the sound of what he was saying. In my human weakness, my commitment is often lacking, but thinking of being totally captured by the love and grace of God provides me with a much higher motivation, and will likely result in a more consistent commitment.
Regardless of our terminology, the Bible leaves no doubt that our lives must be centered on God and on serving him and his Cause. Luke 14:25-33 has long been one of the most convicting passages in the Bible to me.
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: [26] “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. [27] And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
[28] “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? [29] For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, [30] saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’
[31] “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? [32] If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. [33] In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
No one can read this passage and come away with the idea that following Christ is anything less than being totally dedicated to him and to his will for our lives.
One of my biggest concerns for us at this point in our history is associated with what many are viewing as a newfound freedom. Certainly freedom in Christ is wholly biblical, properly understood. But many are not properly understanding it. As with all biblical subjects, one verse cannot be set against others that would contradict it – all passages that relate to the subject must be harmonized. Surely as free moral agents by right of creation, we have the freedom to make choices. However, the choices can be wrong ones or right ones, depending on how they square with Scripture. Freedom in Christ includes the concepts of self denial and servanthood, as the following passages demonstrate:
Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).
I’m afraid that many of us are seeing freedom as a license to be self indulgent rather than spiritual. We are fast becoming “pickers and choosers” in what we do for God, as seen in our participation in the activities of the church. It is more difficult to get people to serve in settings such as in children’s ministry than ever before. The price that we and our families are paying for this uncommitted attitude is higher than we imagine.
Let me recount some experiences that may be helpful to you. My last ministry in a traditional type church years ago taught me some valuable, but painful, lessons. I had met up with discipling type churches and was trying to put into practice the things that I was learning from them about evangelism and discipling. I started leading Bible talks on two nearby military bases, with some very gratifying results. A number of people were studied with and baptized into Christ. Their experience with the church was not so gratifying. They came in with much zeal and commitment, but were hurt by what they saw in the church generally. We had an exciting Sunday morning worship assembly, but at our Sunday night assembly (the custom in those churches), the attendance was about half of the morning attendance. Midweek attendance was perhaps one-third of the Sunday morning attendance. New converts were so turned off by the lack of dedication of the “pickers and choosers” that a number of them fell away – disillusioned by the difference in what they read about in the Bible and saw in the church.
Another sad part of this experience was in seeing the children of members grow up and reject what they had been taught. Children are not blind to our hypocrisy in claiming to be disciples of Jesus, while not living according to his standards. We parents may put on a good Sunday face, but our children know where our hearts and priorities really are. Children who grow up with their own commitment to Christ are most often those who first see it in their parents, and those whose parents use “Christian freedom” as an excuse to live uncommitted lives seldom stay with the church as adults. Praise God for freedom, but let’s make sure that we are exercising his brand of freedom. “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13).
What About Discipling?
Discipling– now there is a loaded term! Can we still use it? No doubt many will have a negative emotional response to hearing the term, given the abuses that fell under the heading of discipling. What were those abuses? Primarily, an over/under authoritarian approach, in which one disciple sometimes exercised worldly authority over another. Some thought that the discipler was almost “God inspired” to give the right advice in about any area of life. (What a mess that was!) Others felt that the “assigning” of discipleship partners was also wrong, with no regard to anyone’s feelings or opportunity given for input into the process. Some wondered if their assigned discipleship partner was really their friend or only an assignment. Personally, I never struggled with that concept. I saw any new “DP” as a potential new close friend, and strove to make them become that. By and large, my experiences were very positive and I’m grateful for all of those relationships. But make no mistake about it, discipling as we practiced it was often hurtful due to the authoritarian approach often employed.
However, is discipling wrong or only the erroneous practices associated with it? I think that discipling properly understood and lived out is simply “one another” Christianity in practice. The number of verses in the New Testament calling for us to be in each other’s lives is amazing. Surely we are our brothers’ keepers! Outside our fellowship of churches, I have never seen many of these passages actually put into practice. Just look at the following verses and ask how these admonitions can be carried out without some form of discipling:
I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another (Romans 15:14).
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).
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).
See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness (Hebrews 3:12-13).
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24).
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective (James 5:16).
When I first saw the discipling movement in an up close and personal way, I was struck that all of the churches of which I had been a part were missing a vital ingredient in Christianity. One of my sermons back then, delivered in a traditional church, was entitled “The Missing Ingredient.” The benefits of discipling in my life and in that of my family are unmistakable. My marriage, my family, my walk with Christ would not be nearly the same without the discipling help received. Were there some abuses in our discipling? Sure. But there were more pluses than minuses by far, at least in our case, and I suspect that this is true for the large majority of us in the church. Is this not another example of a right thing sometimes done in wrong ways? Let’s change the wrong ways, but hold on to a right and vitally needed thing.
Early last year, as discipling began to be called into question and the structures forsaken, I began giving two pieces of advice: one, seek out discipling help no matter what happens to the structure; and two, take responsibility for helping others when you see things in their lives that need attention. I think that now we can reintroduce some structure that can help us carry out Jesus’ teaching for his family. Our small group ministries can function as a discipleship group, and beyond that, we can voluntarily pair off as prayer partners within those groups – spiritual peers to help one another. Any “over/under” type arrangement should be reserved for mentoring type relationships for younger Christians and for younger ministry staff members in training, and even then, it is a “more mature/less mature” mentoring arrangement without any semblance of authoritarianism included. Let’s practice the best of what can still be called discipling, being real spiritual friends with one another, confessing our sins, praying for each other, and giving biblical advice to one another. We need each other – now more than ever.
What About Evangelism?
Again, we are discussing a very right practice, but often practiced poorly in the past. Wrong ways of doing a right thing would include a focus on statistics for the purpose of being “successful,” thereby comparing well to other people or churches; oppressive accountability that made what should have been privilege and opportunity seem like mere duty; and fear of losing our relationship with God by not being “fruitful” or not fruitful enough. Who of us has not had our guilt mechanism kick into full gear when reminded of our failure to be “fruitful” in a given calendar year? (Where is that concept in the Bible, by the way?) Due to the pressures we felt to evangelize, what should have been our joy ended up too often being just another burden, accompanied by a fear of failure.
Anyone acquainted with the life of Jesus knows that his love for the lost was the driving passion behind just about everything he did. As Luke 19:10 puts it, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” If we have his heart for God, we will also have his heart for the mission of saving souls. His love and concern for lost people came through in many, many ways, not the least of which was the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20. He shared this with his disciples on the verge of leaving them, which is significant, since we share what is most important to us when leaving those whom we love. Jesus’ heart for the lost was passed on to those disciples, who went everywhere preaching the Word until the known world of that day had heard the gospel of Jesus.
Looking ahead, how are we to do this right thing in right ways? One, we need to share our faith in Jesus, not simply invite people to church. Two, we need to see evangelism as a lifestyle, instead of an occasional activity. Hence, it should be what we are, not simply what we do. Three, we should focus on the process, not on the results. We plant and water, while God makes it grow (1 Corinthians 3:6-8). Any accountability we have should about sowing and sharing, not about successful results in numerical terms – that’s God’s part in the process. If we don’t view it in this way, we end up taking credit for results, thus robbing God of his glory. It is fine to report what God has accomplished through us, but it must be done in a way that takes the focus off of our feeble efforts and places it on his magnificent grace.
Four, we just need to pray for God to put his heart for the lost in each of us. I remember standing beside my son’s bed when he was a baby and being emotionally hit by the thought that he would grow into a man and one day meet God. That thought motivated me to want to be the best dad possible and to raise my children to know and love God. Let’s pray that God would help us to feel that same urgency toward all of his children who are yet unsaved.
What About Our Study Series?
