Tentpegs

At tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com there are several versions of the same genre of question. I will shove them together and present them as two questions.

"The Bible says that we will suffer persecution if we are Christians. I’ve been a Christian for a long time and I don’t think I’ve ever experienced it. Does that mean I’m not a Christian? Am I missing something?"

AND

"Don’t you believe that the persecution we are going through in America — the war on Christmas, the crassification of our culture, the removal of the Ten Commandments from our schools, etc. — is a sign that our nation has been abandoned by God? Is this a sign of the end of the world or will God raise up another country to take our place since we failed?" 

Jesus certainly did say that believers would suffer persecution, but he didn’t indicate that every believer throughout the ages would be persecuted. He was speaking to a specific group at a specific time. When reading such things we must remember who was speaking, to whom were they speaking, why were they speaking, and what was going on at the time of their speaking. All of those questions help us when we try to "rightly divide" the Word.

I do not believe that every Christian will be persecuted, but I DO believe that every Christian should be willing to suffer persecution — or suffer financially, personally, or career-wise — for the Kingdom’s sake. Living out your faith in a real and vital way often means you are more likely to be persecuted… but not everywhere. Christians can be the butt of jokes and prejudice in America, but I cannot call what happens here persecution. If you can’t be a Christian in America, you can’t be a Christian. We have Christian radio, Christian TV, Christian movies, Christian fiction, Christian nonfiction, Christian colleges, Christian elementary schools…. it keeps going and going, doesn’t it? You can sit at your computer and read dozens of versions of the Bible for free, download tens of thousands of sermons, and get newsletters and emails to help you raise your children, love your spouse, pay off your debts, witness to your friends… you get the idea.

This is a safe and easy place to be a Christian. Sure, you can take on a hard job such as racial reconciliation or feeding the homeless or praying for a crime ridden neighborhood and that might bring you into harm’s way, but you will have more back-up and support here than anywhere else I can think of (and I’ve lived in a good number of other places!).

I don’t care if they take the Ten Commandments out of schools. While I might wish they could stay there, it isn’t the school’s job to raise, socialize, or teach our children about doctrine. We should be teaching our kids about God’s ways at home. In my own informal survey done a few years ago (I was given the idea by my son-in-law, so kudos to him), almost none of the people who were upset that the 10 Commandments had been removed from an Alabama courthouse could actually name more than half of them!

Real persecution is out there. The UN and other agencies have estimated that more Christians died for their faith during the 20th century than in all other centuries combined. As I have done before, I ask you, as a personal favor to me, to go to www.persecution.com and sign up for the newsletter from the Voice of the Martyrs. Consider buying the new version of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and sharing some stories with others. Read the DC Talks books on martyrdom ("Jesus Freaks") that have helped many teens (and their parents) realize the importance of prayer and sacrifice.

See the women who, after having their breasts cut off because they were Christian, have forgiven their attackers and continued in their faith. See the men who have had arms cut off, houses burned down, and seen their children killed because of their faith… and see their faith continue in the midst of their agony and THEN tell me you’ve been persecuted because the greeter at Wal-Mart said "Happy Holidays." Uh… no.

If you have never experienced persecution, don’t feel bad about it! Instead, thank God for that and then do something for the persecuted church. Pray, give, visit, serve… just don’t sit there because, one day, it might be our turn to be under the hammer and those we have served can come and save us in turn. 

What do you suppose is meant by Matthew 7:6 (Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.) I occasionally hear this passage used to justify ignoring or giving up on people who seem to turn a deaf ear to Christ and the gospel. It’s explained as if we are to try a few times, then give up when they aren’t receptive. (Matthew 10:14 is sometimes used as an example…). Thanks!

I think you might already know what this means…but that that meaning is so terrible to contemplate that you would rather it meant something else. I’m right with you! The fact is that God’s patience is not without end. The Old Testament is full of examples of God deciding that this or that person/nation/tribe had had enough chances to turn themselves around. The only exception seems to be the Jews. No matter how many times they wandered away from God, He worked hard to bring them back around. Is this the exception that proves the rule? (by the way, exceptions don’t prove rules. Exceptions reveal that there is no rule) No. God’s patience ended shortly after their rejection of His Son. He allowed Rome to destroy the Temple and the Jewish religious system in a great "day of the Lord" in 70AD.

Time is limited therefore we must be wise in how we use it. The Matthew 10:14 example is of a specific mission journey and might not apply to any other outreach program. Jesus sent out scores of folk to reach all of the Jews with the gospel. If they were not welcomed, they were to turn away, shake the dust off their feet (a Jewish expression meaning to get over it and get moving on), and go to the next place. That makes sense; when you are on a clock, you don’t want to spend all of your time in a place where fruit is unlikely.

Let’s imagine: Let’s say that you knew the world was going to end in two years. Being a good person who wants to save as many as possible, you decide to spend those two years in full time missionary work. Where would you go? Would you go to a solidly Muslim country such as Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? Unlikely. Would you go to an exceptionally secular nation such as France, Canada, Russia, or New Zealand? Probably not. You would most likely go to an African country or somewhere in Central or South America, places where people have shown themselves ready to receive the good news of Jesus. It isn’t a matter of God not loving the good people in those other places, it is a matter of time and resources and rate of return.

