The Use of Instrumental Music in Worship

Distinct from other groups in the Restoration Movement, mainline Churches of Christ have been known for years for their stand against the use of instruments in accompaniment to spiritual songs. Historically, this position has not been held as a matter of preference or judgment. It has been a stated doctrinal position, and most of the leaders for nearly a century who stated it made it a test of fellowship −a matter of heaven and hell! However, this century-old position is fading fast in this group of churches, but it is not yielding easily. There can be no question that the younger generations in the Mainline Church of Christ are rejecting the prohibitions of using instrumental music in worship. Many in the older generation claim that the younger ones are becoming liberal and are little concerned with the authority of Scripture. Although some among their younger generation likely are becoming less concerned with biblical authority, the reasons for change are not that simplistic.

For example, when I changed my position on this issue, I had not become less concerned with the place of biblical authority and I was definitely not a member of the younger generation. Yet, I became unconvinced by the doctrinal arguments made against the use of instrumental music in worship, although I had made them myself for many years when a part of that group. It is not a matter of indifference when declaring such issues to be matters of absolute faith rather than personal opinions and preferences. Understanding the religion of the Pharisees should help us grasp the sobering fact that binding what God did not bind is just a great a sin as loosing what God did not loose. Legalism and liberalism are both very dangerous ends of the spectrum of using the Bible in wrong ways. Christian freedom extends into many practical areas of the spiritual life, and music in worship is one such area in my studied opinion and subsequent conviction.

Having said that, it is only right to share why my past views of the subject changed. Providing some background of the interpretive viewpoints of the non-instrumental folks is the logical starting place. The key argument against the use of instruments has been the argument on the basis of “silence” in the NT. Only the word “sing” is found there, and no reference is made to “playing.” Therefore, say those using this interpretation, instrumental music is strictly forbidden, and to use it is to go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Another way to describe the reasoning behind forbidding instrumental music involves the alleged principle that a general command or example allows the choice of any specific, while a specific command or example rules out other specifics. One of the oldest and most simple illustrations is one drawn from God’s command to Noah about building the ark prior to the great flood. According to Genesis 6:14, God commanded that the ark be built from gopher wood (cypress in the NIV). Thus, to use any other type of wood in the construction instead of, or in addition to, this type would be going beyond what God said and thus would constitute disobedience. Had he said simply to build the ark from wood, any type or types of wood could have been chosen by Noah, but once a specific was given, that ruled out anything but the type specified.

So goes the argument regarding music in worship. Had God simply said to “make music,” any type of music could be chosen, but since God specified singing (vocal music), this rules out other types of music instead of, or along with, vocal music. If the argument is valid, the use of instrumental music is divinely forbidden. But is this simplistic argument the end of the matter? Does the Bible shed more light on the subject, light that would allow more latitude in the worship of God? Important questions, those.

Although we are not under the Mosaic covenant, the OT setting can teach us some valuable lessons. Read the following passages to get a feel for the approved use of the instruments in that period of time:

David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals (1 Chronicles 15:16).

When David was old and full of years, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. He also gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites thirty years old or more were counted, and the total number of men was thirty-eight thousand. David said, ‘Of these, twenty-four thousand are to supervise the work of the temple of the LORD and six thousand are to be officials and judges. Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the LORD with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose’” (1 Chronicles 23:1-5).

At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the Levites were sought out from where they lived and were brought to Jerusalem to celebrate joyfully the dedication with songs of thanksgiving and with the music of cymbals, harps and lyres (Nehemiah 12:27).

The most notable thing to realize from these settings is that the use of instruments was not a part of the Law of Moses (the original Law given at Mount Sinai). They were actually introduced by David, as the non-instrumentalists correctly affirm. Yet, 2 Chronicles 29:25 states that God commanded their use! “He stationed the Levites in the temple of the LORD with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the LORD through his prophets.” To say the least, God allowed the OT people a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to worship (even under a system which tended much more in the direction of a legal exactness).

As previously stated, the traditional Church of Christ interpretation asserts that the mention of “sing” rules out “play.” But in the OT setting, this distinction is not proved but rather contradicted. The use of the word “sing” did not preclude the use of instruments. 1 Samuel 21:11 says, “But the servants of Achish said to him, ‘Isn’t this David, the king of the land? Isn’t he the one they sing about in their dances: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’?” Note that only “sing” is mentioned in this context. However, in 1 Samuel 18:6-7, a parallel passage, we read: “When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’.”