The study series we have often used, called the First Principles Studies, has some pluses and some minuses. On the positive side, having a set group of studies designed to teach persons what to do to enter a saved relationship with God is a good idea. I have taught our study series countless times, and baptized many people after going through the studies with them. For newer disciples, having such a series available gives them an immediate track to get on in teaching their friends about Jesus’ plan for their lives. It also insures that those being studied with are taught the basics in a systematic way. In the absence of some sort of series, each of us would no doubt end up designing one on our own. The effectiveness of what we designed would be totally dependent on each person’s overall understanding of the gospel and knowledge of the Bible, which would result in only knowledgeable disciples having the confidence to study with others. This would further promote one of our movement weaknesses – a distinction between the “clergy” and “laity.” Having a well-developed study series that is relatively uncomplicated to learn and teach puts us all much more on level ground.
Having said that, I think our present series has some serious weaknesses in it. Overall, it is too focused on man and his response (performance), and not enough on God’s provisions of grace. That would especially be true of the discipleship study. It has often been used as one of the first studies, with the evident purpose being to convince people that they are not saved, which does put the focus on man’s performance rather than God’s love for them. That, in my opinion, is a poor place to begin. Further, I think the Kingdom study, if used at all, needs some serious re-working. In general, I think our studies must focus more on God and his crucified Son as motivation for man’s response. Some of the studies I will continue to use much as they are, and others I would want to see eliminated or changed. Additional studies could be added to the series and used on a needs basis.
Actually, that leads us to a good discussion point – how the studies are used. If we see them as the only way to lead someone to Jesus, we have once again made a law out of a guideline, a requirement out of a recommendation. I have taught straight through the series many times, and I have varied the series by going in a different order and/or by adding other studies, depending on the knowledge, background and needs of the person with whom I was studying. My own preference would be to have a new or revised series, with additional studies available for use when needed. From there, training would be important as we learn which studies might be most appropriate in which situations. But under no circumstances would I want anyone to feel slavishly bound to teach the series in a particular way. Learning to think biblically and practically is our greater need, and simplicity is a good guide in doing that. Becoming a Christian is not nearly as complicated as we have sometimes made it.
What About Missions?
When a church growth expert started calling our movement the “International Church of Christ,” it was because of our emphasis and effectiveness in mission work. The “Six Year Plan” to plant a church in every nation that had at least one city with a population of 100,000 or more was quite a plan. No one could claim that we were not taking the Great Commission seriously. That emphasis prompted the raising of millions of dollars and the sending out of nearly 200 mission teams to plant churches. The goal was a great one, and through it much good was accomplished. However, it stretched us as a movement almost to the breaking point in many places. The Boston church alone planted 53 churches, which took its toll. Overall, some leaders were sent out who were unprepared – which hurt them, the ones they led and the mission they had in the first place. All in all, our mission focus has been much more a blessing than a curse.
When any church or group of churches loses its mission emphasis, it will lose other elements of spirituality as well. I remember reading some startling statistics years ago about missions in the group of churches of which I once was a part. According to the article in one of their publications, that group had 800 mission units (either a couple or a single was defined as a unit) outside the borders of the United States doing mission work in 1975. As a result of losing their mission focus, the number of mission units dropped to less than 200 in the year 1990, according to the article. My experience with a number of individual congregations left me with the clear impression and conviction that their overall evangelistic zeal at home diminished at almost the same rate. None of us can have a zeal to save the lost at home without having that same zeal for the lost in other places. The concepts are tied together and will not exist for long if separated. Therefore, a continuing missions emphasis is vital to our being and remaining the church of Jesus.
One very good reason for continuing our missions focus is that we have helped plant churches that cannot survive without our support. To let them die is tantamount to bringing children into the world and not caring for them. Our support structure of a movement organization (the ICOC) and World Sectors is no longer functional. Therefore, we must figure out ways to cooperate with other larger churches in helping out the mission churches. We may not have the same organizational setup we had in the past, but we must develop some kind of organizational cooperation if our present mission plantings are to be sustained. As we do continue to send money and personnel for missions, it is imperative that we share the exact details of how the money is being spent. Past failures in this area cannot be repeated. Neither can we allow past failures to lead us into present failures of failing to support existing missions and to once again expand into new areas that are crying out to be evangelized. Matthew 28 still reads the same regarding this responsibility and privilege.
What About Financial Giving and Tithing?
Financial giving and tithing are not necessarily the same thing. Giving is certainly taught in both Old and New Testaments, and no wonder – God is a giver and to become like him, we must be too. The concept of tithing, the giving of a tenth of one’s income, is primarily an OT requirement. However, tithing is not limited to the Mosiac Law. If you go back to Abraham’s day, five hundred years before the Law of Moses was given, you will find Abraham giving a tithe to God (Genesis 14:20). Although the tithe was not a law requirement until centuries later, somehow tithing was a part of Abraham’s service to his God.
I have never thought of tithing as a Christian requirement, but I have tithed for years (almost always gone beyond that amount), and intend to continue doing so. To me, it is a matter of dedicating my “firstfruits” to God, a specified amount that goes to him no matter what, rather than giving him my “leftovers.” Tithing is something that puts us all on equal ground in one sense, no matter what the actual amount given. Therefore, while I will not attempt to bind this type giving on other Christians, I still plan to give this much, and more, of my firstfruits to God. You will have to figure out what you are going to do regarding giving and then do it. But as for me and my house, we have a plan that is biblically and practically recommendable. As I heard once, I think we will do better financially with 90% of our money and God’s blessing than 100% of it without his blessing. Of course, I am not saying that God will bless one thing and not another, for I’m sure he looks at many factors about our giving. The study of the widow’s giving in Luke 21:1-4 shows that God is not only very interested in what we give, but even more interested in what we have left after giving.
As a young married man, I heard some teaching about money and giving that has continued to influence my thinking and practices. In Matthew 6:21, Jesus said: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” I used to view the teaching of this verse in reverse – where your heart is, there your treasure will be also. It seemed logical to think of it in that way, for if your heart is in something, you will also put your money there. However, the verse says that if you put your money into something, your heart will follow. Jesus always looks at things differently than we tend to see them. Most people who have cut back their giving in the past year have either left the church or will end up leaving unless they begin giving their money again. Isn’t that exactly what Matthew 6:21 teaches, that the heart will follow the use of money? Then a few verses later, Jesus says: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (Matthew 6:24). Materialism is an insidious disease, and one that I am afraid of in my own life. The cure for this malady is multifaceted, but the starting place is consistent, sacrificial giving.
Before ending this section, I do want to express my appreciation for your response as a church to the financial appeals I and others have made this year. Our giving has increased sufficiently to avoid further layoffs of staff and the reduction of other expenses that would have hurt the church. As I have said repeatedly, I believe that our financial challenges are short term challenges, and that God is going to bless us greatly in the long term as a church. With our increased giving, the short term needs can be met while our health as a congregation continues to improve, and improve rapidly. Of course, our giving is ultimately not simply to meet budgetary needs, but to honor our God for who he is and for what he continues to do with us and through us. Let’s keep our primary motivation for giving focused on him.
What About the ICOC and Our Unity?
This question has been asked many times in one way or another. Well, are we still a part of the ICOC or not? The answer is yes…and no. There is no ICOC organizational structure that ties our churches together. Los Angeles nor San Diego will ever dictate directions or policies for the Phoenix Valley church again. Those days are over. Actually, the lack of a central organization has both pluses and minuses. The former outweigh the latter, for sure, but we do lose some things such as lower insurance costs and a simple means of cooperating financially to help mission churches.