Sometimes we can spend so much time trying to get our cantankerous, miserable, mean uncle Bob to come to Christ that we don’t reach anyone… we’ve spent all our time and efforts, all our emotions and heart, on someone who has announced they are unreachable. That was an unwise and ineffective use of our lives. Paul tells us to redeem our days — to buy them back from the thoughts and pursuits that have eaten them up — because there is evil in the world. If we get distracted or bogged down in a mission that won’t bear fruit, we run the risk of letting far more reachable people die without Christ.

Confession time: I am a big fan of "hard missions." That is my own term for those works where it is unlikely that we will see results for years and years. I can be a fan of them because we don’t know that the world will end in two years and we aren’t running out of resources or time. In every congregation I have served I have encouraged them to sponsor missions in an open and receiving nation and in a harsh and difficult nation. I believe that someone needs to work in Belgium, Italy, etc. even if it means that for the first two or three generations they see little in the way of results. Before someone can harvest, the rocks need to be removed, the weeds cleared, the land plowed, then planted, then nourished. We aren’t the 70 on a limited time mission. That means we are allowed to stick around when we are rejected.

The whole "pearls before swine" thing is similar. There are times when it is wise to speak and there are times when our wisdom should lead us to move along to the next person, town, or mission. For example, were I asked to come on the Jerry Springer show and talk about God’s view of sexuality, I would say "Thanks, but no." Why? Because that show isn’t there to hear or reveal truth. It serves the same function as the freak shows outside the traveling circuses of the early 20th century. It is there for people to hoot, yell, and be insufferably rude to each other. Taking the pearls of the gospel into that arena is to toss them before swine. I have been in many situations in which I chose not to share my faith for precisely that reason. While I do not shy from combat — of any kind — nor do I hesitate to speak of the reasons for my faith, some arenas aren’t designed for that. They are lions waiting for a Christian, not gladiators waiting for an opponent. No matter what you say, you will be hooted down so… why bother? Put your efforts to work in a more fruitful arena.

This one didn’t come via tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com but through one of my personal email accounts. I think it is interesting enough to answer here. For those who wonder, I only move questions from my email accounts to Tentpegs when the identity of the questioner cannot be ascertained by the question, thereby assuring them of privacy. 

I was talking to a friend here recently about speaking in tongues. He does it and people at his church do it…..he goes to a fairly progressive community church. Obviously being from [my religious tradition] I haven’t been around it. Actually it’s been seen about as common as a seizure in church. So I did some research and found 1 Corinthians 14 and started reading.

When I think of tongues and read it in the Bible, I try to see it as "language" because it kind of weirds me out to think of speaking in tongues and to me it makes more sense for me to think of it that way. This can be inserted into most of that passage and still be contextually correct. When he said that he would rather speak 5 intelligible words so that people would understand him rather than his tongue…..well I can see that as you wouldn’t want to speak french to a group of Japanese people. But one verse tells me different.

1 Corinthians 14:2…..Paraphrasing: When man speaks in tongue, he speaks to no man, but to God.  Doesn’t this mean that it’s a language that no one would understand? This would have to be speaking in tongues, right?

Since the Holy Spirit acts as sort of an interpreter to/from God, is this method of speaking in tongues a way to bypass the translation?

But, I was also thinking…..if you have no idea what you are saying during the ordeal…..is it really communicating to God?

Things like this and acts of prophesy are pretty foreign to me and I just wanted to find out what you thought about them and give me some direction.

Good stuff! My religious tradition does not speak in tongues. I have many friends who speak in ecstatic utterances during worship and/or private times of prayer. They believe it is of God and that it is very helpful; a sign of God’s blessing. I do not question their experience and I respect them though I believe they are in error in the way they interpret the scriptures. Their error — if I am right and it actually is an error — is that they believe the "tongues" of scripture are unknown, unearthly tongues.

The Greek words for tongues in scripture always refer to human languages. The questioner is right that languages can be plugged into each mention of tongues and the passages make sense. On the day of Pentecost the apostles preached and each person heard in their own home language. This is significant because there were 12 apostles and twelve languages present. No one said anything about not being able to understand what was going on. The message itself concerned many so they decided to dismiss the apostles as being drunk but that was just because they didn’t like what they were hearing, it wasn’t a matter of hearing garbled speech.

In Corinth, people were given the gift of tongues (which can be defined as immediately knowing languages they did not study) so that others could be reached with the gospel. That was always the reason for the gift — evangelism and outreach. Corinth being… uh… Corinth, they started using their newfound knowledge as a way to elevate themselves rather than reaching the lost. During worship, they would break out in speaking in their new language. Paul said that helped nobody and that the only way it would be acceptable was if there were an interpreter present. This is an "argument to the absurd," a standard rhetorical device that Paul used several times. You see, why would someone preach in their new language and require an interpreter when they could just speak in their home language to begin with dispensing with the need for an interpreter? Sadly, while Paul was a brilliant rhetorician, most people wouldn’t recognize a rhetorical device if it wore a T Shirt saying "I am a rhetorical device."

If, Paul further said, they really, really wanted to speak in their new language, the only one who could hear and understand them would be God. That robs the gift of tongues from its intended purpose — evangelism, not personal prayer. 

