The Church Is Changing - A Reformation of the Church Based on the Truth of Scripture

For many centuries established Christian churches have attempted to assume the status and function of ancient Israel's Temple worship. From massive buildings erected to inspire, to stained glass windows or elaborate decor intended to tell stories, from the priesthood of authoritative pastors/leaders who separate themselves from 'laity,' to injunctions to tithe into the storehouse of the church or risk being devoured by the devil, the modern church looks more like Old Testament Israel than early followers of Christ. The crystallization of the institutional church into Jewish modes of worship is not limited to Roman Catholicism or even unorthodox Mormonism. Baptist churches, though shouting loudly 'no creed but the Bible,' have ignored the New Testament teaching on the nature of the true church and have replicated Israel's hierarchy of priestly authority (pastors), Israel's emphasis on worship at a specific place (the sanctuary), and Israel's obligation to an 'if-then' covenant with God ('if we will obey God, then God will bless us'). The freedom of a sinner who personally, intimately and spiritually trusts Christ and experiences the power of God at work within is substituted for a form of behavioral control imposed by a spiritual authoritarian (usually a pastor) who uses Old Testament passages of Scripture to bind believers. The pastor who operates in this manner may not realize that God abolished the Old Covenant system of worship and that the early Christians were known for their radical departure from dependence on a worship place, authoritarian priests, and any religious performance through ceremony, holy days or sacrifical 'offerings.'  As Adolph Safir reminds us in his brilliant work on Hebrews: “The Greeks and the Romans were not merely astonished at, but felt irritated by the worship of the early Christians, who without image and altar, without priests and vestments, appeared to them as atheists, men and women ‘without gods’ and at times felt threated by the mysterious power Christians possessed as they rejoiced in suffering and met with calm courage the tortures of death itself” Adolph Saphir.

The simplicity of New Covenant worship 'in spirit and in truth' has been overwhelmed by the desires and the demands of leaders within the institutional church. We pastors, often in an attempt to protect our jobs and salaries (or future job and salary), spiritualize everything about the church. Mega-church pastors are often the worst because the financial needs are the greatest. Tom Rainer's recent poll of Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma reveals Emmanuel Enid, the church I pastor, is the third largest Southern Baptist church in the Oklahoma in terms of attendance. The greatest danger I face at Emmanuel is the temptation to forget that what is done at the building on Sundays and Wednesdays is just a part--a small part--of who we are as a people. Whether it is giving, serving, or attending other places of worship, our people should have the liberty and freedom to give, serve, and attend where the Spirit leads. On Sunday at 12:00 noon. the church leaves the building, and whatever I do Sunday morning or Wednesday night should be designed to empower and encourage believers to worship in spirit and truth every day of the week. My job, in the role our church consitution calls "the lead pastor," is to lead people in such a manner that they cheerfully give to the Lord through Emmanuel, joyfully serve the Lord through Emmanuel, and willingly worship the Lord by attending corporate worship services at Emmanuel. However, a good lead pastor will always remind God's people that His church extends far beyond the membership rolls of any one church, and worship, giving and serving in other places is just as biblically sound and Spirit-led as that which is done through Emmanuel.

If the Spirit leads our people to give less, attend less, and serve less at Emmanuel, then our budget, our ministries, and our organizational mission efforts will shrink. If the Spirit leads our people to give more, attend more, and serve more, then our organizational ministries will expand. Regardless, the New Testament is quite clear that our church is NOT a new Temple, our pastors are NOT a new priesthood, and our religious activities are NOT prescribed by any law. God's people should give, should serve and should worship as the Spirit leads, where the Spirit leads, and as long as the Spirit leads. It is not the Law that constrains us but the Spirit who compels us. Unfortunately, many modern Baptist churches have taken promises and laws of the Old Testament and attempted to force them into the New Covenant church. The result is a dysfunctional gathering of law worshippers who are more concerned with conformity than a gathering of strong, individual believers who are empowered by the Spirit. I can almost hear objections from some pastors who say, "But the Word of God prescribes bringing the tithe into the storehouse! The Word of God demands that God's people 'touch not the anointed' in the church! The Word of God dictates everything we do at our church!" My response is simple: Which portion of the Word? The Word pertaining to Israel in the Old Covenant or the Scriptures pertaining to followers of Christ in the New Covenant? Read carefully the following verse in Hebrews 8:13:

"When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

The book of Hebrews was written around AD 65, thirty five years after the death of Christ. The writer of Hebrews says in this verse that God’s old agreement with Israel was made obsolete by God, is growing old and will shortly be abolished (disappear). The old agreement God had with Israel is called "The Old Covenant" and it is found within the Old Testament. Old Covenant worship revolved around the Tabernacle/Temple, the priesthood, and the festivals and sacrificial rituals (collectively called "The Law" in the OT).  The Law was an "if/then" agreement where God promised to Israel His blessings "if" Israel obeyed the Law. The writer of Hebrews tells us three explicit things about this Old Covenant and the "if/then" promises of God that came with it.  (1). The Old Covenant has been made obsolete.' (2). It is 'growing old,' and (3). It will soon be abolished. This biblical truth leads us to ask three questions:

When did God’s covenant with Israel become obsolete?   In AD 30 Jesus the Anointed One died on a hill called Golgatha. The night before He was crucified He took a cup of wine and declared, "This cup is New Covenant of my blood shed for the remission of your sins." The next day, on the cross,  Jesus cried “It is finished!” Everything about the Old Covenant-- all the laws, the rituals, the sacrifices and the types--were all fulfilled in Christ. The Old Covenant had served its purpose (as a schoolmaster that points the sinner to Christ) and is now fulfilled. God made it obsolete in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ. Just like your old television set is made obsolete by the new wave of communication called HDTV, so too, the old pattern of worship in ancient Israel was made obsolete by the new pattern of worship opened up at the cross. The veil was ripped, so the sinner has direct access to God through Christ. And the good news about this new way is that the sinner who comes to God by Christ is guaranteed that he will 'never be cut off from the goodness of God' (Hebrews 7:25). No longer is worship about Temples, priests and rituals. In the New Covenant, those who truly worship God worship Him in "spirit and truth" (John 3:23).

When did God’s covenant with Israel grow old? For forty years (a Jewish ‘generation’) after the cross, from AD 30 to AD 70, the Temple remained standing.  For those forty years the early followers of Jesus Christ came to the Temple to pray, worship, and proclaim the new way to God through faith in Jesus Christ. It was on the steps of the Temple that Peter healed the lame man by saying, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I to you. In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk." The disciples preached Christ in and around the Temple grounds, but the Old Covenant Temple way of worship was 'growing old.' So too, when the Apostle Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, he eventually came back to Jerusalem and Acts 9 says he "preached Christ boldly at the Temple." The Jews were so furious with this former Old Covenant Hebrew who now advocated the new way to approach God that they sought to have him killed,. The disciples thwarted the Jews plan for Paul by secretly escorting the Apostle out of Jersualem for his own safety. Old Covenant worship was growing old. The phrase 'growing old' must be interpreted within the context and time of the writer of Hebrews. He was living in the mid-60's AD, and for over three decades since the death of Christ, Temple worship among the Jews continued --but it was growing old and would "soon disappear" (be abolished).

When was God’s covenant with Israel abolished? In AD 70 God used the Roman army to utterly destroy the Temple. Just as Jesus prophesied forty years earlier (Matthew 24), the Romans did not leave one stone standing upon another. This destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the Old Covenant way of worship was prophesied by the prophets and Jesus for centuries. Israel had been unfaithful to the covenant they had with God, and God therefore abolished it and instituted a new covenant. Again, it is not as if there was no good purpose for the Old Covenant. If it were not for the Law (the biblical way of describing the Old Covenant), Paul would not have known sin. The Law acted as a mirror, reflecting back to the Hebrews their sinfulness and God's holiness. In addition, the Law, particularly through its festivals, rituals and symbols, portrayed a coming Anointed One (Messiah) who Himself would take away the sins of the world. When the Messiah came and fulfilled the Law, the Old Covenant was made obsolete by God, grew old in time, and was eventually abolished (disappeared) in AD 70.  The Temple was gone.

The dwelling place of God in the new agreement that He has made with sinners, called the New Covenant, is the life of the individual believer. It is the life of God in the soul of man that is the true miracle of the New Covenant. The power of the Spirit of God changes the sinner from the inside/out. We are the Temple of the Living God. For this reason, any institutional church that tries to substitute itself as the old Temple, its pastors/priests as the Old priesthood, and operate by Old Testament "if/then" principles and promises, is denying the truth of the New Testament.