The real challenge with our changes is how to remain unified with sister congregations and to figure out how to work together in missions. I think this concern is shared by almost all of us. Isolationism as congregations is not a desirable option. Last fall, the Dallas church hosted a unity leadership meeting, which went very well. All leaders were welcome, whether on the ministry staff or not, and no decisions were made nor suggested for the movement. Decisions are going to be left in the hands of local church leadership rather than made via some kind of central organization, for there is no such organization in place. But we do want to have fellowship with one another and learn from one another. Another leadership meeting is planned for the fall in Chicago, and many others on smaller scales are occurring and will occur. We want to be a united movement, but one united by choice and with the freedom to decide our own directions as individual congregations. Mature unity is a forged unity rather than a dictated one, and we are in the process of forging at present – a noble endeavor for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-23).
What About Our Exclusivist Attitudes As A Church?
Here we are talking about how we view other churches – are we too narrow? Many apologies by church leadership groups in the past year have included admissions of being too exclusivist and self righteous. A recent statement by a ministry friend put it well: “In my opinion, our movement became so consumed with our ‘distinctiveness’ and defining ourselves as different (which often meant ‘better’) than other groups that much of our eventual troubles came as a result of those very peculiarities.” If our biblical teaching results in others viewing us as narrow, that’s one thing, but if prideful, competitive comparisons result in the same, that is an entirely different matter. Our task it not to outdistance other groups in performance; it is to honor God by loving him, following his teaching and doing his will. Period.
It seems to me that we need to avoid two extremes in being judgmental. One is to decide for God who is ultimately going to be lost. He is the Judge and not us. If some are in heaven that I didn’t expect to be there, Amen – praise Jesus! The other extreme is to decide for God who is ultimately going to be saved, and to be so broadminded in that judgment that we go beyond Scripture. All I know for sure is what God said in his Book, and I am going to try and get everyone to do what it says (including me), while leaving the final judgment up to him. Surely that cannot be an erroneous approach. Bottom line, I intend to continue to teach the Bible as I now understand it, keep studying it with an open mind, and reserve the right for God to judge us all.
Conclusion
Obviously, the ten topics discussed briefly are not an exhaustive list of important and relevant topics, but are some of the main things that made us who we were in the past. God has allowed us as a movement to accomplish some pretty amazing things, in spite of our systemic sins. Now he is calling us to repent of the sins of our youth as a movement and mature spiritually. As I will continue to state, we have done many right things in many wrong ways. For the sake of God and a lost world, let’s not stop doing the right things. Let’s just repent of doing them in wrong ways. I can’t live with the wrong ways any longer, but neither can I live with becoming a traditional, lukewarm fellowship. The question before you is what you believe about these matters and what you can live with. Those are the questions with which you must now wrestle. I commend you to that noble task, with the Bible in your hand and prayers in your heart. May God help us all to reach his conclusions!
—Gordon Ferguson (March 2004)
Introduction
This article represents the findings of a study conducted a group of Bible teachers in the ICOC fellowship of churches. The group was called at that time, “Kingdom Teachers.” It consisted of the following members: Steve Kinnard, Douglas Jacoby, Marty Wooten, Sam Laing, Andy Fleming and Gordon Ferguson. We were asked to study this challenging subject and present something of a position paper, The study lasted about two years and was finished and published in February 2001. Although it was something of a position paper, it was no more than the best thinking of the group working together in collaboration. Each church leadership had to decide what they agreed with and disagreed with, and further, how to apply the conclusions in their own situations (or not). Another more recent study has been done by our “Teacher Service Team,” and since I (Gordon) am no longer a part of that team, I will seek a copy of that paper and post it on this website.
Introductory Matters
The issues regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage do not appear as broad as we teachers thought in the beginning of the study. We reached our conclusions much more quickly and easily than first imagined. Having said this, we recognize fully that this issue is not a simple one, nor should it be addressed lightly. Applying the biblical teaching on divorce/remarriage to the myriad situations people get themselves into is often fraught with difficulties. It is one whose application has become more and more pressing as our growth has included those with divorced backgrounds or in challenging marriages already. As the kingdom has expanded, the complexity of the issues has followed suit. Our mode in this study has been to not only wrestle with the issues, but to reach some unifying conclusions that can be shared with leaders in the movement. Otherwise, we fall into the plight of advising one thing for divorced people in one church and another in a different church.
At least two potentially disunifying factors have been present in the movement in past years. First, our individual religious backgrounds have caused some of us to want to question things more because we have preconceived conclusions. We must learn to deal wisely with difficult issues that are not easy to harmonize, especially those in the more challenging realms of application. It is going to take patience and a willingness to study more deeply to avoid jumping to legislative (and often legalistic) conclusions. Second, a desire for quick resolution can cause us to take lightly something that God takes very seriously. Quick fixes are often appealing, but over time they will come back to haunt us. Doing things God’s way is not normally the easiest way in the short term, but in the long term, it always pays dividends.
Even if people divorce for biblically correct reasons, the damage is there for life, and we cannot take it lightly. Due to the complexity of the issue, having an overview of many passages to get a clearer picture is paramount. This subject is not like that of baptism, where one verse may clearly state the bottom line and others on the subject merely amplify it. To gain a biblical view of divorce and remarriage we will begin with the pertinent OT passages and then proceed to the NT passages that directly shed light on the issues that we are facing today. Our focus will be on societies characterized by monogamous marriages; therefore, the issue of how to deal with polygamy will not fall within the scope of this study.
Any study of marriage, divorce, and remarriage needs to begin with God’s view of divorce, which is stated clearly and succinctly in Malachi 2:16: “‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel.” Here Malachi warns husbands to stay faithful to the wife of their youth. Obviously, this was a problem in their culture. Why stay faithful? Because God hates divorce. Any study of divorce and remarriage must recognize where God stands on the issue: God hates divorce. Since he does not take our vows lightly, neither can we. In Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, we read: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. Do not let your mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the temple messenger, ‘My vow was a mistake.’ Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hands?” Proverbs 2:17 describes the wayward wife as one “who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made before God.” Obviously, marriage vows fall into a realm of utmost seriousness before God.
We must continually keep in front of our people both God’s ideal for marriage and his view of divorce. Church members should not view divorce as an option. In our premarital counseling, we must stress that God hates divorce. As a movement, we have done an exceptional job of helping those married within the church to stay married. We must maintain this high standard.
Old Testament
The revelation of God began with the creation of man, followed quickly by the institution of marriage, since “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). God’s ideal for marriage was clear – one man for one woman for life. Verses can be multiplied to show the exalted view of marriage in the mind of God. In fact, God often used the relationship between husband and wife as the best description of his covenant relationship with his chosen people (Isaiah 54:5-8; Jeremiah 3:14; Hosea 1-3).
Old Testament legislation regarding marriage and divorce shows clearly that God is deadly serious about fidelity in marriage and the sanctity of the marriage covenant. An Israelite man was not allowed to marry certain of his close relatives, a former wife that had since re-married then divorced,[1] or any Gentile women (excluding captives of war).[2] If a newly married woman was found not to be a virgin, she was to be stoned to death,[3] as were a man and a woman who slept together while she was already betrothed to another man (if it happened in the countryside then only the man was killed and the woman was presumed innocent).[4] If a man seduced a virgin who was not pledged to be married, then he had to pay the bride price and marry her (if her father was willing) and could never divorce her.[5] Illegitimate children (born outside of marriage) had to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord.[6]
In spite of the seriousness of the marriage vows, God did allow divorce. The best known OT passage regarding this is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which reads:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, [2] and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, [3] and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, [4] then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Here a man is instructed that if he finds something indecent (‘erwat dabar) about his wife, then he can give her a certificate of divorce (seper keritut). This certificate gave her the right to remarry. The teaching of Jesus helps us understand that God allowed divorce under this legislation because of the hard-heartedness of humanity (Matthew 19:8). Men were leaving their wives and abandoning them without any rights or privileges. This legislation was apparently designed to force the husband to count the cost soberly before divorcing his wife (since he could later not remarry her) and to establish some rights for women in this unjust environment. God loves justice. His heart for his people allowed divorce to be established in the Mosaic code to meet a practical need.