Another very important consideration concerns the original church described in Acts, which was totally Jewish for a number of years. From the establishment of the church in Acts 2 until Ephesians 5:19 (with its specific command to “sing”), over 20 years had passed. How did those Jews, who were quite accustomed to worshipping with an instrument, know that “sing” ruled out the use of instruments? Other Jewish practices continued for quite some time, with at least God’s tacit approval. For example, Paul took a vow and shaved his head as a part of that vow (Acts 18:18). At James’s insistence, Paul entered the temple with four brothers who had taken vows and were observing the rites of purification (Acts 21:20-24). For a fairly lengthy period (at least up to AD 70 at the destruction of the temple), Jewish Christians practiced many aspects of Judaism as a matter of custom.  Are we to conclude that these early disciples with Jewish backgrounds could, for at least this period of time, observe these Jewish ordinances as a matter of custom, and yet be guilty of sin if they continued to use instrumental music in worship? To me, that seems like a huge hermeneutical leap.

What are the key principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) which can help to determine the truth on this subject? Although the OT was much more a code of specific commands than is the NT, even then men added some far reaching practices which were never disapproved of by God. The entire synagogue system was introduced by men during the captivity period. Yet, Jesus went into the synagogue every Sabbath as was his custom (Luke 4:16). The Feast of Purim was added during the time of Esther, and became a regular feast of the Jews. Yet, neither of these practices was mentioned in the Law itself.

In most discussions of the subject of instrumental music, pro or con, much is made of the exact words in the NT words for singing. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the focal point of such discussions. They read as follows: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16).

The Greek word for sing, “Psalmos” (from “Psallo”), is the word which is often discussed most in this connection. The evolution of the meaning of this word is a matter on importance. In ancient Greek, the word meant “to pluck” or something similar. It did not originally imply plucking a stringed instrument, but with the passage of time and the development of the Greek language, it did come to imply the use of a musical instrument. As the language further evolved, the idea of plucking an instrument was no longer inherent in the word itself. In modern Greek, “psallo” means “to sing” and carries no idea of playing an instrument.

The question at hand is just where this evolution of the term was at the time when the NT was written (during the Koine Greek period). Actually, different writers come out on both sides of the coin in their study of authorities on this matter. In reading the writings of these men, and the sources which they quote as their authorities, I am not convinced either way. I do not believe that the Greek either demands an instrument or excludes it. The focus in the NT passages is that we are to sing thankfully and sincerely from the heart. Whether we do this type of singing with instrumental accompaniment or without it seems not to be the focus of God. If he intended to make the use of instrumental music an incidental issue, as I think he did, how could he have done it any better than the way he had the NT actually worded?

The whole issue likely is a very simple one. Singing is the vital aspect of worship that God wanted us to employ and enjoy, but instrumental music is a matter of expediency — it is a choice. If God had commanded the use of instrumental music, worship would have been much less flexible as far as the physical setting was concerned. Jesus said that the place of worship was to be unimportant in the church (John 4:21-24). In other words, worshipping in the outdoors or in a cave during a time of persecution would be a simple, convenient matter. If instrumental music had been bound, then the place of assembling would have been more important and more difficult to arrange.

God evidently did not have the NT writers mention the use of instruments in worship in order to make sure that we did not bind their use. To say that the lack of mention forbids their use is another thing entirely. It would seem that the use of instruments is simply a matter of expediency or choice. God is far more concerned about our hearts in worship than about the physical trappings one way or another. As one who worshipped without the use of instruments for the first 45 years of his life, and who has worshipped with the use of instruments since that time, I can say without hesitation that my heart has been affected spiritually in a positive way more with than without instrumental music. My personal experience cannot be used to displace the authority of Scripture, to be sure, but the truth of God tends to become rather self-evident with the passage of time. Biblically and practically, I would put instrumental music in worship in the realm of Christian freedom and preferences. In time, it will be left there by virtually everyone in the mainstream membership of restoration churches, just as many other similar issues of opinion have been.

When Did the Kingdom Come?