The New Covenant changes the way we worship God every day of our lives. The Old Covenant agreement between God and Israel was a come see religion. Come see the Temple. Come see the rituals. Come see the festivals.  The New Covenant is a go tell religion. Go tell sinners of the Savior who has guaranteed the Creator’s goodness to those who trust Him. Christianity is radically spiritual, internal, personal, and trans-cultural (all people). Some of the best worship you can have is with family or a small group of believers around a camp fire at a lake, or at home around the dinner table, or at a backyard barb-e-que. Believers are the church. God dwells in us. Where we are, there He is. We don't behave one way 'at church' and another way everywhere else. We can't do this because we ARE the church. Further, since the life of God is in the invidual sinner who trusts Christ, there is no hierarchical authority in the church. Every believer is a priest unto God.

The New Covenant changes the way we apply Scriptures from the Old Testament. The “If … then” Scriptures are seen as part of God’s promises to the people of Israel. Let me give you three examples of “if/then” promises that Christian people use wrongly.

(Example 1): If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek  my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (II Chronicles 7:14). That is a great Old Covenant promise. Israel often failed this condition of humble repentance, and as a result, they were often taken captive by foreigners and there land was destroyed. This verse, often quoted by Christians, is not a New Covenant promise.

In the New Covenant God says that He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all we even ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph. 3:20). Here is the New Covenant promise. When you come to God by faith in Christ, God resides within you and has begun a work in you that He will carry to completion. Do you find yourself pulled toward addictive sins as a believer? He will eventually break you of them for your good and for His glory. The alcoholic who comes to God by faith in Christ need not worry that a relapse into drunkenness will cause the favor and goodness of God to withdraw from Him. In the old agreement he would have worried, because in the old agreement it was his obedience that ensured God's goodness, but in the New Covenant it is God's goodness to Him in Christ that ensures the sinners' eventual obedience. God is conforming, and He will continue to conform, every sinner who trusts Christ into the image of His Son. It is a guarantee dependent upon His fidelity and strength not your own.

(Example 2)“If you bring the tithe … then I will rebuke the devourer for you” (Malachi 3:10).

This is an often quoted Old Covenant promise by pastors, used as an enticement (and/or threat) for the New Testament believer to give to his or her local church. This promise, given to Old Covenant Israel, is another if/then promise. The rebuke of the devourer is given IF Israel brings their tithes to the Temple. If the people of Israel do not bring their tithe to the Temple, then the devourer is free to reign and destory their possessions.

In the New Covenant, Jesus died and in His death He “destroyed the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). In the New Covenant, the devil will seek to devour you as a 'roaring lion,' but as Bunyan so eloquently pictured in Pilgrim's Progress, the lion is chained. Naturalists also tell us that only teethless lions roar. The truth of the New Testament is quite clear. The "strong man" (Satan) who was once at peace in his home (your life) and was well armed, was disarmed and dislodged by One "stronger than he" (Jesus Christ) who has now taken up residence within you (Luke 11:21-22). As a New Covenant believer in Christ you don't give money to your local church in order for God to rebuke the devourer. Malachi 3:10 is an Old Covenant promise. The devourer is already REMOVED from your life. Jesus is now your Lord. You give as you follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The more you comprehend the work of Christ on your behalf the more you cheerfully give, the more you joyfully serve, and the more you radically worship! In other words, in the New Covenant, giving is a matter of the heart, not the Law. As the Spirit leads you to give to ministries that proclaim the good news of Christ, care for the needs of fellow man, and work hard to do kingdom work--then give!

(Example 3): “If you call upon me in the day of trouble; then I will deliver you” (Psalm 50:15).

Again, that is a great Old Covenant promise, but it is nowhere close to the incredible truth of the New Covenant Scriptures. In the New Covenant, God delivers His people even when they find themselves emotionally, spiritually and personally “dead in our trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). His amazing and agressive love for His people through Christ ensures that He will "never, no never, no never" (five negatives in the original) leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5). It is interesting that in the first portion of Hebrews 13:5 says that we should have "the kind of character that is free from the love of money BECAUSE God will never leave us or forsake." We  do not live this way IN ORDER for  God to never leave us or forsake us. Words are important. In the New Covenant our lives are a response to God's goodness to us in Christ. In the Old Covenant, people lived their lives in order to obtain God's goodness. If you ever find yourself being motivated to do something in order to get God to do something in return, you are living under the principles of the Old Covenant. Unfortunately, the Old Covenant, and Old Covenant churches, and Old Covenant promises will always let you down. However, the new agreement that God has with sinners will never let you down. "He is able to save forever  (i.e. guarantee that they will never be cut off from God's goodness) those who draw near to God through Him” (Hebrews 7:25). 