In the New Testament, tongues were used for the rapid spread of the gospel throughout Asia and the Near East as well as portions of Southern Europe and Northern Africa. The gifting did not seem to be a "once for all time" gift. Peter, for example, used an interpreter in his later years (history and tradition tell us this was John Mark, perhaps the author of Mark which is really a collection of Peter’s stories about Jesus).

Ecstatic utterances — vocalizations that are not tied to any language — have appeared in every major religion including Islam (several major sects use them), Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Mormonism and nature worship. In every instance that I can find, they are used as a proof of the presence of God or a god. Because of that I cannot accept "tongues" as a sign of God’s blessing — it would make God a schizophrenic or, at least, say that the devil can produce tongues as he produced snakes from Pharaoh’s magicians… and, in this instance, God can’t come up with a better snake (so to speak).

Jimmy Jividen wrote a book called "Glossalalia: From God or Men" quite a few years ago that is still available used at several internet sites. It is a good overall view of this subject even if Jimmy is a bit harder on those who believe in tongues today than I would be. I’ve even heard some call them a demonic delusion and that is offensive. If someone prays privately in tongues, Romans 14 would seem to indicate that I am to leave them alone. However, if they insist that I am a lesser Christian because I do not seek tongues, Romans 14 would seem to indicate that they are in error.

Some will say that their tongues are the "tongues of angels" spoken of in First Corinthians 13. Two major problems — at least — exist with that idea. The first is that the word "angels" is the same as "messengers" and was often used for those, like Paul, who brought the gospel to a people. That interpretation fits extremely well in the whole discussion from chapter 12-14. Some don’t like that interpretation because they are uncomfortable with the "men and angels" dichotomy but I can live with that. I hear Paul saying that if he speaks like a regular Joe or an apostle and doesn’t have love, he has nothing. The second problem is that heavenly angels are not physical beings and don’t have tongues or a variety of languages. Every linguistic study of tongue speaking has shown that, far from discovering a new angelic language, the pattern of sounds, pace, and intonation are all learned from the community in which they appear. In other words, tongue speaking in Alabama is different from that in Uganda… and from other places in Alabama. Tongue speaking is a local, not a universal, event that can be traced to a specific earthly locality.

Of course, all of us — especially me — should remain open and teachable on this and every other doctrine that currently divides us. We have much to learn and, as long as we all realize that and admit it, studying together will only draw us closer to each other and our God.

Interesting stuff coming over the transom at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com and I love it. This one made me go back to my books for awhile but it was fun.

"I hear a lot about churches being full of modern day Pharisees, how we aren’t supposed to be Pharisees, etc. but what about the Sadducees? Are there modern day Sadducees?"

Absolutely! But let’s start with a bit of historical review. Hundreds of years before Jesus, the religious and political world of Israel was murderously divided by two opposing forces. The Pharisees were a restoration and purity movement. Their name originated with either the word perusim (separated ones) or parosim (specifiers). They believed that Israel could once again be the great nation it once was if it separated from the world’s power systems and if its people kept the law of Moses scrupulously. The Sadducees were the religious left. Not only did they not separate from the world’s power systems, they were enthusiastic participants in them. They were Hellenists — people who wanted their ignorant and backwoods countrymen to come into the modern world. They were embarrassed by the Pharisees but weren’t in a position to do much about it. 

Herod had given the Sadducees power but kept a tension between the two groups so that he could play puppet master… and so the Sadducees weren’t able to consolidate enough power to give him a problem. The Temple duties were divided between the groups. The common people greatly preferred the Pharisees so the Sadducees stuck to the religious courts, Sanhedrin, and circles of secular power and let the Pharisees call most of the shots around the Temple and in the public square. Nobody wanted to go back to the time when their differences broke out into warfare that cost thousands of lives (one Sadducee/High Priest crucified hundreds of Pharisees, slitting the throats of their wives and children in front of them while they died). They both treaded carefully.

Pharisees came in two flavors, or schools of thought. The School of Shammai was fierce and unforgiving. They took the brunt of Jesus’ wrath in Matthew 23. They elevated their interpretation of the law over peoples’ needs, ignored the poor and widows, were arrogant, and yet… they were comfortable with their own sins. They were hypocrites. The School of Hillel wanted to restore the law, but they were not nearly as mean and hypocritical about it as their Shammai brethren. Jesus supported the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2) but attacked them for their unforgiving spirits and hypocrisy. Paul, Nicodemus, and other prominent Pharisees became Christ followers (while staying Pharisees — see Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5-9).

As far as we can tell, no Sadducee ever became a Christ follower.

Modern Pharisees are legalists, hypocrites, or people who profess one way of life only to live a different one. We see them everywhere and, if we are honest, many of us have been them from time to time!

Modern day Sadducees are, like their historical antecedents, religious liberals. The Sadducees acted as if there would be no Day of Judgment. They denied the resurrection, angels, demons, miracles, etc. They rushed to embrace any current fad in lifestyle or thought. They believed in linking arms with the State in order to do good. Their children today are the religious left who want to feed the poor, lift up the fallen, etc. by using government action, not personal sacrifice. They tend to embrace anything from gay marriage to the sanctuary movement to global warming alarmism all in the name of being faithful to Jesus. They aren’t afraid to toss away any Biblical verse, passage, or book if it gets in their way (the Sadducees of Jesus’ time only accepted the first five books of the Bible and their own writings. Modern ones only accept the passages they like… and their own writings).