(This material was taken from my exposition of Acts, entitled “World Changers,” Appendix 1)

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

(Matthew 6:10, King James Version)

This brief verse has been used as the basis of songs, poems and quotations for centuries. It provides the most basic and ideal definition of the term “kingdom of God” to be found in Scripture – a place where God’s will is done. It pictures that desire disciples have to see all inhabitants of earth submit to the King of kings and the Lord of lords, in the same way that all of heaven submits to him. Who could imagine a better portrayal of life on planet earth than that one? However, looking at all sides of what the Bible says about the kingdom and trying to harmonize it leaves one’s head spinning. It almost defies a description in which all loose ends are tied up tightly. But is that unexpected? Can any human look at everything said about God and describe him in simple terms without similar loose ends hanging out everywhere? Obviously, no. Then we should not be surprised to find the same challenges when trying to describe his ruling realm.

As was stated in the exposition of Acts 1:3-6 in my book, World Changers, the kingdom is a very broad and complex subject. I sometimes find it easier to explain what it is not than what it is. I appreciate other author’s efforts to deal with the subject, but I never finish reading any article or book on the kingdom without questions and without a sense of unsettledness, a feeling that something still isn’t quite clear about the topic. Likely that says much more about the subject itself than about men’s efforts to delve into it. I am quite sure that anyone reading my comments about it will finish with similar feelings. But it is a glorious subject, one of great significance in Old Testament prophecy and one that prompted many comments in the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation. With all of that in mind, please begin reading with the thought in mind that you are going to receive some introductory knowledge that will hopefully prompt in you the desire to dig deeper, and that the subject deserves to have you start (or continue) digging soon.

The Universal Kingdom

If we were to accept the Matthew 6:10 definition of the kingdom as a realm in which God’s will is done, we would soon encounter the complexity of which we spoke earlier. For example, consider these broad, sweeping comments regarding the reign of God:

1 Chronicles 29:11-12: “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all.”

Psalm 29:10: “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.”

Psalm 103:19: “The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.”

Isaiah 10:13-14:  “For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings. As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing, or opened its mouth to chirp.'”

Isaiah 37:16: “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

Lamentations 3:37-38:  “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?  [38] Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”

Daniel 2:21: “He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.”

Daniel 4:17: “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.”

So, what are all of these passages saying?  That God reigns over all of creation, animate and inanimate, and nothing happens without his knowledge of it, and in one sense, his approval of it. He indeed is King of kings, and not a sparrow falls to the ground without it fitting into the will of God in one way or another. Because of his absolute sovereignty, he can call Nebuchadnezzar his “servant” (Jeremiah 43:10) and use one wicked nation after another to punish his own people or one another. All of these sinful, rebellious kings were instruments of God to accomplish his purposes, for he is King over all and the whole universe is thus his kingdom!

In this broadest sense of the kingdom, are those in it doing his will?  Yes and no.  The pigs, lizards, and the like are doing pretty well. They are doing what they were created to do, and without any comprehension of it whatsoever, they are doing his will for them – fulfilling their purpose. Similarly, human beings in general, including those in rebellion, are involuntarily doing his will in some ways. But as we begin this consideration, we have to keep Paul’s words in mind when he wrote:  “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out” (Romans 11:33). God has always had spiritual goals in mind as he led history toward Golgotha, and while choices have always been left up to man, especially spiritual choices, he still had his way in working all things together for his purposes. As Galatians 4:4 puts it, when the time was fully ripe for his coming, he sent his Son into the world. As McGuiggan described it, “Within the scope of God’s rule are two classes of men, those in his favor (and in subjection to him) and those who don’t have his favor (and who are in subjection to him).  (The Reign of God, page 20)

A Kingdom Within a Kingdom

This statement brings us to a consideration of men who are in the favor of God. Everyone from Adam onward who were (or became) people of faith, were a part of a kingdom within a kingdom. They voluntary submitted to their God as their King, which made them a part of two kingdoms at once. The spiritual part of the kingdom has gone through various phases, and can easily be overlooked or misunderstood. Before the Law of Moses was given at the inauguration of the Judaistic kingdom, those who were faithful to God were in his spiritual kingdom – whether it was officially called a kingdom or not. If he was the king, they were his subjects. If his will was being done by them, they were in his kingdom of the redeemed. This kingdom before the cross was nonetheless based on the sacrifice made on the cross, for Jesus was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world – Revelation 13:8. The citizens of that early kingdom understood none of this, but they didn’t have to.  God did. They just had to be faithful to the light God had given them.