The church is changing. There is a reformation taking place. The church has left the building(s). And any pastor who tries to reinvigorate the institutional church through Old Covenant principles is destined to fail.

A Free Speech Ekklesia for All Brothers and Sisters

34 "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." é What! (Nonsense) 36 Did the word of God only come to you (Judaizers)? é What! (Nonsense) Or are you (Judaizers) the only people it (God's Word) has reached? (I Corinthians 14:34-36).

          37 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy..." (I Corinthians 14:39). 

In the first two verses above (v. 34 and v. 35), Paul is giving the false belief of Judiaziers who have infiltrated the church at Corinth and other early Christian churches.

These two verses (v. 34 and v. 35) articulate the Judaizers' attempt to bring 1st Century synagogue traditions into the Christian assembly.

These Judaizers were "zealous for the Law," or the teachings of the Talmud (Acts 21:21). They caused all kinds of problems in the early church.

Paul is blunt about them in II Corinthians 11, calling them "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (II Cor. 11:13).

Paul tells the Christians at Corinth to resist the false practices of the Judaizers and stand firm to the New Covenant "traditions" that Paul had taught them (see  I Corinthians 11:2).

Paul is consistent throughout all his writings that all the members of the assembly, both male and female, could participate in congregational worship (see I Corinthians. 14:31 and I Corinthians 11:5-15).

In fact, Paul expects that women in the church will publicly pray and teach just as men publicly pray and teach (see I Corinthians 11:5).

The entire discourse of the New Covenant Scriptures is that God's priesthood is composed of males and females, slave and free, Jews and Gentiles. There is no separation of race, nationality, gender or color in the God's New Covenant priesthood. Each of us has been made a priest (Revelation 1:5) and we all form a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9).

So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-36 "Let the women keep silent in the churches" seems discordant and unconnected to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures.

There's a reason for this -- it is.

Paul is quoting the views of the Judaizers regarding women in I Corinthians 14:34-35, false views about women that the Judaizers are attempting to bring into the Christian assemblies.

Paul quotes what they were teaching in order to refute it.

The Judaizers had been taught four things about the role of women in the synagogues when they were Jews, and they wished to make "the church" conform to these restrictions.

1). The Jews believed women were not qualified to be learners in the synagogue because the talmudic literature forbad them from learning. Their presence in the synagogue was tolerated, but they were to be unobtrusive and silent, never interferring with the work of the men. The Judaizers wished this tradition to be carried over into all the churches. But Paul argues throughout I Corinthians for full participation of women within the assembly (see I Corinthians 14:31 and 39).

2). The Jews recognized that a woman in the synagogue might at some point wish to move from passive attendance to actually learning something in the synagogue, but this was viewed as an exceptional occurance and not the norm. Therefore, on the rare occasion a woman desired to ask a question in order to learn, she was instructed to maintain her silence in the assembly and wait to ask her husband after leaving the synagogue and returning home. The Judaizers wished to keep the same passivity of women in the earkt Christian churches. But Paul expects women to pray and prophesy, the two acts of worship in the assembly, in the same manner that men pray and prophesy. Women compose half the priesthood (see I Corinthians 11:5).

3). There is the assumption in the synagogue that all Jewish women would be married; it was even expected by leaders in the synagogue that Jewish women would marry. The Judaizers believed the same thing should be true about all women in the early church. But Paul argues his preference that Christian women remain single for the purpose of ministry (see I Corinthians 7:34).

4). The Jews believed, and it was reinforced by the Talmud, that only the males should receive religious instruction. Jewish husbands were the source of their wives learning. Women should remain silent within the context of the synagogue. The Judaizers carried this tradition into the early churches and taught just as firmly that all Christian women should be silent in the churches. But Paul has taught that the priesthood of God is composed of both males and females, and there is an equality within the priesthood in both role and function (see I Corinthians 11:11 and Galations 3:28-29)

Paul states the Judaizers beliefs about women in I Corinthians 14:34-35, and then he begins to refute it. 

Gilbert Bilezikian writes:

"It is worth noting that in 1 Corinthians more than in any of his other Epistles, Paul uses the é particle to introduce rebuttals to statements preceding it. As a conjunction, é appears in Paul's Epistles in a variety of uses. But the list below points to a predilection for a particular use of é which is characteristic mainly of 1 Corinthians."