The “indecent” thing found in a wife has been much debated. In Jesus’ day, two schools of thought predominated. One group believed the indecency was immorality and the other believed it to be almost anything displeasing to the husband.[7] Since God hates divorce, it surely could not have been anything trivial. On the other hand, although it must have been directed at something very serious, it seems likely that it was not full-blown immorality, since that was punishable by stoning. Regardless of the exact identification of the indecent behavior, the passage clearly demonstrates that in some situations, something less than God’s ideal was allowed by way of concession.
Therefore, all divorce allowed by God is concessionary in nature which shows that God has both an ideal will (no divorce) and a concessionary will (divorce under certain circumstances). Under God’s concessionary will for marriage also fall both polygamy and concubinage. Regardless of how our sensibilities may be shocked by these OT practices, God did allow them. Polygamy was regulated but not prohibited. Some of God’s most outstanding OT heroes had multiple wives and concubines. Solomon was condemned for marrying foreign wives but not for marrying multiple wives (1 Kings 11:1-6, Nehemiah 13: 26). These observations alone should militate against our becoming too rigid in dealing with marriage, divorce and remarriage in the New Testament, since in the OT period God’s concessionary will was considerably broader than his ideal will.
The contemporary applications of the latitude of God’s concessionary will are not always easy to identify. When the Israelites were called back to God after the Babylonian captivity, those who had married foreign women were required to send the women (and their common offspring) away. This was not called divorce in the passages, and would probably best be described as annulment (Ezra 9-10). A period of time was allowed during which unlawful relationships were identified and repentance effected. Nehemiah, on the other hand, although he rebuked the erring Israelites, apparently did not require them to divorce. The different approaches of these contemporaries, Ezra and Nehemiah, along with the “grace period” allowed by Ezra, are factors to take into account as we lead the people of God into a fuller appreciation of God’s position on divorce and remarriage. Rigidity and dogmatism are unsavory qualities generally, but they are especially dangerous when trying to discern appropriate practical applications in sensitive areas.
New Testament
The primary NT passages regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage are the following: Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; and 1 Corinthians 7.[8] In order to compare the Synoptic accounts, they are included at this point, beginning with the simpler passages in Mark and Luke.
[2] Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” [3] “What did Moses command you?” he replied. [4] They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” [5] “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. [6] “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ [7] ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [8] and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. [9] Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” [10] When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. [11] He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. [12] And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:2-12). “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).
In Mark’s account, we see that a man or woman who divorces their mate and marries another commits adultery (against her, in the case of the man divorcing his wife). The presupposition is that they are divorcing for the express purpose of remarrying, since divorce is allowed by concession in some situations, as is remarriage. Luke adds that the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. What was Jesus dealing with? He was addressing legalistic, hard-hearted people who went by the letter of the law and not by its spirit. These are people who had lost the meaning of the heart of God’s law and had turned it into rules and regulations. Taking the marriage vows lightly was never acceptable to God. Hence, these accounts state unequivocally the ideal divine marriage law with no exceptions noted. Now consider the accounts in Matthew that seem to include exceptions (highlighted in the passages below) of a concessionary nature.
[ 31] “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ [32] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32).
[3] Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” [4] “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ [5] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” [7] “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” [8] Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. [9] I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” [10] The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” [11] Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. [12] For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” (Matthew 19:3-12).
The question naturally arises about why these exceptions are included in Matthew (i.e. 5:31, 19:9) and not in Mark or Luke. First, we must remember the principle that all relevant passages on a given subject have to be studied, not just isolated ones. Especially is this principle true when some passages on a topic are general in nature while related ones contain detailed specifics. For example, the biblical doctrine of salvation stated in John 3:16 is absolutely true, but can be easily misunderstood unless we consider other more detailed passages which elaborate on the need for repentance and baptism.
Perhaps more significantly, we cannot leave out an important part of determining doctrine in the early church as well as providing practical direction to the early disciples – the revelatory ministry of the Spirit. It is clear that the gradual formation of the canon would have left many theological and practical gaps in many parts of the early church. For instance, the early church functioned a considerable amount of time without the benefit of Paul’s writing on the important distinction between faith and works. Yet, there was still the expectation to be faithful disciples and to live by faith and not by works.
During the time the canon was being written, the Spirit was actively communicating through unrecorded prophecy and revelation, filling in the theological and doctrinal gaps. It would take some time before the canon would have been sufficiently completed to clear up any doctrinal misunderstandings. As applied to the issue of divorce and remarriage, since there is one Spirit, we can trust there is one teaching on divorce which the Spirit made known through his prophets and inspired people during those times of confusion. The Scriptures that appear somewhat contradictory to us would assumedly have been clearer to the early writers in that the necessary assumptions surrounding those passages for a conciliatory understanding were intact as the Spirit revealed the necessary information in all the churches.
The simplest answer for us today regarding the “exception passages” in Matthew is that Matthew recognized a growing problem in the church over the divorce issue and included it in his gospel to expand and explain what Mark and Luke stated more generally. Similar examples can be found involving other biblical subjects, and were it not for the controversial nature of this issue, we would likely not even feel the need to take the time to explain the principle in any detail.
Matthew Examined More Closely
Jesus was always more concerned with the effect of our behavior on our relationship with God and with other people than with legal perfection. When a man divorced his wife he thereby placed her in a difficult and hard position in the world (women of that day did not have the employment opportunities available in today’s society) and virtually forced her to re-marry to protect herself. To Jesus, this was a great offense. The wording of Matthew 5:31-32 seems to indicate that his words are more condemning of the man’s actions in placing his divorced wife in the situation of compromise then they are of the woman for re-marrying. However, he makes it clear that she sins when she re-marries.
Many religious folk have exhibited a strong tendency to force Matthew’s apparent exceptions to be aligned with Mark’s and Luke’s lack of exceptions rather than vice versa. In other words, they are uncomfortable with accepting any divorce and remarriage. A similar tack is taken regarding 1 Corinthians 7:15, which appears to allow divorce and remarriage when an unbelieving mate deserts one who is a disciple. Even if this most rigid position is avoided, the issue of whether a “guilty party” can remarry ushers in even a greater challenge. There are a couple of factors that likely have contributed to this emotional reaction against allowing divorce and remarriage of the guilty party for sexual unfaithfulness. First, there is the concern that such an option promotes a strong temptation to engage in adultery for the purpose of getting out of a less-than-ideal marriage relationship, and secondly, a failure to regard marital unfaithfulness as a sin from which someone can truly repent and be trusted enough to remarry.
Those so inclined would allow someone to remarry who murdered his wife and repented, but someone who commits adultery may not be offered the same opportunity. If this track is followed, once a person is “put away” for the sin of immorality, no hope is offered of overcoming the sins that led to the adultery to the point of entering another marriage relationship. Some have justified this position by maintaining that the consequences for sin are sometimes great, yet with no solid biblical evidence for such an extreme position, the consequences for imposing such a position on God’s people would seem even more consequential and discouraging. If the guilty party cannot remarry, it cannot be that the guilty party is still joined to the now divorced partner. When the union is broken for one, it is broken for the other. Therefore, if the guilty party does not have the right of remarriage also, it must be because penance in the form of lifetime celibacy is demanded.