Then historically, the kingdom of the Jews was established at Sinai. God’s will was for all of those descendants of Abraham to be a spiritual kingdom under his kingship. He made this clear through Moses in Exodus 19:5-6:  “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”  However, although this lofty goal for Israel represented God’s ideal will, it didn’t play out in an ideal fashion. In fact, by the end of the Wilderness Wandering period, Deuteronomy was written to correct legalistic views of observing the Law that had developed in just a forty year period, which explains why so much in this amazing Book was addressing the heart. But Deuteronomy did not halt the slide into legalism (and worse). From its inception, the nation of Israel became a nation within a nation, a kingdom within a kingdom. The whole nation was used as God’s instrument to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and to produce him. Sadly, only a remnant (the spiritual kingdom within the physical kingdom) was faithful to him.

Paul certainly made this principle clear with his comments in Romans 9-11. For example, in Romans 9:6 he wrote, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” In those same chapters, he made it abundantly clear that it had always been the case that only a remnant was faithful and a part of the true Israel. The reason the majority were not right with God during the first century can be traced back to their mistaken view of what being an Israelite meant, and did not mean, spiritually.

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone” (Romans 9:30-32).

Thus, the Jews (particularly the religious ones) believed that they were right with God by virtue of being the physical descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist addressed this mistaken view by saying in Matthew 3:9, “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”

This explains why there had to be a kingdom within a kingdom, a spiritual kingdom and a physical kingdom existing concurrently. The nation may have become a nation at Sinai, and although God used them for his ultimate purposes, they were often a nation in rebellion.  Praise God for the encouragement we get from knowing that there was a remnant even in the worst of times, Ruth being a shining example of that – even though a foreign proselyte. Even in the largely apostate Northern Kingdom during the time of the divided kingdom, Elijah was told by God that the remnant numbered 7,000 (1 Kings 19:18).

The most important phase of the Israelite kingdom began when David was made king, for God promised him that someone from his lineage would remain on the throne forever. Saul’s family lost the throne due to his sin, but David’s family would never abdicate the throne to another family. Of course, the ultimate Davidic king who would reign forever and ever was none other than Jesus the Messiah.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7).

As mentioned in our earlier comments under Acts 1:6, the apostles’ question about restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a dumb or naive question. The kingdom of the Messiah was a restored kingdom, especially relevant historically because from the time of the Babylonian captivity until Jesus was crowned, there was not a king on David’s throne (meaning from his lineage). Read back over the comments in the Acts 1 exposition if this is unclear to you. The kingdom of Christ was given first to the Jews as a fulfillment of many OT prophecies, and it was a number of years before Gentiles began flooding into his kingdom. Of course, the OT foretold the inclusion of the Gentiles, but the Jews evidently understood this to mean that they would come in through the funnel of Judaism. That misinterpretation led to the Jew/Gentile controversy in the early church that nearly split it.

The Ultimate Kingdom of David

This phase of the kingdom became a reality in conjunction with the Messiah. In this phase of the kingdom, the “kingdom within a kingdom” scenario was destined to become a thing of the past. Although God used the physical kingdom of Judaism for his ultimate purposes to bless mankind, this kingdom essentially failed as a spiritual kingdom, for several reasons. This failure is described by Jesus in Matthew 21:43 thusly:  “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” In this case, he is saying that the special purpose of the physical kingdom was ending and being given to those who would comprise the Messianic spiritual kingdom. The whole approach to God was undergoing a radical change – a change that few of the Jews understood.  The author of Hebrews gives us insight into that change in Hebrews 8:11, as he describes the difference between the old covenant of Moses and the new covenant of Christ. “No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”

In the old covenant, a person was born into the covenant and had to be taught about God (which was a part of the failure mentioned previously). In the new covenant, every person has to be first taught and then born (reborn spiritually). That marked a monumental change and insured that none could enter the covenant of Christ without knowing what they were doing and choosing to do it. Hence, the introduction of the new covenant of the risen Christ marked the end of having a kingdom within a kingdom in the same sense as during the Mosaic covenant.

The term kingdom is used over 100 times in the four Gospel accounts, and about a third that often in the remainder of the NT. Jesus’ uses of this term were quite varied. Many times, especially in parables, he spoke of kingdom growth (mustard seed, leaven) or the judgment of his kingdom (tares among the good seed, fish in the net) or kingdom value (pearl of great price, treasure in the field). Passages like Matthew 13:38 seem to use the term in the universal sense that we spoke of near the beginning of this article, for the field was referred to as the whole world in this passage.

The Inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the Messianic kingdom comes in trying to ascertain when it actually was instituted. Keep in mind as we move to this consideration that I believe that the church and the kingdom are not exact equivalents. I said that in the Acts 1 exposition, but I will need to say it again here to avoid any possible confusion.