Bilezikian then shows the appearance of the é particle in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and in each case translates it as "What! or (Nonsense) to give the contextual meaning.

1 Corinthians 6:1-2--"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? (é What! Nonsense) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"

I Corinthians 14:34-36 - Here Paul states the Judaizers' belief that that he intends to refute, and he uses the Greek uses the eta é like he does in I Corinthians 6. 

Corinthians 14:34-35  - "34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" é What! (Nonsense)"

I Corinthians 14:36: "Or did the word of God come only to you (Judaizers)?  é What! (Nonsense! Or are you (Judaizers) the only people it has reached?"

After refuting the false belief, Paul writes:

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy..." (I Corinthians 14:39). 

So the "What" (the Greek eta), is used by Paul throughout Corinthians to refute false teaching. 

There are actually two of these eta particles in I Corinthians 14:34-36. Paul is expressing his disbelief (a compounded disbelief) that anyone would think that men only are the mouth pieces of God and that women should be silent in their presence. 

Paul states his objection to that kind of thinking very clearly.

"What! Did the word of God come only to you? What! (Note: this "What!" is the second eta in the text) Are you the only people it has reached?"

Paul is refuting the Jewish Old Covenant belief that men only can hear from God and speak in the assembly (synagogue), which Christian Judaizers wished to carry over into the ekklesia (churches).

In other words, the "women keep silent" passage is not God's commandment, but it is the Judaizers corrupt teaching.

The internal evidence that identifies this "women silent in the assembly" as false Judaizer teaching is clear:

1.  The Greek conjunction prior to verse 36.

2. The absence of quotations in the original Greek

3. The context bot shows Paul is correcting the Judaizers' false beliefs.

I once spoke on this topic during a Wednesday night Bible study. I spent time reviewing the overwhelming number of verses, including those from Paul's own letters, which are diametrically opposed to the principles taught by the Judaizers. If you think I Corinthians 14:34-36 is from God and not the Judaizers, then you will have a hard time explaining why the rest of Bible directly contradicts the prohibitions in  I Corinthians 14:34-36.

We always have a question and answer time at the end of Bible study and a new member of our church, a woman about seventy years of age who was life long member of a traditional SBC church in Nevada, desired to comment about what I had taught. She was seated next to her husband, and she raised her hand to be recognized and was called upon, she spoke and disagreed quite strongly with my interpretation. She believed I Corinthians 14:33-35 was a commandment from God and after explaining her reasoning, she concluded emphatically that God wanted women to be silent "in church."

When she was finished I gently suggested that if she believed my interpretation of I Corinthians 11:34-35 was wrong and her's was right, then she should have never raised her hand to be recognized, she should have never voiced her beliefs in the assembly, and she should have waited until she and her husband arrived  home before she asked a question of HIM or made a comment to HIM about what I had taught.

That is what the text says!

So either she must believe that what I'm teaching is right and then she is FREE to ask questions of her pastor, at any time, any place, for any reason the assembly is gathered, or she must be true to and consistent with her beliefs and remain absolutely silent in church.

Her response?

She said she was not "in church," so she could speak. Mind you, we were in our Fellowship Hall on Wednesday night with a couple of hundred believers present. There were numerous other small groups from our church meeting throughout our facility and around the city that night. But, in our new member's mind, we were not "in the church" that night because we weren't in the "auditorium" and having a typical Sunday morning "church" service.

Her comment led me to think many Southern Baptists don't have a working, biblical understanding of what the church is. Traditional Southern Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament. I believe that the Bible teaches that where two or three are gathered in the name of the Jesus Christ, the assembly is gathered and Christ is at the center of His people.

So Wednesday night is as much church as Sunday morning. Tuesday night small group is as much church as Wednesday night Bible study. Tuesday morning's gathering for fellowship, service, and worship is as much church as Sunday night's discipleship classes.

We, the people, are His church, and when or where we assemble, as few as two or three, His church is convened.

So move over Judaizers; all the people of God are free to function.

Personal Regeneration the Antidote for Political Corruption

Jesse T. Peck (1811-1883), was a Methodist Episcopal pastor, the first chairman of the board of Syracuse University, and an intellectual, though never formally educated. When friends around him began to despair over the corruption in government, universities and even churches, Jesse T. Peck  made what I believe to be an insightful quote on the power of genuine revival. Reminding his friends that the ultimate answer to cleaning up corruption is in the spiritual realm, he said:

“Personal regeneration must extend until political corruption shall become improbable, unpopular and even impossible."