There are two circumstances that allow a divorce and remarriage to take place: 1) marital unfaithfulness (porneia) which, from the definition of the Greek word, would include sex with another person, and 2) desertion by a non-Christian spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15). In the latter case, a strong implication that the deserting spouse would inevitably be involved with other relationships is reasonable but not stated. Jesus addresses the situation of his day by telling the men within his community that there is only one reason (parektos logou – “except for the reason/word/matter”) for divorce. The sole reason to give a certificate of divorce is porneia, meaning sexual unfaithfulness. To divorce her for any other reason is to make the divorced woman an adulteress. Because of the socio-economic situation of first century Palestine, the woman would be forced to find another husband to support her. Since she was divorced illegitimately, she would become an adulteress and anyone who married her would become an adulterer.
Another example of Jesus’ teaching in this area is found in John 8: 1-11, the well-known story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not enforce upon the woman the teachings of Deuteronomy 22:22-24; instead he dealt with the hypocrisy, hard heartedness and self-righteousness of her accusers. Instead of the prescribed stoning, he admonished the adulterous woman to leave her life of sin. A study of Jesus’ teachings and their emphases will reveal a pattern: he stands against legalism, harshness and binding burdens on people that hinder them from entering the kingdom of heaven; he upholds justice, mercy and right relationship.
For most sins, repentance means something like this: “What I did was wrong; I wish I had never done it; if I had it all to do over, I would not have done it; and I will never do it again in the future.” Even if one committed a sin like murder, he would have no further recourse but to honestly repent, and we would then have to accept such a person back into our fellowship. Our best approach with some divorces and remarriages that are difficult to sort out should probably follow the same reasoning. Since those who come into the kingdom with remarriages after a divorce (or divorces!) not based on scriptural grounds are accepted as they are, then those who as disciples sin by unscriptural divorces and remarriages and who later repent of this should be accepted “as they are” as well. Since we do not demand a change in the marital status of those coming into the kingdom with unscriptural divorces and remarriages, how can we fail to follow the same logic with, and extend the same mercy to, disciples who sin in this same way and later repent? This may be unsettling to us, but can we do otherwise and be consistent? Some cases become so tangled that leaders can do no more than point out the appropriate Scriptures, give their best advice and leave ultimate judgment in the hands of God.
1 Corinthians 7 – Preliminary Considerations
Before we proceed to discuss divorce and remarriage, a related teaching of this chapter is both obvious and striking: some people should remain unmarried simply on practical grounds. In our movement, we have often used Genesis 2 to stress the need for marriage to the point that harmonizing Paul’s admonitions here becomes somewhat challenging. In other words, we have been reluctant to encourage permanent singleness in the way that Paul did. We have tended to make people feel guilty (subtly and unintentionally) for not getting married. We very much need to address this issue and remove the stigma of remaining single.
Paul and Barnabas gave up their right to be married in order to serve in the ministry unencumbered (1 Corinthians 9:5). Where are the single evangelists among us who remain single without feeling pressured to marry? Yet no one can question Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:33-34 that “a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world – how he can please his wife – and his interests are divided.” The issue becomes even more significant when we are considering church plantings in dangerous places. Clearly the unmarried evangelist would have a huge advantage over a married one. Considering 1 Corinthians 7:34, it would probably only be fair and reasonable to include that a sister might remain single to better serve “full-time” in some ministry of the church as well.
Purely on practical grounds, many disciples should be advised against remarriage, or at the very least, not be encouraged to remarry. Among this number would be divorcees that come into the kingdom with terrible track records in previous marriages. Another group that should think long and hard before remarrying are those who are divorced and have older children still at home. These disciples hope that an additional parent will help them in raising their children, but they may instead find themselves in the middle of horrendous marital and family strife. When both potential partners are in this situation, entering into a “blended family” status may invite dire consequences. Another category in which marriage might be a very unwise choice would be the case of older singles with personality and character qualities that would make adjustments in marriage very challenging.
Getting married, according to Paul, is not always the ideal. Marriage is neither commanded nor absolutely forbidden. Putting undue pressure on people either way is not biblical or practical. Remaining single may be the wisest choice. On the one hand is the need to be kingdom-focused in a way that marriage does not allow, and on the other hand are the practical issues that make marriage for some downright difficult and perhaps disastrous. Great wisdom is needed in giving advice in this arena. Some do not want to get married but should, while others want to marry who should not. The person’s own conscience is an important factor in deciding whether to marry or remain single, as indicated by Paul’s comments in verse 37: “But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin – this man also does the right thing.” In summary, if we improved our advice regarding contracting marriage in the first place, we would lower the number of seriously dysfunctional marriages among us.
1 Corinthians 7 – Examined More Closely
Now let us begin considering the specific passages in 1 Corinthians 7 relating directly to our subject. In verses 8-16, Paul addresses those in three different marriage categories: the unmarried and widows; marriages in which both partners are disciples; and “mixed” marriages in which one partner is a disciple and one is not. The advice and applications vary in each.
He begins with the unmarried and widows (verses 8-9), who are said to be better off remaining unmarried. However, if they did not have the gift of celibacy, it was better to marry than to burn with passion. This passage cannot be construed to mean that lust is excused for single people, nor can it be used to justify hasty marriages. Further, it cannot be used to excuse breaking up a marriage in which one partner is incapacitated (i.e. poor physical or mental health) or unavailable (in jail, for example). Any of these interpretations would violate many other passages. The setting that lay behind this advice (the “present distress” of verse 26) is mentioned as a practical reason for remaining unmarried. Others have already been mentioned in the introductory comments to this section.
In verses 10-11, the “married” are addressed. A comparison of these verses with those immediately following them will demonstrate that the “married” referred to here are both disciples. (Note also that these verses are commands and not concessions, in contrast to the previous verses, which give the unmarried the right to marry without sinning.) Paul states that he is not giving this command, but the Lord is. When Paul says that the Lord has already spoken to this situation, he must have had in mind the Lord’s teaching recorded in Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18. Therefore, these passages in the gospel accounts must be viewed as covenant legislation (where both marriage partners are in a relationship with God) not universal legislation.
If either spouse leaves, then both disciples must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to one another. Neither disciple is allowed to remarry. While God’s ideal will is here stated clearly (no separation), the very mention of separation shows that God allows this concession as long as no remarriage to other partners takes place. In some rare cases, church leaders might counsel or approve, albeit reluctantly, ongoing separation between two married disciples without church discipline being applied. Paul’s statements have to be harmonized with the exception clause in Matthew 19, but the general application was what evidently was the need of the hour in the Corinthian church. Although the text does not mention other reasons for separation, in certain extreme cases it might be recommended. However, if both spouses were supposedly disciples, any ongoing sin in the life of either disciple in this situation would be dealt with by counseling, and if need be, by church discipline, resulting in repentance or removal from the church. If one disciple was disfellowshipped or fell away, the marriage would then move into the category of a believer married to an unbeliever, which is next discussed.
In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Paul moves on to address those he terms “the rest.” Contextually, it is evident that this marriage is comprised of one disciple and one non-disciple. We would have to assume that one partner became a disciple and the other did not, as is often the case today. This passage should not be regarded as an example of a Christian marrying a non-Christian, because that is ruled out by other passages, including verse 39 in this very chapter. Note that Paul says that he, not the Lord, is speaking to this specific situation. This means that the Lord’s teaching noted above was to be applied to those in the kingdom. Now, however, Paul, as an inspired apostle, is making an application that became necessary as the church was spreading, especially into Gentile culture. In passages like John 14:26 and John 16:12-13, Jesus prepared the apostles for additional revelation they would receive to meet needs that would arise in the future. Obviously, the situation in Corinth constituted such a case.
If the non-Christian is willing to live with the Christian, the Christian must stay in the marriage. It should be noted that the non-believer is willing to live with the disciple as a disciple. In other words, the non-Christian must be willing to allow the Christian spouse to practice his or her Christianity. Obviously, a disciple could apply the definition of “willing” in an unreasonable manner by insisting that absolutely no tension be produced by the religious differences present in the home. Such a position would not only be impractical, but it would also be quite unbiblical. It is important to remember that 1 Peter 3:1-6 is a continuation of the admonition to be submissive in less-than-ideal situations. No disciple can expect an absence of tension when his or her spouse is governed by a very different standard. But they can expect that an unbelieving spouse be “willing” to live with them as they serve Jesus on his terms. Wisdom is vital in attempting to apply biblical principles in difficult situations, necessitating the seeking of much advice from spiritual leaders.
But a highly significant issue in the passage is what it means to no longer be bound (verse 15) – what is the bondage? It would seem clear that the marriage bond is in view, and all of the kingdom teachers agree that this is the case. If the unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer bound, but if the unbeliever is content to live with the believer, the believer is still bound. Many commentators feel compelled to harmonize this passage with the gospel accounts, which would necessitate ruling out the possibility of divorce and remarriage. But Paul himself makes it clear that the situation here being considered is different from the situation and the teaching in the gospel accounts (“The Lord, not I;” “I, not the Lord”). If mere separation were in view, the directions would be the same as for two married disciples as in verses 10-11.
Paul writes in verse 14 that the unbeliever is “sanctified” through the Christian mate. This, of course, does not mean that they are thereby saved – it merely means that God recognizes the marriage as valid and they can remain in it. If it were not thus recognized, then the children born into it would be “unclean” (illegitimate). Since Paul was answering the questions about marriage raised by the Corinthians (verse 1), they evidently were wondering if a Christian/non-Christian marriage was acceptable to God as a lawful relationship. Here Paul says “yes.” Perhaps they mistakenly applied a teaching like that found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 to the marriage bond itself.
Verse 16 most likely is saying that the Christian should accept the departure of their mate and the subsequent divorce it will bring, rather than try to hang on to a lost cause in the hopes of saving the mate. If the unbeliever leaves, they are demonstrating their lack of openness to the gospel by the very act of leaving. The breakup of a marriage is always tragic and the Christian should always do everything within reason to avoid a breakup. A disciple must focus on the principles of 1 Peter 3 in seeking the most righteous solutions, not on trying to justify getting out of a marriage. Exhibiting an arrogant attitude violates both 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3. If we are doing all we can to make the marriage work and the unbeliever leaves anyway, so be it, but our conscience must remain clear.
A question regarding the identity of the unbeliever naturally arises when a disciple falls away. Does such an apostate qualify as an unbeliever in this context? Yes, they do. One who falls away can certainly be prone to become a persecutor of their mate, and desertion is not uncommon for such a person. In the case of a believer who leaves the church under any circumstances, we will have to strive to maintain gracious attitudes toward them if they decide to return after messing up their life considerably, including by marrying again. What if they are single when they are restored, but their former spouse is remarried already? Can the restored disciple now be allowed to marry another disciple in the church? This issue may be a thorny one, but the righteous approach is to allow this person a new beginning. If they leave the kingdom and later get restored, they return under the same status they entered originally – with a clean slate.
Conclusions
No other human relationship is like that of marriage, for it pictures the relationship between Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Both relationships are a great mystery, deeper than human intelligence can fathom. We must do everything within our power as leaders to preserve the sanctity and permanence of the marriage union. Our constant focus must be to keep marriages together, even if we have to expend much counseling energy over long periods of time. God hates divorce but loves harmony and resolution. If reconciliation between all brothers and sisters in Christ is crucial, reconciliation between estranged marriage partners is even more essential. The tendency to allow unrighteousness in Christian marriage relationships that would not be tolerated in any other kingdom relationships must cease. Leaders must exercise their God-given responsibility to not allow Christians to remain in a state of bitterness, resentment, animosity and conflict. Sin must be dealt with and repented of. In some extreme cases, in keeping with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, separation of spouses might be tolerated as a concession to weakness and immaturity. Certainly, leaders would need to exercise much godly wisdom in reaching such decisions.
Marriage or remarriage is not for everyone. In fact, we have much need to build a biblical mind-set about the practical value of remaining single in a number of different situations. As we give advice of this nature, two things must be kept in mind: 1) the need to explain the principles behind the advice in specific detail, and 2) the necessity of realizing that advice is just advice. If Paul as an inspired apostle refused to bind his advice on people, we certainly cannot succumb to viewing our advice as being tantamount to God’s will.
We must always strive to strike a balance between being more legislative than God and being more tolerant than he. We cannot bind what he has not bound nor loose what he has not loosed. Being aware of God’s concessionary will in the realm of marriage should cause us to shun legalistic answers to difficult circumstances. For those disciples in the unfortunate position of having divorced (as disciples) without due grounds (adultery), we must have faith that they will be able to survive without remarriage. Reconciliation is the only alternative allowed by Scripture, but God will be with them in that situation (1 Corinthians 10:13). Similarly, dating couples where one partner is divorced from a believer (on any grounds other than adultery) should “break up.”
In brief form, the following observations sum up most of the key issues:
- At conversion, people are accepted in their present marital status.
- Those who leave the fellowship and are restored are also accepted in their present marital status.
- Someone in the church whose spouse has been unfaithful has the right to divorce and remarry since the cause of the divorce was immorality on the part of their mate. Since this sin allows the marriage bond to be broken for the innocent party, the bond is broken for both parties, and hence both can remarry. Each local leadership will need to decide how to deal with the immorality that occurred.
- It is noteworthy that although the leadership of a local church might respond to an isolated act of adultery with no more than a private warning to the one who sinned, the spouse of such a person would be within his/her biblical rights to demand a divorce. Although reconciliation would always be strongly encouraged, the unfaithfulness may be so devastating that the faithful spouse can no longer stay in marriage with the adulterous partner. Divorce should always be considered the last possible resort.
- Disciples should certainly not divorce one another for other causes, but if they do, they must remain unmarried or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
- If a non-Christian mate leaves a disciple, then the disciple is not bound and can divorce the one who departs.
- Any Christian who leaves God is considered an “unbeliever” in light of 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. If the unbelieving spouse deserts the disciple and is no longer willing to live with them, the faithful spouse can then divorce them.
- The need for preventive counseling, including the disciplinary steps of Matthew 18:15-17, should always remain our first and strongest line of defense against divorce.
- Though there are definite Biblical commands and principles regarding divorce and remarriage, we cannot underestimate the need for leaders to pray for wisdom and seek advice in order to properly apply them.
[1] Leviticus 20:14, 17, 21; Deuteronomy 22:30; 24:4.
[2] Deuteronomy 7:3, 21:10-14, Joshua 23:12.
[3] Deuteronomy 22:20.
[4] Deuteronomy 22:23-27.
[5] Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
[6] Deuteronomy 23:2.
[7] In view of these two schools of thought, it is interesting to note how Joseph chose to react to Mary’s apparent adultery:
‘… Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly’ (Matthew 1:18-19).
[8] Romans 7:1-4 addresses marriage and remarriage, but only as an example of the general marriage law for the purpose of illustrating a spiritual principle of being released from law.
The Problem Stated
The problem of why God allows evil to exist is a major hurdle to developing faith in God in the first place. Even after we come to faith, Satan will use this problem to try to trip us during difficult periods in our lives. Years ago, I read a brief but well-reasoned book by Thomas Warren entitled Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? Through the years, I have not found a better book on the subject from the standpoint logic. Eventually I wrote a lesson arranging the basic arguments of that book into sermon form. The material in this chapter is adapted from that sermon, first presented many years ago.