Traditionally, leaders in our movement have equated the church and the kingdom, and have thus taught that the kingdom (church) was established in Acts 2 – as Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 converged on the Day of Pentecost. I can see what seems to be fairly compelling reasoning for teaching it in this manner. On the other hand, I see passages in the Gospels that seem to clearly say that the kingdom was in existence during the ministry of King Jesus. This complexity is not easily solved, at least in my mind.

The main passages that are used for pointing to the kingdom being in existence during Jesus’ ministry are easy to find and list.  (All are from the NIV unless noted.)

Matthew 4:17: From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Matthew 12:28: “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’”

Matthew 21:31: “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”

Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

Luke 10:9: “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’”

Luke 12:32: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.”

Luke 17:20-21: “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!‘ or, ‘There it is!‘ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (NASB).

In looking at these passages, it cannot be doubted that the kingdom of Jesus was present in his ministry.  After all, in Matthew 9:6 Jesus said that he had authority on earth to forgive sins, and if one’s sins were forgiven, they were a part of his kingdom. However, the greater question to me is in what sense his kingdom was present. Other passages seem to point to a sense in which the kingdom was not yet present, and I don’t refer to the kingdom in heaven after the resurrection.  Look at these passages also from the Gospel accounts.

Matthew 3:1-2: ^“In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'”

Matthew 11:11: “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 16:18-19 ¹⁸ And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 20:21: “‘What is it you want?’ he asked. She said, ‘Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.'”

Mark 14:25: “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”

Mark 15:43: “Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.”

Luke 19:11: “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.”

Both John and Jesus said that the kingdom of God was near. Given what is said about John in Matthew 11, it doesn’t seem possible that he was saying that the kingdom of God was then present when he said that it was near. The apparent interchangeable use of church and kingdom in the same context of Matthew 16, combined with the fact that the apostles didn’t begin to use their binding and loosing authority mentioned there until after Pentecost gives pause as well. In Matthew 20, the request of James’ and John’s mother seemed to indicate that she saw the kingdom as yet future. Correctly or incorrectly, I’ve long thought that Jesus joining us in communion (Mark 14:25) happens in the church in a spiritual sense. Joseph of Arimathea evidently wasn’t aware of the kingdom being present. Luke 19:11 seems to have been spoken to clarify that the kingdom of God was not going to appear immediately. Of course, it could be argued that this passage was referring to the heavenly stage of the kingdom.

But then we come back to Acts 1. Jesus had opened the minds of the apostles in order to teach and prepare them for all that was soon to occur. The teaching took place over a forty day period. They still were asking about when the kingdom was coming, regardless of what you choose to do about the word “restore.” These men who were closest to Jesus all during his ministry and personally were instructed by him in this forty day crash course about the kingdom topic didn’t see it as being in existence yet – even after his resurrection from the dead. Something much bigger was to come regarding the kingdom.

Therefore, while it seems apparent that the kingdom of God was present in the person of Jesus during his earthly ministry, those who saw and heard him did not seem to grasp much of what that meant, including the apostles. To assume that it was as much in evidence before Pentecost as afterwards strains my sense of knowledge and my sense of logic. As another writer stated it, could there really have been a crown without a cross? I know that the fairly popular “now, not yet” formula sees two phases of the kingdom as being an earthly phase instituted during the ministry of Jesus and a heavenly phase when time is no more. At this point of my own study, I would propose a “now, not yet, not yet” formula from the vantage point of Acts 1.  The now was largely the preparatory phase of Jesus’ ministry, in which much groundwork was laid for the future and much teaching was addressed toward the Jewish mindset. The first not yet phase was ushered in at Pentecost when the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was first publicly proclaimed after it became a reality. It was still a not yet phase during the ministry of Christ. And of course the final not yet phase would refer to the kingdom after it is delivered up to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).

One final consideration leads me to the conclusions stated above – namely, the connection between the Messiah’s kingdom and his covenant. Ezekiel 37:15-28 is without doubt a Messianic passage, predicting the new David (Jesus) reigning over his kingdom forever, ruling it with an everlasting covenant of peace.  The reign of Jesus as King occurs in conjunction with his new covenant. Therefore, the question must be asked, when was the new covenant instituted? That cannot be other than in Acts 2.

Hebrews 9:15-17: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.”