The only antidote to this nonsense is to limit ourselves to teaching the good news of Jesus, living what we say we believe, taking personal responsibility for doing good, and not getting entangled in the affairs of this world… or its governments and cultural fads.

Coming over the transom at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com was a follow up to the last question. Two sent it in so I’ll just paraphrase them both as:

That helps a lot about how we got some of our ideas about Sunday worship, but what about Wednesdays? Our elders say it is a sin to miss Wednesdays, but I can’t find anything about that in the Bible. What gives?

You’ve stumped the Patrick! Try as I might I couldn’t find definitive information about how we started Mid-Week Bible studies. I found that most of them were originally "prayer meetings" and that was handy because another questioner asked:

What are prayer meetings? Do people really meet just for prayer? How did they get started?

As to the matter of how they got started, I would assume it was a logical and natural outgrowth of the desire of a Christian community to approach their God in prayer as a group. "Prayer Meeting" means different things in different church cultures, however, and only rarely does the term really mean to spend the entire time in prayer. I have been a part of a church that used prayer meetings as just that: a time to gather as a family and pray. We even had a bonus hour of prayer every first Friday of the month (starting at 7 and ending promptly at 8 or earlier so that people could go on to ball games, dating, etc.). I enjoyed them immensely when we weren’t bogged down by requests to pray over a long list of people we didn’t know and weren’t connected to ("please pray for the sister in law of the lady I work with. She is sick with something, but I’m not sure what…").

Most "prayer meetings" include some songs and teaching time. Churches of Christ and some other religious tribes dropped the "prayer meeting" designation as being not adequately descriptive as a term. We usually call our meetings just "mid-week services", "Wednesday nights", or "Bible Study." A short devotion and a song or two might be done as a family and then they split into classes (or, in some churches, the short gathering is at the end). More and more congregations skip the devo and songs, spending the entire hour in separate classes.

As to how they became mandatory, that one’s easy: start something good that has some benefit and very shortly it will become a part of your identity and culture. To refuse to engage in it is seen as a refusal to be identified with that group, or as a judgment on the wisdom of those who came before  you. What was once done because it was good and beneficial beccomes a weight and burden instead. I strongly support Wednesday night gatherings and, in fact, I worry about those who don’t think those gathering times are worth their time. I wonder if they aren’t growing apathetic, content with their current level of spiritual knowledge and growth.

So… I confess: even though I understand that these times together aren’t a requirement, I find myself becoming legalistic when I think about them very long. They ARE good and, if done right, are highly beneficial… but God didn’t order us to attend them and elders overreach when they make a law God’s wisdom didn’t require Him to make. At the same time we must humbly realize that "daily and from house-to-house" was the pattern of the early church. We’ve cut that down to a couple of hours on Sunday and an hour or so on Wednesday and STILL we chafe under that "burdensome"  duty! What a bunch of wienies we are!

If anyone has info on how we picked Wednesday as the one night we would gather, let me know. We gathered on Thursday nights at one church I attended because the denominations in town had a vibrant and active Wednesday program and we didn’t want to compete with them. We thought it might help us get them to visit us. It didn’t and I hated it anyway… because Thursday night had SO much better TV than Wednesday and I was missing it. There. I said it. Hate me if you must.  

Again, it would be great to have an historian write the answer to these kinds of questions, but I’ll give it a go…

I don’t know if this question is out of context, but I am curious about something. When did the service or worship become confined to one hour on the Lord’s Day?

Acts 2 and 4 are very specific: worship, fellowship, sharing, and common love were daily activities in the first churches. People had jobs (and you didn’t get Sundays off!) so all this had to be a "come and go" affair but that made it an even more vital part of their lives. There was no chance that worship and sharing would become static because it was what you did when you weren’t at work. Therefore, it changed every day.

After Christianity gained "official religion of the state" status, the state immediately set about controlling it (lessons anyone? Anyone? Bueller?). Worship moved from homes to special built facilities or chapels reclaimed from pagan religions. Mutual ministry was abandoned as — slowly at first — a system of clergy was put in place. That last event occurred in part because people naturally sought replacements for the apostles and, later, those who knew the apostles personally. It also occurred because the government preferred that the church be organized as it was. More than one historian has written extensively about how the hierarchy of what would become the Catholic Church is exactly parallel to that of the Roman government with its cardinals, archbishops, etc. taking the place of Proconsuls, Governors, etc.

Even then, churches were open for business almost every day and night of the week. It is still the tradition for cathedrals to remain open at all times (though vagrants, terrorists, protesters, and radio shock jocks have made it necessary to lock them down more and more often). So how did we get to limit worship to one day a week?

The Protestant Reformation bears some responsibility here as do the various wars between Church and State and the end of the rule of nobles. Once the State no longer was in charge of the church (though it still is in some European countries and in all Islamic countries), individuals were allowed to judge for themselves what to believe and where to go to church. That meant, of course, they were also free NOT to go to church. Or NOT to go to church every day and especially weekends and feast days.