As we consider this issue, keep two things in mind: (1) No matter how much explanation may be given, the ultimate issue will always be faith in the face of all storms of life. (2) While logic and reasoning cannot remove the necessary hurdles which faith must cross, many unnecessary hurdles can be taken away by practical explanations. Failure to remove those in the latter category would be a serious mistake.
Without question, one of the most challenging hindrances to believing in and trusting God hinges on the question of why he allows bad things to happen to good people, as we often phrase it. The average person would pose his question something like this: “Why does God allow disease, starvation, natural calamities, and such atrocities as war, murder, rape and the abuse of children?” The agnostic would frame his concerns more in this manner: “If God wills evil, he is not good. If God does not will evil, but it occurs anyway, then he is not all-powerful. Therefore, since evil exists, God must be deficient either in goodness or in power.” The atheist would state his case even more strongly: “A good, all-powerful Being would eliminate evil completely. But, evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist!”
Definition of Key Terms
Before we proceed, a definition of basic terms is needed. The definitions of good and evil are vital. The only true evil is what is called “sin” in the Bible, for it violates our relationship with God and with our fellowman. Conversely, the only true good is biblical “righteousness,” depicting something which is always good, and which promotes our relationship with God and others. What we might call “instrumental evil” is something which leads men toward the ultimate wrong (sin). The things in this category can be either stumbling blocks or stepping stones, but they are not inherently evil. What we might call “instrumental good” is that which leads one toward the intrinsic good.
Thus, the same incident could be instrumentally good or bad, depending on how someone viewed it and responded to it. Sickness would be a good example of something that could be a blessing or a curse. A health problem might cause one to curse God or turn to God, depending on the heart of the person with the problem. Actually, pain itself is not necessarily evil. It may be only the symptom of a health problem, motivating a person to get needed attention, or it may be the necessary result of having obtained life-saving surgery.
The definition of some attributes of God are necessary to our understanding of the problem of good and evil. When we say God is “omniscient”( all-knowing), we are saying he knows all that is possible to know. For example, he foreknew that man would sin and would need redemption. Therefore, he created a world with that in mind, a world suitable for the spiritual development of man. Our present world was never intended to be a permanent paradise—that is reserved for heaven!
When we say God is“omnipotent” (all-powerful), we are recognizing he can do whatever is possible to be done. However, some things are impossible by definition. For example, can God make a rock too big to pick up, or a square circle? The impression left by that question is that if God had more power, he could. The fact is that some things are not subject to power¾even God’s power! He will do only that which is in harmony with his nature. He will not and cannot lie, for example. Nor will he interfere with the free moral agency of man. To describe God as just is to say that he must reward good and punish evil. Since he created man as a free moral agent, his justice requires that he allow man to make real choices.
One of the keys to understanding the problem of suffering and evil is to understand the definition of man. By God’s design, man is a creature of choice, a free moral agent (and not a robot). Therefore, man can choose to do good or evil, even though God desperately wants him to choose good! God could not make man (by definition) and then refuse him the choices. (He could have made robots without choice, but not man!)
The atheist wants to know why God did not make man incapable of evil, but he is really asking why God made man in the first place (because free will is a part of the definition of man). We desire to have children, even knowing that they will make some hurtful choices. God wanted to bless us through relationships with him and with others, and you cannot have relationships if you are a robot—it’s an issue of choice.
Another vital definition is that of our physical world. We must remember the purposes for its creation. It was designed as the ideal environment for spiritual purposes. Some of the necessary characteristics of such a world would include the following:
1. It would not just afford pleasure without responsibility or adversity (or we would all be spoiled brats!).
2. Man would be allowed the atmosphere in which to freely exercise choices. (Hence, some distance exists between him and God; he needs to see enough evidence of God to know that he is there, but not in a manner that overwhelms and forces decisions).
3. It would be suited to meeting the physical needs of man.
4. It would function in a law-abiding manner in order to teach the relationship of cause and effect.Without this feature, chaos would reign and such values as responsibility and morality could not be taught. For example, an ax is excellent for chopping trees, but it also can be used to chop people. Bricks have excellent qualities for building houses, but they can be used to bash in someone’s head. What can be done about this dual purpose situation? You cannot take away the choice from man, nor can you make the ax have one set of qualities when applied to a tree and another set when applied to a human! Bottom line, we must learn the law of cause and effect: whatever we sow, we reap. And this lesson cannot be learned unless axes always cut, and bricks are always hard!
5. This world would provide challenge for man’s intellectual powers; it would teach him to deal with obstacles.
6. Finally, such a world would need to be temporary, but highly significant with regard to the spiritual choices made in it.
Lessons to Be Learned
A word about the causes of human suffering is in order. True evil (sin) always comes from man’s free choices. God does not want man to make such choices, and he has worked amazingly through the centuries to influence the choices to be righteous ones. One look at Jesus on the cross should be more than enough to make the point! God, however, intends that we view all challenges inherent in our temporary world with faith and respond to them in faith so that he might accomplish his purposes through them.
Things such as illnesses are a part of a temporary world, and may become instrumentally good in helping us to lean on God. Natural calamity reminds us of our frailty and serves to keep us conscious of our need for God. Some, and perhaps most, of these calamities trace back to the changes in the earth’s environment after the Genesis flood—and sin caused the flood (thus indirectly, the changes). Some calamities today relate to what we ourselves have done to pollute and harm our environment, but the fact that we experience natural calamities is consistent with God’s purpose to train us spiritually. They remind us that life is certain (in that it will end) and uncertain (in that the time of its end is unknown).
Next, let’s consider the design of human suffering. God’s allowance of suffering relates directly to his goal of spiritually developing mankind. Most human suffering is brought on directly by the free moral agency of man. For it to have the desired impact on our choices, it must affect us randomly. (If suffering only happened to the unrighteous, the temptation to seek God for wrong reasons would be tremendously strong!)
The benefits of suffering are multiple if we respond to our circumstances with faith in God. Suffering sets the stage for a person to live a life of self-denial, which is the greatest life possible. It affords a person the opportunity to develop his moral character (James 1:2-4; Romans 5:1-5). God can lead people to himself through suffering, either originally or later (if they have left him). It provides for a person’s love to be tested in the best way possible(as in having to choose suffering over sin). Suffering can develop our compassion for our fellowman. It helps a person to better appreciate his love for God and God’s love for him; his love for others and theirs for him. It will help anyone better appreciate the life to come. Finally, suffering influences others to become Christians, because they see our response to suffering to be far different from the responses of unbelievers. A cross borne courageously in our lives is still the drawing card for others (Colossians 1:24).
The proper attitudes to maintain as we face human suffering are based on the possible purposes behind the suffering. As we consider the several alternatives which God may be trying to accomplish in our lives, we learn the appropriate responses of faith. One, God may chasten his children in order to mold them, in which case we humbly submit. Two, we may suffer persecution because we are sons and daughters of God, in which case we rejoice. Three, we may not be able to understand just why we are suffering, in which case we trust. In all things, we look to the cross of Christ and see that God shared in our suffering, experienced it to the full degree and in so doing, showed us the greatest love. Now he calls us to follow him, trusting that our eternal rewards will far outweigh the temporary struggles.
Once we are able to remove the obstacles to faith produced by the problem of pain and suffering, we are in a much better position to see God more clearly.
—Gordon Ferguson (November 1999)
Some days we never forget, for they are indelibly imprinted on our hearts and minds. I remember exactly where I was when I learned of the death of President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago. Such shocking historical events are etched deeply in our memory banks. September 11, 2001 is a date that we will never forget. Besides the horror we felt for those directly involved, these events struck terror into our own hearts as we imagined being there personally, maybe especially in those hijacked airplanes. Flying produces some fear in all of us anyway, and now we have one more fear to cope with.