The new covenant is compared to a will, which only goes into effect after the maker of the will dies. The period from the death of Christ to the Day of Pentecost, when I believe the new covenant went into effect, was something like a probationary period before a will becomes totally legal. That is at least the case with manmade wills.

To my way of thinking, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom that took place during the earthly ministry of Jesus had to be primarily preparatory preaching. The very foundation of the kingdom gospel message is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 was not heart and soul of the message, it was yet an incomplete gospel. Of course, Jesus taught about his death and resurrection during his earthly ministry, but who really understood it?  The apostles certainly didn’t, and they were of all people the best candidates to understand it. Instead, even immediately after the resurrection they were fearfully hiding behind closed doors – until the Spirit came on Pentecost. From that time forward, they were boldness personified, preaching and living the gospel of the resurrected, ascended King and spreading his new covenant everywhere. Passages like Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 come together in Acts 2 in a way that they do not come together elsewhere – including during the earthly ministry of Jesus.

What Are the Real Issues Here?

I don’t think the real underlying issue is when the Messianic phase of the kingdom was instituted. 2000 years have passed. In my Appendix about Apollos and whether he was re-baptized or not, I make it clear that it really doesn’t matter at all now, one way or the other. You can read that Appendix if you like, but my opinion is that those baptized before the cross and who remained faithful were not re-baptized. That would have included the apostles and others. But what difference does it make to us two centuries later?  The same circumstances don’t (can’t) exist now, so it is a moot question. The same principle could be applied to the institution of the kingdom. Whether that occurred during the ministry of Jesus or on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of the Messiah has been around for a long time and the real issue for us is to discover exactly what being a part of that kingdom now should mean to us and how it must show up in our thinking and doing. If we are indeed kingdom people, we must live like it! That’s the real issue.

It seems to me that the renewed emphasis on the kingdom in the Gospels comes at least partially from the desire to avoid the malady of equating the kingdom with the church, especially in combination with the strong tendency to have an institutionalized view of the church. I understand that malady, and malady is a good word to describe it. Most who claim to follow Christ have indeed developed a very institutional view of the church, and tend to preach the gospel of the church rather than the gospel of Christ. However, we have two problems to address and hopefully solve – wrong views of both the kingdom and of the church.

If I am correct in my assumption regarding one motivation behind the renewed kingdom emphasis, we have somewhat of a parallel in the motivation behind using the term disciple rather than Christian. The word Christian is only used three times in the NT, and not defined well at all. Perhaps for that reason, the word has come to be used in so many ways that violate Scripture that those in our movement have opted to use the term disciple. It is used many times and is defined from many angles. In perhaps a similar way, using the term kingdom gets us back into the Scripture with fresh eyes and helps reduce the focus on the term church, which is so misunderstood and misapplied in our day.

However, a real difference exists in these two word choices (kingdom and disciple, in lieu of church and Christian). It is true that Christian is little used and defined in the NT. Conversely, it is not true that church is little used and defined in the NT. From Acts through Revelation, kingdom is used 35 times, whereas church is used 75 times. Most of the times the word church is used, it refers to a local assembly of believers. Perhaps that makes the term easier to institutionalize. However, some of the passages about the church are as lofty as could be imagined, and in these cases, using the word kingdom interchangeably would seem appropriate. Read the following verses and see what you think.

Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

Ephesians 1:18-23: “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

Ephesians 3:14-21: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.”

Hebrews 12:22-29: “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.”

Again, I think I understand the reluctance some have of in any way equating the kingdom with the church. But both terms need to be clarified, sanctified and perhaps fumigated. I am totally supportive of all efforts to help us see what Jesus envisioned his kingdom to be (regardless of the date of its institution), for we have lost our radical edge as a movement. At one time, using the term disciple called us to that radical edge, but it too has become an institutionalized term for many of us. To those in that category, it means little more than being a part of an ICOC related church. Therefore, if using the term kingdom can direct us back into studying the kingdom life, which is biblically a very radical, cross-cultural life, I say “Amen and Amen!” I just want to make sure I get to that point by employing a correct hermeneutic in the process.

I deeply desire to help us see the kingdom of God in its eternal significance, reaching back into eternity before the world was created and reaching forward into the eternity of which I long to be a part. I also want to help us see the church as the blood-bought Body of Christ, consisting of all the saved on earth, who are at the same time a part of the kingdom – called to be his spiritual representatives to do what Christ did while in his earthly sojourn. While the church is not equal to the kingdom, it is certainly a part of God’s kingdom. In the church, we are subjects of the King and we subject our lives to the rule and reign of God. It may not all be simple and easy to understand, hence the need to keep digging, but our study should lead us to a deeper understanding of the kingdom and its ever increasing glory as we await that day when “Thy Kingdom Come” is fulfilled in the grandest way possible, for all eternity.