A good reminder for all of us pastors as we partake in our July 4th services.

Are the Bluebirds, Evidence of Perfect Balance, at Home in Our Churches?

Mike Klemme is a famous photographer. He made his reputation by publishing breathtaking photographs of golf courses around the world. Mike has worked with the legends in the game of golf, including Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Weiskopf and others. It was very interesting listening to Mike's stories last week as we traversed the state doing some research and photography.

Mike is very familiar with the finest golf courses in the world, having officially photographed Augusta, St. Andrews, and other legendary golf courses at home and internationally. He rates the top golf courses in Oklahoma, in terms of beauty and balance, as (1). Karsten Creek, Stillwater; (2). The Golf Club of Oklahoma, Broken Arrow; (3). Southern Hills, Tulsa; (4). Oak Tree, Edmond, (5). The Territory, Duncan. One of the interesting tidbits of information Mike gave me was how a layman like myself could determine whether or not a golf course was in natural balance. He said that when nature and ecology are in balance at a golf course, the blue birds appear. A golf course without blue birds is a sign that there is either too much or too little water, chemicals, noise, etc....

As I thought about the natural balance of "grace and truth," I couldn't help but wonder what are the bluebirds of balance within our churches. In other words, what are the signs that we have a perfect blend and balance of both grace and truth. I don't know that I have the answers, but I can tell you I'm at least asking the questions.

In His Grace,

Wade

Grace Community Church in San Antonio Seems to Understand

Jeff Rogers, a friend and former member of Emmanuel, sent me this video highlighting the church with whom he worshipped while living in San Antonio. In light of the eight woes of Jesus, this video spoke to my heart. I hope it does yours.

Lukewarm Churches Are Those That Neither Heal Nor Refresh

I believe one of the most misunderstood passages in Revelation comes from the words of Jesus as He speaks to the church at Laodicea saying, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16). Most Christian teachers who speak on this passage compare people being "hot" to being on fire for the things of God, and those who are "cold" to being calloused and cold toward the things of God. Of course, "the things of God" are usually made to mean those matters important to the preacher or teacher. These Christian leaders then conclude with an encouragement that God hates "lukewarm Christians," and if the listeners won't get on fire about serving God and getting "sold out" to Him, then they might as well turn their backs on everything associated with God and be "cold" toward spiritual things and go to hell. God likes us either "hot" or "cold," but He can't stand lukewarm Christians. The remainder of the teaching time is usually used by the teachers of this text to get the hearers to "recommit," or "to be more active in the church," or "to repent of not doing enough for God."

That is such an unfortunate interpretation of a beautiful text. The people at Laodicea knew exactly what Jesus was saying to their church. Laodicea was a city situated at the crossroads of the aquaduct system of Rome. Aquaducts were open, above ground troughs that carried the water throughout Asia Minor. Fifteen miles north of Laodacia was the Roman city of Hierapolis where people from all over came for the healing found in the hot water springs of that city. Ten miles east of Laodacia was the Roman city of Colossae where the incredibly cold springs brought refreshment to weary travelers on their way to other regions of the world. Both Hierapolis and Colossae sent their water to Laodacia via aquaduct, but the cold water of Colassae and the hot water of Hierapolis became lukewarm water--good for nothing--upon arrival at Laodicea. With this knowledge, "cold" in the context of 1st Century Rome and Jesus' letter to Laodicea represents something "good," not "evil."

So what Jesus was saying to the people of Laodecia was simple, yet profound:

"I want you to be like the "hot" water that comes from the springs at Hierapolis. That is, I want you to be a people who bring healing to those hurting, wounded people that come your way. I also want you to be like the "cold" water that comes from Colossae. Be a people who bring refreshment to those who are tired, weary and full of despair. As it is, you are now neither "hot" nor "cold." Those who come into your midst find neither healing nor refreshment. I know your works. They are "lukewarm" and good for nothing. As it is, I spit you out of my mouth.

Might I propose that churches and church leadership that bring neither healing nor refreshment to sinners are "poor," "blind," and "naked?" Might it also be true that churches who work hard to build an empire but lose sight of helping those who are spiritually wounded, oppressed and needy are "miserable and wretched?" I personally think this is the proper intepretation of Jesus' words to the church at Laodicea.