I remember July 17, 1996, the date that TWA Flight 800 exploded. Upon seeing the news late that evening, the flight number rang a bell with me, and when I ran upstairs to look at tickets in my drawer for upcoming flights, I saw that I was booked on Flight 800 a week or two later. On Monday, September 10, Theresa and I flew into Logan just before midnight, just hours before this unbelievable terrorist attacked happened Tuesday morning. Originally, several of us were scheduled to fly to NYC early Tuesday morning for a meeting, but later re-scheduled the flight Wednesday morning (which flight we obviously never took).
Many people are asking the same question: WHERE WAS GOD ON SEPTEMBER 11? One of our campus students at Suffolk University, Dan Sewell, had a professor who stated: “This proves that God doesn’t exist.” Dan stood up, voiced his opinion to the contrary, and walked out. The professor called attention to an age old dilemma, which is stated in some way similar to this: “If there is a loving, all powerful God, he wouldn’t allow such things to happen. So, if he exists, he is either not loving or not all powerful. Therefore, the best case is that he simply does not exist.”
If we believe the Bible, we believe in the God of the Bible – but the question remains: Where is God in all of this? Why does he allow such things to happen? For starters, we can know that God hates evil and those who cause it. Psalm 11:5 puts it this way: “The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.” However, God obviously allows people to commit evil. Isaiah 45:7 states: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Further, Lamentations 3:38 reads: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”
God has an ideal will as expressed in the Bible (that men would be righteous and not sin); but he also has an allowed will. He allows sin (though he hates it) because of the nature of man. We are free moral agents, not robots. I remember trying to help a woman who had been sexually abused repeatedly by a close relative, horrific acts for which she blamed God for allowing to happen. I tried to help her see that God had, through his Word, begged her relative not to do such vile things. But for God to intervene would have meant his interference with the man’s free will, and that he will not do.
Another related issue regards the reason for our existence on earth. We are here to learn spiritual truths, and the necessity of cause and effect is an essential part of this learning. In a physical sense, the knife that can carve turkey for dinner can wreck havoc when used on another human. In a spiritual sense, going against God’s spiritual principles must have an adverse effect in the lives of those who choose evil. The law of the harvest is one big lesson that we simply must learn – you reap what you sow.
Many times in the OT, God brought punishment on the nations, including his own nation. In describing such punishment, very graphic terms were used by God, including warnings that the people would eat your own babies and see their pregnant women ripped open by invading armies. What we forget God, he will send us some wake-up calls. God may not directly cause such things, but he sees them coming and uses them to bring about repentance – that much is sure. What if only bad things happened to bad people? We would be motivated to serve God our of selfish motives, rather than choosing him in spite of the challenges of so doing.
What is God’s view of America’s retaliation against the terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities of September 11? CNN conducted an online survey a few days after the tragedy, asking people to register their main feeling at the time – either shock, sadness, anger. At that point, the reaction was that about 25% were still in shock, another 25% just sad, and 50% engrossed in anger, desiring retaliation. The Psalms have many passages where David in effect asks God to smite his enemies. “Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked” (Psalm 3:7). However, in harmonizing other Scriptures on the subject, it must be said that the motivation for vengeance must be a surrendered desire for the vindication of God’s righteousness, and not a cry for personal vengeance. Perhaps a good way to state it is that we should want to see justice rather than vengeance.
The words of Psalm 37:7-9 are helpful to me: “Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. [8] Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret–it leads only to evil. [9] For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.” When we look to the New Testament for direction, two passage stand out: Matthew 5:38-48 and Romans 12:17-21. Take the time to read both of them carefully.
I have known people who have been controlled by their vengeful spirit, and appear to be living only to satisfy that vengeance. Without exception, such people are absolutely miserable, and if they live to see their vengeanceful spirit satisfied, they are still not at peace. Jesus’ way is a better way. I remember a woman I knew when we lived in the Northwest whose husband had been killed by a drunk driver, and her child crippled for life. Yet she went to the man in jail who had caused such calamity in her family and persuaded him to study the Bible. She was definitely imitating Jesus on this one.
Romans 13:1-5 teaches that the government has the right to take life in the pursuit of legal justice. The real challenge here is what we think we can or should do as individual disciples. The war question is a big one, but whether we can as disciples be involved or not, the government has the right to take life – that much is sure. What I’m concerned about are our attitudes right now – anger, hatred, and bitterness, even on the part of disciples! However, I do want our society protected, which will require what our government has vowed to do and is now doing in retaliation.
What does God desire that we learn from our current situation? He wants us to be sobered, examine our own lives and get our priorities straight. What if we had been on the airplane? Would we have felt ready to meet our Maker? As we face the future with its uncertainties, we have to get our attitudes straight. In Isaiah 8:13-14, the prophet says: “The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary.” In other words, if we fear God in the right way, we need no longer fear man. Our times are in the Lord’s hands, and “all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:16).
The need for prayer is huge right now, for God definitely wants us to go to him. People directly affected by the events of September 11 need our prayers. Our sister, Lauren Peters, in the New Hampshire Region, lost her dad on United Flight #175. She and her family will need ongoing support and encouragement. When the Memorial Service for him ended, the adjustments were just starting. Prayers for our government officials should be daily (1 Timothy 2:1-4). We need to be in the Bible, gaining the comfort that God offers us (Read Psalm 43). He wants us to get help from others in working through our feelings. The consistent thing that all counselors and psychologists are saying is that people must talk. Fear and stress are causing family tensions and conflicts – we must talk it out and pray it out. We must continue to help our children with their feelings and fears, and we have many resources now available to guide us in meeting this need.
Overall, God wants us to trust him for the bigger picture. He always is working things toward spiritual ends (Romans 8:28). I have been perplexed for years about how God will open up the Mideast to the gospel. Apartheid fell in South Africa; the Berlin Wall in Germany; and the Iron Curtain in the Soviet Union. But only God knows how the walls in the Mideast are going to fall. Prayerfully, the current events in connection with the terrorist attacks on America are a part of the answer.
One thing is certain for God’s people: he wants us to love and serve others. Not only must we love our enemies, we must be careful about assuming who they are! Prejudice and stereotyping is a dangerous thing. All from the Mideast, and all from the Muslim religion, are not in harmony with the radical terrorist extremists, any more than all who claim allegiance to the Christian faith are like the Davidians of Waco. Although we do not agree with the mainline Muslim teaching, it is not responsible for the atrocities of September 11. The Blacks and Hispanics have been exposed to racial stereotyping for years; let’s not widen that unrighteous circle. Keep in mind that a number of Muslims also lost their lives in the recent attacks.
God’s love for people is real, and he wants us to share that with them. I think of all who lost their lives and wonder how many were shared with, and perhaps more poignantly, I wonder how many could have been shared with and were not! As workers in New York City were digging feverishly right after the tragedy, hoping to find one person alive out of the hundreds and thousands dead, I couldn’t help but wonder how hard are we were digging for souls? How many negative results are we willing to endure and keep digging, looking for just one open person? It is time for us to be “blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe” (Philippians 2:15). Let us love one another as disciples of Jesus, appreciating each other and each day as never before. And let us dedicate ourselves to sharing this love with the lost with more zeal than ever.
In thinking back to the events of September 11, I have tried to give you some answers, but answers will never fully satisfy nor will they take away the pain and horror of all that’s happened. I am reminded of what I wrote in the Epilogue of my Victory of Surrender book. I said that some things I may come to understand; some things I may never understand; but the one thing I must understand is that God is a loving God and is in control of all that happens in our world. That has to be our heart in this circumstance – learn what you can and do all you can, while fighting to deepen your trust in God. And to him be the glory!
—Gordon Ferguson (October 2001)