Congregational Autonomy

In discussing this subject, I can only attest to my own experiences in the Mainline Church of Christ. Although the Christian Church shares a common ancestry in the Restoration Movement, I don’t know exactly what their beliefs and practices are regarding congregational autonomy. However, I do know historically that the early restoration movement held this teaching as one of their major foundational tenets. In arguing for local church autonomy, the early Restoration leaders were more mistaken than evil in intent. They were coming out of religious denominations where complex hierarchies had developed who lorded it over the members and, in their view, forced upon them compliance to unbiblical traditions. They saw their teaching about local church autonomy as a return to a more biblical pattern where there would be “liberty” to follow the Scriptures as they read them, and not as they were interpreted by some cleric caught up in ecclesiastical politics.

But what started out of sincere motivation ended up becoming one of the most damaging, unbiblical traditions of the Mainline Church of Christ. This doctrine has received much emphasis, most often with a spirit of certainty and even smugness. It has been a part of the Church of Christ creed for so long that few in their group bothers to question it. I can remember personally preaching about how congregational autonomy was God’s plan to keep one bad apple from spoiling the whole bunch! Even if one church went liberal, that departure would not hurt the entire brotherhood, we argued. In this way, we could supposedly never become like the Catholics! However, looking more closely, the fact of universal unity in the Catholic Church is not their problem. It is their means of gaining and keeping that unity. They do it through positional only authority, and with edicts passed down by the Pope and his Cardinals. The unity in the NT was based on leader relationships, as the Book of Acts demonstrates.

Even if the kind of congregational autonomy practiced by the mainline group kept at least some of them away from doctrinal heresy, much more is at stake. Sound doctrine in and of itself is not the point. Evangelizing the world is the point, and that cannot be done under the stifling umbrella of congregational autonomy! The mainline church has surely proved that one. But God desperately wants the world to be reached with the gospel of his Son. All of leading is either directly or indirectly related to evangelism. In order for the world to be reached, brotherhood unity is an absolute must. John 17:20-23, along with other similar passages, makes this necessity unmistakably clear. Unity based on agape love (John 13:34-35) demonstrates to the world that we are genuine disciples. The great mystery of the gospel is that God can unite all kinds of people into one loving group, all over the world (Ephesians 3:1-11). Not only does true unity demonstrate that we are of God, hence attracting people to him, it also is necessary on a practical level to accomplish God’s purpose. Unless we are “perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10), we cannot work together in the evangelization of the world. But with this kind of unity, nothing is impossible within God’s will.

Although each congregation obviously has responsibilities on a local level, we are still one body. The idea of a non-cooperative, and often prideful, separation from each other as congregations is absolutely non-biblical. It guarantees that the world will never be evangelized. It is therefore contrary to the very purpose of God and is sinful. The early church knew nothing of such isolation. Each member was a part of one body on a brotherhood basis. They worked together with an amazing lack of sinful competitiveness. They cooperated in the prime mission which God has given the church, and as a result, they reached the entire world as they knew it with the message of Christ in about 30 years (Colossians 1:23)! Such marvelous unity was based on a united leadership, brotherhood-wide. Leaders are the ones who produce unity and they are the ones who promote disunity.

After Paul wrote that there was one body (Ephesians 4:4, a universal church), he went on to describe the leaders whom God has placed within that one church (Ephesians 4:11-16). Notice that these leaders were given by God to build up, unite and mature the body. This “body” is no different in verse 12 than the “body” in verse 4—it is the church as a whole rather than one congregation. In other words, the church in the first century considered leaders to be brotherhood leaders rather than simply congregational leaders. A careful study of Acts will demonstrate that key leaders had a striking non-attachment to any one congregation. They went where they were most needed at any one time. They were sent to the places where they could best serve. The example of congregational independence, produced by leadership independence, is absent from the pages of Scripture. The “church autonomy” of the Mainline Churches of Christ, no matter how sincerely conceived, is a most harmful tradition.