Now, work enters into the picture. The Industrial Revolution kicked in so hard that even schooling took a back seat. The whole family worked in factories; their lives no longer ruled by the sun and rain but by the clock. While there were some miserable conditions out there, this eventually led to the consumer society. People were able to buy things and improve their lives. They could even save money and send their kids to better schools. All this work, saving, buying, and achieving took time, of course, and so the clock had to be divided in such a way as to give a person time to rest, go to school, wash their clothes… and worship.

Worship usually took place all day long on Sunday… in America. In Europe, it was reduced to a few hours a day. Most Protestant churches had their main service on Sunday mornings (often closed to non-members) with an evening time of songs and prayers that was open to visitors. Many Scottish churches still follow that pattern today and, for all I know, so do many other European churches. In America, distances were far more vast. People had to travel a long way to find people with whom they could worship in a way that suited them (and which, they assumed, suited God best, too). After a trip of two or five hours, nobody wanted to worship an hour and then go home! They worshiped for hours with several speakers, tons of songs and testimonies, and meals being enjoyed around the periphery throughout the day. In some ways, it would have looked a lot like an early Christian church gathering in that it was noisy, come and go based, and there was a lot of mutual ministry going on (or ministry by rough and ready unordained ministers!).

Again, work enters into the picture. As roads got better and work’s rewards grew, people sliced that clock like a pie, allocating less time for worship. It was easy to go to worship, return home for a comfortable meal (i.e. not outside being eaten by insects, rained on, or fighting the wind) and then go back for another time of worship if required.

Actually, that second trip was a fairly recent development. Most people went to worship only once a day. Close to the same time that all day meetings were no longer necessary (because of travel times, close proximity of churches, etc.), shift work began. While some churches taught that working on Sunday was a sin, that never really took hold in America where work, individualism, self betterment, and freedom held hands and cast goo-goo eyes at consumerism every chance they got! Many Protestant churches instituted a Sunday evening service for those shift workers. Churches of Christ, my religious tribe, did the same. In my tribe, the communion would be offered for those "providentially hindered" from attending the morning service. Everything in the evening service mirrored the morning service, but with a different message and set of songs.

Soon, the service for the shift workers became a part of the church’s culture and, therefore, attendance was expected. Even today, long after the reason for its establishment has been forgotten and long after the need has passed, there are churches that would rather split and set up rival congregations than to go to abandon the evening service. Many, in fact, DO set the evening service aside but replace it with small groups. (while I am a big supporter of small groups, it amazes me how many people think they need to meet on Sunday night!)

The upshot of all of this is that worship had to be content with a smaller slice of pie/clock. In some churches in my tribe, this was pushed even further (!!!) by the hunger of people for more relevant worship, more fellowship, and more sharing. Elders feared that anything out of the ordinary and common would be a sin, therefore if a special group was to sing or a woman was to make an announcement, they would "close the service" first with a dismissal prayer. Members quickly came to believe that worship began with the opening prayer and ended with the closing prayer. Things that were verboten within those prayer brackets could be welcomed outside them (such as visiting choirs, drama). Fun songs that would have been an abomination on Sunday morning were sung with enthusiasm during Vacation Bible School programs or youth rallies. Such was fine because those weren’t worship services (yikes), i.e. within the prayer brackets on Sunday morning.

So now you have it. It wasn’t one thing but a hundred that got us where we are today. And it won’t be one thing that will get us back to where we should be in our worship, fellowship, sharing, giving, caring, crying, and praying… you know…. that whole "people of God" thing.

Sometimes I get emails that make me groan out loud. Here is one of them…

Our church is about to split. It started with a class on Revelation. The teacher said Campbell was post-millennial and that started an argument. Some think Jesus came back in 70AD (well, one does) and others think Revelation was all about the fall of Jerusalem and is now just an example of fulfilled prophecy while some others seem to be millennialists of one stripe or the other. So, my question is, what does the book of Revelation mean?

I remember once, back when I was a single man, being asked to teach a ladies’ Bible class at a small church in Alabama. I was going to school nearby and they wanted me to teach every Tuesday morning that semester. I (foolishly) agreed. I stood before them the first week and asked them what they wanted to study. They said they had narrowed it down to either the Song of Solomon or the Book of Revelation. I looked out over the sea of hairnets, false teeth, and walkers and said, "Let’s open our Bibles to Revelation chapter one." Dodged a bullet there.

A little history and perspective is in order. A great number of early Christian churches and leaders did not want the Book of Revelation included in the canon. It, along with some other books such as 2 Peter, were considered spurious or unhelpful, obtuse or, at least, unprofitable. Sometimes I wonder how many TV preachers that decision, had it carried the day, would have put out of work. The University of Virginia has a exhibit about how people have used Revelation and apocalyptic visions, especially in the early days of our Republic, to come to wildly varying conclusions.

*see http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/exhibits/brimstone/index.html

Here is a quote from their introduction: "In the short history of the nation, probably no book has justified as many soapbox sermons and hare-brained schemes as it has, and perhaps none ever will. But neither has any book produced a more profound vision of America’s hopes, duties, dreams, and destiny. If the Revelation of John gave Americans a cosmic optimism of scientific progress and manifest destiny, it also gave them enemies to fear, sins to condemn, and terrors to behold."

Shortly after the founding of the American Republic, religions sprang up everywhere assuming that God had formed this nation to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus. William Miller, Joseph Smith, Alexander Campbell, John Thomas, and a thousand more all joined in with their take on when, where, and why Jesus would return. They differed sharply with each other and were often furious with each other, but they were certain that the founding of America was the first step in cleansing the world of old ways, old religions (assumed to be corrupt because of their age and European origins), old governments, etc. Once the pure faith was re-established in this land, the thought went, Jesus would come back to redeem his people (or, alternatively, the millennium would begin, after that, Jesus would return). Campbell was, indeed, a post-milliennialist though he did not, as some have said, predict that Jesus would return on a certain date.

I was raised up on Foy E. Wallace Jr.’s book on Revelation that insisted that John wrote the book before 70AD and it was entirely fulfilled by that date. I have read dozens of books by King, Wallace, McGuiggan, etc. and heard quite a few different views on how to read this book. The thing that bothers me most about most books and speeches on Revelation is that they are still very, very Amerocentric or, at least, Western Civ-centric. From the "Late, Great Planet Earth" on, the book is interpreted in light of struggles the West has with governments, its decadence, etc. I ask myself "What would a shepherd in Uganda get out of this book if it is all about governments, peoples, places, and things that are not a part of his existence? How would a fisherman in Fiji benefit from this book?"

I have been a preterist in my past life but years ago I made a decision to read the book again with, as much as possible, a clear mind. I wanted to see if it could be read as a beautiful allegory concerning the spiritual battles every place and every person face. About the third time through, it opened up Revelation to me and got me, for the first time, really liking the book! No longer did I have to find something to add up to 666 or figure out what the swastika or the birthmark on Gorbachev’s head meant. I could understand merely that 7 was the number of holiness and that 666 was absolute evil. ‘Nuff said. I was then on alert, not for Obama or Clinton or Bush, but for the evil that creeps into my life. The way most people treat Revelation, it is entirely outward in its focus; based on large movements of history. They then fall into vicious arguments about what each passage means and how to identify the bad guys (Lindsay and others identified the locusts with Huey helicopters firing missiles. Now that Hueys are pretty much on their way out, they’ll have to write another book!).

I am not saying I am right and know the only way to read this book. It is an exceedingly strange book, no question. Those who claim to thoroughly understand it worry me, I confess. As to the questioner’s point, any church that would divide over this book would have to first ignore the other 26 books in their New Testament. While some might act like Revelation is the only book in the Bible, it isn’t and we should behave according to the rules in the other books when we read this one or find ourselves in disagreement with others who have read it and come up with different conclusions. It is possible, God says, to wrestle with the scriptures to our own destruction and to get involved with silly arguments that do none of us any good.

Division is a sin, not a duty.

I am fairly certain that this next question needs someone who is a bona fide historian to answer, but since I dabble a bit here and there in history and since I don’t have a lot of good sense, I’ll give it a go anyway!

What caused many congregations to determine that they were NOT indwelled by the Holy Spirit?  But that the Holy Spirit resides only through the Bible?  Did this teaching originate in the churches of Christ or was there another influence?

The questioner is, like me, in a religious tribe that came out of the American Restoration Movement. For the uninitiated, the ARM came out of a sincere desire to do two things 1) restore the ancient order and practice of the New Testament Church and 2) by this, unite all religious denominations into one, pure, body thereby ending religious divisions and hastening the return of Jesus (it was thought by many religious tribes back in the late 1700’s and throughout the 1800’s that Jesus was just waiting for a perfect, pure group to be formed so that he could return).

The three main streams of this movement are the Disciples of Christ (a mainstream, liberal, Protestant church), the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (holding the middle ground and, currently, the fastest growing church in the US), and the Churches of Christ (the most conservative of the three). I come from the Churches of Christ. I fellowship many in other religious streams, but this is my tribe; I know it and love it. The questioner is also from the Churches of Christ and my reply really can only be applied to them.

The CoC chose the more conservative path, deciding that restoration of doctrine and practice was more important than unity. They listened more closely to Alexander Campbell than to Barton Stone, particularly because Stone was often involved in very emotional events such as the Cane Ridge Revival. Campbell was a reserved Scot (via Northern Ireland) who esteemed John Locke and Scottish rationalism. Logic, careful thought, and argument were the ways to find truth. Emotionalism and experiential (or experimental) religion was not an acceptable way to find God’s will for us, for it tended to be this, then that, as the mood of the individual shifted around. That way lay chaos, according the Campbell.

This attitude hardened over time. The Bible was looked upon as the only rule, the only revelation (contrary to Campbell’s teaching.  He also, re; Romans 1, believed that nature taught us much about God and His will), and the Spirit was relegated to one task only — inspiring the writers of Scripture. While none would go so far as to say the Spirit had retired, it may as well have been so. Some would say that the Spirit still worked but limited himself to reminding us of the Bible verses we had studied, but that was as far as they went. Every statement Jesus made about "Sanctify them by the truth, Thy Word is truth" was seen as a "proof text." See? The way we are reached, taught, sanctified, and keep faithful is by reading and obeying the written Word. There was no room for the Spirit to move around and do anything else.

While we baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, some preachers would go so far as to say that God and Jesus lived in us but the Spirit only lived in us "through the Word." There was an absolute, abject fear of any emotion in worship (except anger, which was often viewed as a sign of righteous passion). If someone clapped or raised a hand they may as well had a neon sign flashing over them saying "Pentecostal." Of course, some of the early Pentecostal tent shows reinforced this CoC fear of emotionalism in religion. Who wanted to be like those crazy holy rollers in the tent over there? That was just… silly (we told ourselves).

Miracles? Not anymore! Prayers? Yes, but since God wasn’t acting except through Providence, one wonders why we bothered. Prayers were never for healing but for wisdom and companionship. "Lord, be with the doctors and guide their hands…" but nobody asked God to heal Aunt Jean. The prayers had no power because we feared even the possibility that there was a Force out there that wasn’t controlled by our logic, our inferences, and our Scottish Rationalistic way of thinking. Let emotion loose and who knows what will happen? Control, conformity, and consistency would be lost! (we assumed that would be a bad thing)

Most Churches of Christ no longer believe that though our actions haven’t caught up with our beliefs, yet. We know that the Holy Spirit has a current role in reaching us, sanctifying us, and redeeming us. What that role is isn’t always clear, but studying and talking aloud about it is accepted as a good thing in my tribe. It has just taken us a very long time to get there.

I can’t believe the last answer didn’t cause some more discussion. Either my readership is WAY down or I have failed to be sufficiently controversial. Oh well, I’ll keep trying! Over at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com I am still accepting questions. I might continue this series indefinitely or I might shut it down around the 100 mark. Still praying about that. I hope God gives you a blessed day, full of joy. Kara and Josh are due back from Africa today so this is one excited daddy!

"If the cross has the power to save, how come there are so few who are truly saved? Why does God allow more and more people to be born if most of them will be lost ~ at least according to our evangelical understanding of salvation?"

I’ve wondered about this myself! Jesus said "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." Since all men haven’t been drawn to Jesus, either he was mistaken — which I don’t accept for a minute — or we are lifting something up that isn’t Jesus! There is, of course, a third possibility and that is… God isn’t done drawing people to His Son yet. Hmmm.

We could add here that part of the reason the cross has less power to draw people than we’d like is because the lives of Christians and the way we do church has diluted its power. Perhaps our frequent pledges of allegiance to all things material and worldly have made the church — and its most recognizable symbol — a mere fashion accessory on the arm of the universe and not the pivot point, the hinge, the place where all things change.

When any hint of "it’s not God’s will, but our failure" is voiced as a reason for the cross’ apparent lack of saving power in the present world, people often then follow up with "but God still keeps making new people, people who will never know Him and are, thus, doomed to hell forever!" This is true if the medieval version of hell is accurate: a place of eternal torment where souls are tortured forever and ever without end. However, as I and many others have posited, if we read the Bible through first century eyes and consider hell to be eternal but not its denizens; i.e. those sent there are destroyed, not tortured, then things become more palatable. In that scenario — if we are correct — God continues to make more children in hope that some of them will come to Him. Those who do not are not burned forever, but neither are they given the gift of eternal life.

Regardless, is it tragic that we put money into so many things, argue about so many things, and confuse the church’s mission of evangelism with pacification of existing members. It is tragic that we aren’t "those people whose marriages are happy, whose kids are sexually pure and spiritually thriving, and who never, ever, fail to love and serve others." If we lived like that, the cross would truly be a magnet, don’t you think?

Here is another question:

Something that has bothered me for years are the passages that say things like "This generation will by no means pass away before these things come to pass" right after Jesus was talking about coming back.  How SHOULD this be read?  Because the surface reading of it can’t be right if the whole thing is true.  I guess my worry is that they waited in vain and that we are too.  Is this another one of those "outside of physics" things?

Jesus’ Olivet Discourse has long been a subject of discussion among Christians. Figuring out what is going on in Matthew 24 is a textbook example of needing to "rightly divide the Word." Jesus had just walked through Jerusalem as his apostles pointed out to him all the improvements being made on the temple and its complex. They were plainly very impressed with Herod’s work but Jesus had something else on his mind. He told them that every building there would be destroyed so completely that not one stone would be left on top of another. The apostles stayed quiet for awhile — and who could blame them? — until they gathered on the Mount of Olives. They asked Jesus two questions. It is very important that you recognize that these were two, distinct, questions.

1. When will these things be? (re: the destruction of the temple)

2. What are the signs of the end of the world? (re: uh… the end of the world)

Jesus answers the first question first in verses 4-34, warning them of which signs to dismiss and which ones to pay attention to. He closes by saying "Assuredly I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place." And he was right. By 70AD the eagles had gathered (the Romans used eagles on their regimental standards) and the city of Jerusalem fell. The records were destroyed, the priesthood ended, and the temple was eventually destroyed, too. The whole complex was dismantled and today only part of one wall — the Wailing Wall — remains. Josephus tells us that Christians escaped the butchery that followed the fall of Jerusalem for they had fled. They had, according to him, seen the signs. The "Day of the Lord" had truly come upon Jerusalem and Judaism. Today, regardless of how much some would like to do so, no one can restore the Old Testament way of doing things. No one can tell who is a Levite, so you can’t even get a priesthood going. God’s judgment fell on the system that rejected Him (though NOT, it must be stressed, on Jews in general. They are as welcome in God’s kingdom as Gentiles and we all get there the same way, through Jesus Christ).

Then, and this is crucially important, Jesus changes subject and addresses the second day the apostles asked about, "But of THAT day and hour, no one knows, not even the angel of heaven, but My Father only" (v.36). Jesus then goes on at length about how there will not be signs for that day — some are accepted, some are rejected, and the day comes like a thief in the night.

At the end of the apostle’s generation, Jerusalem fell. Jesus had it right. The second Day is still coming and, in contrast to hundreds of TV preachers, Jesus says there will be no signs of its coming.
 

Trying to catch up here and get back to writing a novel while traveling nationwide and still serving at Rochester can be quite the balancing act. I appreciate those who are praying for me and those who understand that it can take quite awhile to get to their question! Here is a really interesting one that came in over a month ago:

When Scripture doesn’t spell it out,  who decides what glorifies God?  We’ve been discussing music, art, writings, poetry - Christian versus Secular - and the comments often fly ‘that’s God honoring, glorifying or anointed and the other isn’t’.  Is it not arrogance to think that the piece of music, art or poem that I like, also appeals to God and the things that don’t move me in my spirit, don’t move Him or glorify Him either?  I’d appreciate your take on this.

This is actually a very important question. One of the first objections used against any new song, worship order, change of wording in a prayer book or hymnal, etc. is that the old way honored God and the new way doesn’t. Churches have split over the publication of a new hymnal or a modern language version of a prayer book. Those who rejected the changes declare that they did so because they honor God and those who want changes do not. Really? As the questioner asks, who gets to decide that? Another version of this objection is "they just want to be entertained." This one is trotted out whenever a church adopts a praise team or a more aggressive band or a they hire a minister who isn’t boring, let the kids pass the communion plates, et cetera ad nauseum. The person saying this is not aware that they are standing on the Irony Button. You see, they are entertained by doing things their old, established, culturally approved way. They sing the songs they like, listen to the ministers they like, and pray the prayers they like, unaware that they could also be accused of staying in one place, refusing change, in order to continue to be entertained.

Move this a little further along. What about churches that bring in the Jesus Painter or the Sand Painter or someone similar who uses art, often while the sermon is being preached or songs are being sung. Is this honoring God? Every time I’ve seen it, I’d have to say "absolutely." (in fact, those two, in particular, are among the most self effacing servants God has. Everything they do honors God and tells His story while they remain nearly invisible)

There is actually a rule about this and it is found in Romans 14. That whole chapter warns us against judging each other’s gifts that we bring before the throne of God. Sure, for a thousand years there were very strict rules about what could be brought to the temple, but Jesus changed all that in Matthew 5-7 when he continually quoted the Old Testament saying "you have heard it said" and then followed it by saying "but I say to you." Now, we are constantly warned not to interfere with another’s worship. "Who are you to judge another man’s servant?" Paul says in Romans 14. He then goes on to say that God will make sure that the one who offered Him service will, indeed, stand safely in His eyes.

Now… what doesn’t honor God? Any sin, of course. I’ve even heard adulterers claim that they honored God by celebrating their sexuality. Uh… no.

Honoring God is an intentional act, directed towards Him. It is more than worship, but it is certainly a part of worship. Here’s an example of what I mean. Say that I love to hunt. When questioned by my wife about my frequent excursions into the wild, I answer haughtily that I am honoring God by being who He created me to be. Uh… no. He told me to make sure I raised my children, loved my wife, and protected my family. Hunting is optional. While in the wild I can certainly spend much time in quiet meditation, prayer, and praise my God for the beautiful world He created. And, I can honor God by making sure I only take what I need from nature and that I am a good steward of the resources available to me, but hunting is not primarily about honoring God.

Hunters, I’m not picking on you. I could use lots of other examples. I used to play golf (and might again) before my schedule and location precluded much in the way of swinging a club. I loved it and spent time thinking about God and my life while on the links… but I played golf because I liked it and not, primarily, to honor God. If I had been gifted athletically, like the runners in the classic film "Chariots of Fire" I could make a case for using my gifts to bring honor to God but, trust me, He did not gift me in golf!

When most people say "that doesn’t honor God" when they hear a song, see a painting, etc. they really mean "I don’t like it." One of the easiest things in the world to do is to confuse yourself with God. We do it all the time. Look at the outfits God had priests wear in the Old Testament. Sorry, but I think those look silly, gaudy, and WAY over the top… but who am I to say such a thing? God was honored by their wearing those garments. (quick semi-funny story. At the NACC, a guy was there all dressed up one day as a priest, another day as a Pharisee, or as a shepherd. This was to advertise a passion play in the Ozarks. My wife, who still couldn’t walk very much, asked me to get her some tea at the only Starbucks in the area. I stood in the long line that barely moved and noticed him standing in front of me in full regalia. I asked him, with a completely serious, guileless look, and with a voice that carried to the people around me, "Dude! How long have you been in this line?" It cracked the place up)

If you are using your gifts and offering them to God to honor Him, He promises you that He will receive that gift with joy. And He will honor you in return. Not all of His servants will honor you but, c’mon… Whose blessing would you prefer to receive?