How do we know if we are a people that bring either healing or refreshment to sinners who come in contact with us? I think Paul Burleson gives us a keystone in his post The Kind of Group To Which I Belong on how to measure our success in this matter.

In His Grace,


Wade

Paul Proctor Pulls No Punches: "Our Churches Are Dead"

In the December 16, 2009 NewsWithViews column by Paul Proctor, Southern Baptists are taken to task for our churches being "dead." Paul is a resident of Tennessee and seasoned veteran of the country music industry. He retired from show business in the late 1990's and has dedicated himself to addressing important social issues from a distinctly biblical perspective. Paul builds his article around a statement made this past week by Franklin Graham, "Our churches are dead." I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise of Graham's declaration or Paul Proctor editorialization (see article below). Paul places Franklin Graham and Rick Warren as polar opposites in the article and suggests that Warren's theology is the antitheses of the Franklin's. I know both men, and I'm not sure I agree. Further, Paul criticizes both Rick Warren and Franklin Graham in the article for the methods of ministry they use without recognizing the enormous good that comes from both ministries. Yet, in spite of Paul criticizing these men by name, as well as all SBC churches, I think there are some points he makes that are worthy of our discussion. I also happen to not agree with Paul that all SBC churches are dead (he obviously hasn't visited our church), but again, I do think he makes some arguments that should at least get our attention as Southern Baptists. Mr. Proctor begins his article by mentioning the interview he read involving Franklin Graham.

(Beginning of Article)

"I read an interesting article/interview with Franklin Graham, son of famed evangelist, Billy Graham, in a publication called The Gathering where he not only expressed the importance of sharing the gospel, but also some less than flattering comments about today’s churches and pastors “going directions Jesus never told us to go into,” referencing the new “liberal” evangelical emphasis on “social justice” and “Christianizing” the culture.

Of course, I can’t speak for Franklin Graham, but it sure sounded like a slap in the face of Rick Warren with his Global Peace Plan. Certainly, there are many who have made the social gospel job one, but none more notable than the Purpose Driven pastor from Saddleback Church.

Unfortunately, Graham didn’t name names, an all too common practice among clergy today, which leaves many vulnerable to “Christian” celebrities who put people-pleasing programs and global agendas over and above the Word of God and the call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. If Mr. Graham believes certain pastors are out there leading others astray with a false gospel, he has a duty to warn them, not just make vague references that will go in one ear and out the other as if who’s doing it doesn’t really matter. Souls are at stake here.

But, in spite of this, he made some important points in the Q&A session that need to be mentioned:

TG: The next generation of believers seems to be making social justice issues such as poverty, disease, orphans, clean water, etc. a real priority. What do you think about that?

Graham: None of that is our mandate. Jesus never said, "I want you to go out and alleviate the poor in the world." ...So many churches and so many pastors today are going directions Jesus never told us to go into. He said, "you'll always have the poor with you."

TG: Do you see those works as a door to sharing the gospel and making disciples?

Graham: That's the if. If they do it, sure. My grandparents were missionaries to China. They took modern medicine to China. Why? Because the Chinese people had no medicine. My grandfather, a surgeon, saved people's lives so that he could preach the gospel. If the social program comes first and then if you can, you try to work the gospel wedge into it, that won't work. It has to be the gospel first. You go, why? Because Christ died on the cross. He shed His blood on the cross, and that's why I'm going. And by the way, if I see somebody hungry, I'm going to try to feed them. If I see somebody that needs some medicine, I'm going to give them that. If I meet somebody who just needs an arm around them, I'll hug them and tell them God loves them. But I'm going because Christ told me to go into the world and make disciples. He never told me to go feed people. He never told me to go try to make people feel better. He told me to preach the gospel.

TG: To what extent do you think Christians should be involved in helping to usher in the kingdom of Heaven now, on Earth? Should we be trying to redeem our culture?

Graham: First of all, the Bible didn't tell me to do that. I can't Christianize this culture. The god of this world is Satan - this is his culture. He is the god of this age. I'm to preach the gospel. .... God is calling a people for Himself. I don't know whom He's calling, I just have to be faithful and preach.

Later in the article, Graham stated, point blank: “We need revival. Our churches are dead.” I think most Christians who regularly read this column already know that, but it was important to hear him say it.