The early church was united because leaders viewed themselves as belonging to the body as a whole. They were in fact the key “supporting ligaments” which joined the “whole body” together, making growth a reality rather than an unreachable dream (Ephesians 4:16). One of the most significant ways that these leaders became united was in their training. From the inception of Christ’s discipling of leaders, he never left any impression that they would be limited in influence or presence to one location on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. They were taught to be “movers and shakers!” This approach of Jesus in his personal ministry was predictably followed by the apostles in their training of leaders. The importance of building this mindset in our training cannot be overestimated! It produced a brotherhood unity which in turn produced an evangelized world. We must return to the approach used by the early church. Nothing else has worked!

Jesus called men to be with him and then to be sent out to preach (Mark 3:14). The apostles followed the pattern. After Philip had been with them, he was sent out to preach (Acts 8). After Barnabas had been with them, he was sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22). He, in turn, went for Saul, a man of great potential, in order to disciple him in practical ministry; and jointly, Barnabas and Saul discipled many other leaders in Antioch (Acts 13:1; 15:35). Then they were once more sent out to preach in other places. Paul continually called men to be with him for further training. Sometimes, these disciples were simply called his “companions” (Acts 13:13). Sometimes, their names were mentioned. Timothy, a young leader who had influence in two cities, was called to be with Paul for further training (Acts l6:13). Later, he and Erastus would be sent out to preach in Macedonia (Acts 19:22). Still later, he would be sent out to preach in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). Paul was always looking for leaders and potential leaders to be with him and then be sent out. He pulled in Gaius and Aristarchus from Macedonia (Acts 19:30), perhaps leaving Timothy and Erastus in their place. Acts 20:4 mentions a number of other such “companions” (disciples): Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus and Trophimus. A united approach to training this mindset into disciples produced a united brotherhood!

These men were leaders for the brotherhood of believers. They were world Christians, not simply Philippian Christians or Ephesian Christians! Leaders with less training were “pulled out” and later “plugged in” by more fully-trained leaders as the need dictated. Additionally, the world-Christian concept was not reserved for full-time supported ministry people; other leaders espoused the same view. They, too, were discipled to think just like the apostles (Matthew 28:19-20). We are first introduced to Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth. They are later sent to Ephesus, then to Rome, and then back to Ephesus (Acts 18:2, 18-19; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19). Leaders in the early church were indeed movement leaders—they moved and led a movement! Their main focus in life was the mission of Jesus to seek and save the lost. These principles were once practiced widely within the discipling movement, and still are, but on a more limited basis than in the past. This is one point where the ICOC needs some reexamination, in my opinion.

It must be stated that our own early form of unity in the ICOC, while it has produced some wonderful results in world evangelism, has also produced some very damaging results. In earlier days, we had a type of forced or dictated unity through using too much of a military style leadership model. Now that we have repented of that, we are in the process of developing a forged unity—which implies that some tensions will be produced and demand resolution. I think we are doing well with that process at this juncture in our history. While we recognize that congregations should not be independent from one another (the wrong kind of autonomy), neither should we be dependent in wrong ways. Interdependence is the better word to describe biblical unity between congregations. New churches planted will require much more direction from the planting church than when they are older and more mature, after having developed their own leadership group. But regardless of maturity level, all congregations need close connections to sister churches for input and help, in order to avoid inbreeding and closed circles of thinking.

Just as individuals need others in their lives to help them continue growing, congregations need similar relationships with other congregations for similar reasons. My favorite analogy to illustrate how this should work is with the family. Children become less and less dependent on their parents as they mature, but they never become independent to the point of not needing the relationship. The nature of the relationship changes, but the need for it will always continue. It moves from dependence to interdependence, but never independence.

I have often told leaders of churches planted by the church I was in that, as they matured, I viewed them in much the same way that I view my grown children. I want a close relationship with them; I want to be able to give input as an older person with more life experience; but their decisions are their decisions. There are going to be differences in the relationships between different congregations, depending on maturity and resources, but there should never be a time when we don’t seek input and help from one another. The writer of Proverbs stated this principle in many ways and in many verses—one of which is this classic: “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). The concept of an independent, congregational autonomy simply will not stand up under biblical or practical examination. Let us continue to seek interdependence as congregations within a united movement, for the continued evangelization of the world for Christ!

Christianity and Psychology

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.”[1] 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.[2]

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?”[3] 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.”[4] 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”[5]

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.[6] 

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.”[7] 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.”[8] 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.”[9] 

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.”[10]

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.”[11] 

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.”[12] 

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).[13]  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)