After having visited many such churches in and around the very home of the Southern Baptist Convention here in Nashville, Tennessee over the last ten years, I couldn’t agree more. And, I don’t say that with any presumed piety, personal innocence or lofty, Mr. Know-it-all kind of attitude. I say it with a deep sadness, frustration and desire to wake up sleepy, jaded and distracted Christians and their pastors who apparently don’t recognize the seriousness of the situation or the urgency of the hour.

One evangelical tactic addressed in the article that I vigorously disagree with concerning both the Billy Graham Association and Franklin Graham, is the blatant use of popular music styles (and celebrities, I might add) in their crusades to help draw crowds. Samaritan’s Purse also hands out church-donated toys at Christmas to appeal to children and their parents on the mission field as a way to gain their favor and make them more receptive to the gospel.

Jesus never did either of these things and neither should we. Although He fed the masses on more than one occasion to demonstrate God’s love and power, there’s no biblical record of the Lord using food or anything else of a carnal nature to lure people in to hear Him preach. In my view, these pragmatic and people-pleasing practices are just another form of religious bribery that has now become the modus operandi of most churches today, which I believe, in no small part, set the stage for the whole seeker-sensitive church growth movement that has successfully undermined the gospel and steered the Church at large toward evangetainment as its thrust instead of God’s Word and, in the process, shipwrecked the fragile, unfed and undisciplined faith of many by teaching them to do the same.

My wife and I visited a typical SBC church not long ago where the orchestra kicked off the Sunday morning service with something that sounded more like a television talk show theme than a call to worship. I’m sorry – I don’t care what your tastes in music are – that can’t be justified. Whether Christians realize it or not, synthesizing the sacred with the secular promotes confusion and a compromised worship atmosphere.

In all fairness though, the music minister is a very nice young man with a wonderful voice who usually leads a blended mix of traditional and contemporary selections in an attempt to offer a little something for everyone in attendance – a common practice among Southern Baptists and others which, in my view, only leaves the congregation divided, with everyone impatiently waiting for their music to be played so they can get in their three minutes of worship and praise before the next genre is covered that appeals to someone else’s palate and turns our stomach.

How anyone stays focused on God and His Word jumping from traditional hymns to funky blues tunes to rock guitar solos to jazzy Jesus numbers is beyond me. But, this is the kind of conflict being created by well-meaning church leaders today acting on group consensus rather than godly conviction. If we don’t do that with our theology, why are we doing it with our music?

We then went to an adult Sunday school class where the Word of God was set aside for the entire hour in order to fill out a lengthy church survey on personal preferences followed by a touchy discussion on the same – this after a half-hour or more of pre-class chitchat, pastries and coffee which concluded with an array of suggested entertainment-oriented social activities and restaurants to meet at for informal class get-togethers and what-evers during the week, which was apparently difficult for many due to all of the other regularly scheduled activities already committed to with family.

Friends, this is what the Church in America has become in the 21st century: Christians trying to figure out where to go and what to do with themselves in this great big amusement park we call America!

But, all of this, I sincerely believe is going to change dramatically – and very soon. And, though there will be a lot of suffering and hardship in the coming years, and especially in the Church, I am convinced that when people eventually lose everything worldly and superficial that has, up to now, seemed so important to them, the faith of some will come alive as never before while others will continue to seek the flesh in one form or another, following whoever offers the most gratification for the least amount of suffering and sacrifice.

If you want to properly prepare for dire days ahead, prepare for this. When fear, violence, suffering and uncertainty become the order of the day, there may be no better time in our nation’s history to share the good news of Jesus Christ and be the kind of witness for Him that we should have been all along."

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” – Mark 16:15

(End of Article)

Is There a Thing Called Radical Masculinization?

I am grateful for the gospel ministry of Mars Hill and her pastor Mark Driscoll. I am not very familiar with much of Mark's teaching, but I came across this video on YouTube, obviously intended to be a parody of Mark's belief about males in the church, and it made me wonder if there is such a thing as masculinization. I often hear of evangelicals being concerned with the feminization of the church, but I am honestly asking (and don't even pretend to know the answer), if it is possible to be so pro-MALE in the evangelical church that we lose sight that the New Covenant gospel is not as nearly concerned with the separation of the rich and the poor, the black and the white, the slave and the free, the male and the female, as it is in the restoration and healing of every soul to the proper place of finding one's true identity and significance in Jesus alone?

Just wondering.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson