(Catch up with the start of this series Answering [Bill] Gothard defenders, part 1.)

More questions for ‘Anonymous’

Alas, should have known one of the above comments had a delay in appearing. Anonymous, if you’re still about, it seems I answered your latter points first. But perhaps it was better that way — those seemed to be more important.

Argumentum ad hominem?

Yes, the cover is a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" reference.

I do note, joining some of the others here, that you haven’t attempted to show why I’m wrong according to Scripture, which is something I would be more eager to hear if indeed I’ve missed something. Rather, questioning-the-source and he’s-a-nice-man just aren’t fitting defenses — especially when you’re inconsistently forgetting to do the same with me. Again, I’ll go through, hoping to offer firm yet friendly suggestions for things you might have missed, not just because I’m a Nice Guy, but because the truth of Scripture is at stake here.

1. Quoting from the article “Taliban Dan:. . .” by Sarah Posner, hardly gives this author credibility. Sarah Posner writes for RD (Religion Dispatches). Here’s a bit from their “About Us” page:

“Religion Dispatches is an online magazine devoted to exploring the intersections of religion, values, and public life, nationally and globally. It aims to provide a platform for expert, critical exploration of religion in the contemporary world for a general readership. The goal of RD is to inform public debate by analyzing and critically engaging the role of religion and values on the most vital issues of our time. This will involve bringing a wider spectrum of perspectives into the conversation, especially voices that have been marginalized in most media, and increasing attention to progressive expressions of religion and values.”

This is not a publication aimed at glorifying God—simply analyzing (from a worldly perspective) religion and it’s affect on society.

I knew that already. But that does not mean Gothard isn’t responsible for saying what he said, which denied what Scripture was really saying. In my column, I did allow for the possibility that Gothard said more than what was quoted. However, regardless of her intent, that reporter pricked him, and he failed to bleed Gospel. He also directly contradicted what Jesus was saying about “the servant of all.” This had nothing to do with women secretly ruling the world through “submission.” What He said had everything to do with His male disciples leading through servanthood of others, emulating His own humility, becoming lower than all so that He might later be exalted above all (Philippians 2).

2. Sarah Posner also writes for The American Prospect, among other publications. The American Prospect is, according to the Google description: a “Monthly magazine covering politics, culture, and policy from a liberal perspective.

Is guilt-by-association a Biblical way to discern?

I checked through the article to see if its author treated all Christians that way. Surprisingly, she didn’t. Witness the quotes from other Christians, Don Veinot and Ronald B. Allen, whose rebuttals to Gothard are repeated fairly. They’re not being attacked along with Gothard simply because all claim to be Christian. The author, though admittedly a liberal, is fair. To follow an ad hominem approach without (or even before) dealing with the actual material is neither Biblical nor fitting here.

‘He’s only human’: not an excuse for not discerning

3. Of course there’s going to be sin in the camp—Bill Gothard is human, as are those women and men writing and blogging.

My objection is not to the presence of any “sin in the camp” (Old Testament metaphor) or whining about how Bill Gothard Should be Perfect and Isn’t. My objection to his, and many of his followers’, steady pattern of twisting Scripture to fit spiritual, moralistic Systems, and trusting some unknown Other (if even that) to take care of all that trifling Gospel stuff.

I know some of these women. By and large, they are writing under their husband’s oversight, and have no overt desire for power over others (as in the pyramid scheme model mentioned.)

That’s good to know. Yet in this case, then, it’s Anecdote versus Anecdote: your Anecdote that some women are indeed “submitting” from the heart, while others say they have known women who do it the exact opposite. Rock versus rock — no one wins. Thus my primary objection was not anything like “all women who claim to believe this are hypocrites” (although that’s true in too many cases to be coincidence). My primary point was instead: Gothard himself is inconsistent with his own profession to believe the Gospel, and has twisted this Scripture.

If they are out from under authority, perhaps those select individuals are in sin. By casting the stone does this author assume his own sinlessness?

This is a misapplication of the John 8 passage about the woman caught in adultery (itself a matter of some debate!). Even if accepted as part of the original book of John, this in no way overthrows Christ’s and the apostles’ commandments to be discerning, even if they themselves are not perfect. The apostle Paul knew of his flaws, yet opposed the apostle Peter “to his face” because Peter was clearly in the wrong (Galatians 2).

The presence of sin does not invalidate a ministry. It simply makes that ministry a product of humanity, like every other.

This is a straw man, Anonymous, though my guess is that you didn’t mean it. Your assumption that I’ve argued “Gothard / anyone else sins, thus we reject them” is flawed. Read the above for a reminder of the true reason I objected. And a true believer, even who is accomplishing good ministry elsewhere, should want to seek gracious correction and change accordingly. Sorry, “we all sin” is no excuse. God’s Word calls all believers to seek holiness in the Spirit, even if we are not actually perfect until the resurrection and New Earth.

If this premise were valid, we would have to disestablish or debunk every Christian institution in existence.

Fortunately, no one here has argued that premise; it exists only in your perception. I do wonder, though, why is it that you have (by accident, I’m sure!) “projected” an expectation of perfect teaching on others here?

Twisting Scripture: the real issue

4. The author admits he doesn’t know the rest of the quote.

And has also clarified to say that Gothard here not only missed some other trivial, optional teaching about how Christ is actually the greatest Servant — Gothard actively said something opposite. Even if he scrambled to cover up later, that would have been a self-contradiction as well as a Scripture contradiction. Let us not argue from silence either way. The fact remains: Gothard was pricked, and failed to bleed Gospel. This is understandable for a “baby Christian.” For a popular Christian leader, an elder, it’s inexcusable.

Being a published author, I know that it is dangerous to pull out random quotes from arbitrary sources. That’s just plain poor journalism.

Quite an accusation there. Refer to the above about Gothard’s overt contradiction to Scripture, regardless of whether he corrected himself later. Prove he did do that in that interview, and I’ll issue a correction. The only real objection that could be made is that I’ve misunderstood what he said about women being the real top dogs on Earth because of all their “submission.” So far I haven’t seen that defense attempted.

5. I have spoken with Bill Gothard, and he is not the man this author represents him to be. Of course if you call him on the phone and put him on the spot about a particular issue, and then isolate his comments, you can misrepresent any person in any desired light.

How he speaks in person and whether he is a Nice Guy is irrelevant. I’m sure Joel Osteen, Bart Ehrman and many others are very decent fellows — that doesn’t rule out them being false teachers who need correction.

Another straw man, though: I did not say he’s a rude chap, based on that interview. I said he twisted Scripture. Still that point has not been addressed. As for “it was taken out of context” type defenses, show me the real context, what exactly I’ve misread, to strengthen that charge.

I have friends who know this man well, and know him to be humble, winsome, caring, and personable. He is human and fallible, but no power monger or mind controller.

Again, My Anecdote versus Other People’s Anecdotes. Rock doesn’t beat Rock. I haven’t argued with Anecdotes. But Paper — Scripture — beats everything in this little game. Gothard twisted Scripture. Sadly, game over — unless he were to repent and change. Even more sadly, this has been a pattern.

What he knows of husband-wife relationships and parenting, he knows from extensive study of scripture—a pretty reliable source.

Twisting of Scripture, ignoring simple hermeneutics and the Gospel narrative, as demonstrated in this column, on this site and in other sources (available upon request).

The very sentiment they quote—they mention that he laughed—being light hearted about it—that was his way of trying to lift up a segment of humanity that is often trodden on.

That is only opinion, and again, another Anecdote that doesn’t apply. Lifting up the Downtrodden is a great sentiment — just like Following Authorities or Respecting Your Parents. But do NOT lift these things above the most Downtrodden One of all, the Greatest Servant. Gothard did that, and it was stepping out from under the “umbrella” of Christ’s authority.

Not because he puts any emphasis on that idea, but because he was called and cornered with a specific question about this topic.

Another opinion, which I do hope you’ll revise — not offering Alternate Interpretations or Anecdotes, but showing, from Scripture itself, what I might have gotten wrong and how Gothard is actually right that “being a servant of all” is more about women’s submission than about all Christ’s disciples and especially Christ Himself.

Though I know these latest comments of mine have carried a more-firm demeanor, I still mean them in love and caution, and wish we had the chance to discuss these matters more personally and with a background of relationship and trust in other ways.

Continued from part 1: a review, with careful questions, of Sarah Young’s bestselling Jesus Calling.

Real promises: weakened, ignored or denied

“My writings must be consistent with [the Bible’s] unchanging standard.” I’m not sure if Young understands what a vital goal that is. Back in Old Testament days they used to stone men who “prophesied” something God didn’t say. Now some believe the gift of prophecy Paul discussed with the Corinthians is identical — and that is a related issue, but Young does not even try to prove her “listening” to God is Biblical. She simply assumes it is, then starts, and doesn’t even explain how it is that God’s words to her will also apply to readers; I’m confused!

Of course, if God had promised He would communicate more with His people using impressions during quiet times, I wouldn’t be criticizing this. However, He never promised He would.

Yes, of course He could do this. But the fact that God could do many things is not proof that He has or will. Even a VeggieTales episode portrayed this well: God could turn Larry the Cucumber into a chicken, but as Bob the Tomato reminded Larry, God only does what He wants to do. Scripture tells us how He has revealed what He wants us to know about Him: Scripture alone.

Even if God had chosen to reveal new things to “listeners” today, it must be consistent with His previous revelation. Otherwise He is a liar, and not the loving, truthful God He promised He is.

But despite giving credit to Scripture alone as being inspired, Jesus Calling’s author treats the precious, revealed Scripture in a very casual and cavalier fashion, frequently throughout the devotions. Her partial quoting of verses, often mixed with her own opinions of what Jesus was telling her that particular day, bypasses the context of each passage, and the whole Bible itself.

The first woeful result: this weakens the power of Scripture’s promises. For example, Jeremiah 29:11 is a wonderful proof of how God promised to remember the Jews even during their exile (which He Himself had promised and carried out because of their disobedience). But Young quotes only that verse, apart from context, apart from the glorious encouragement that God not only made this promise to them, but fulfilled it. She makes the “promise” not only narrowly personal but pathetic. The only reason we know God will do the same for us — which is promised more directly in other Scriptures — is because He has a track record, a history.

It’s typical of evangelicals to repeat God’s promises without their contexts, which actually would render them more powerful and encouraging. Why quote only partially? We treat no other book or writer like this. Is it more loving to Jesus to listen only to parts of His more-sure promises? How would He feel about any of us salvaging His words from the page, or our own memories — anyone steeped in evangelical culture for years could do this — for our own goals, and not His?

Second, Young’s partial quotes of Scripture phrases frequently end up ignoring what God has already and explicitly said. At random (that’s another wrong way of reading any book, including the Bible!) I flipped to Young’s personal-turned-meant-for-others entry for June 18:

You are my beloved child. I chose you before the foundation of the world, to walk with Me along paths designed uniquely for you. Concentrate on keeping in step with Me, instead of trying to anticipate My plans for you. If you trust that My plans are to prosper you and not to harm you, you can relax and enjoy the present moment.

Is this all just a pack of lies? No. But has Jesus really said this, in that order? Also no. Young italicizes the “I chose you …” to indicate its Biblical origin and cites the reference, along with others. But she ignores the fact that Paul was writing (Ephesians 1: 3-10) about a Christian’s salvation from spiritual death thanks to Christ’s death, redemption of us and resurrection: the Gospel! Instead she misappropriates this phrase as if it’s only about a Gospel result: following “paths designed uniquely for you.” This both weakens the actual promise and ignores the core truth: that only through the Gospel of Christ’s grace and forgiveness of our sins do we have any hope of staying on His paths for us. Because of this ignoring what God has truly said, whether intentional or simply careless, Young’s pep talk is neither loving nor encouraging. Despite her intentions, it becomes a lie by omission and a “unique path” that isn’t so unique as legalistic.

That leads to a third and last tragic result of Young’s attempts to speak on Jesus’ behalf: Jesus Calling implicitly denies the Gospel. This is perhaps the worst lie of omission in the book: in 365 devotions, Young never finds time to emphasize how Jesus came to Earth to fulfill the Law and die to save from sins. He came not just to show a better way to live or give us His special Peace and Presence that help in our troubles — any self-help speaker could do that. Instead Jesus showed the more amazing love: He died for His people’s sins to reconcile them and His creation to God the Father.

Any book that bypasses that — as if expecting someone else to take care of that tangential, trivial part of the Bible — does not help point people to the true-life Jesus. This “Jesus” ends up being only a solution for personal problems and a balm for one’s soul during quiet times. He’s not the actual Savior Who saves us not just from our little failings and imperfections, but from our initial hatred of God, and does all things for God’s glory.

Any professing Christian book ignoring that is not offering improved love, or bonus-feature love, but no real love.

Relationship through truth

My goal is not to be a mean “watch-blogger” type, or to act as though any imaginative portrayal of Jesus or creative work is an assault on the truth of Scripture’s sufficiency. As a fiction author myself, I’ve written “dialogue” for Jesus, and even imagined what He would say to a man who somehow visited the New Earth before he died! But all artistic endeavors, all imaginings of what Jesus would say or do in a particular situation, must be grounded in God’s actual Word. And is it really loving, both to the real Jesus and to our Christian brothers and sisters, to act as though we have managed to reach some spiritual plateau and received new words from Him?

Let us say I come home today after work and reunited with my loving wife. Then she begins telling me about her day, what thoughts she’s had, what goals she’s accomplished, anything she has done or hopes to do. What if I nodded politely, telling her (and others later) how much I appreciate what she says — but then go off by myself, in a quiet room, and wrote down what I thought she would say to me, even while using half-remembered phrases she did say?

This approaches too close to some of the rhetoric I have heard from those who say they want “relationship” but don’t need to worry about all that truth-and-doctrine stuff. I just want to know the real Jesus, they say, and all this theology and learning facts gets in the way.

Fortunately, Young does not say that. But she also never reminds us that true love for a person does not come apart from careful, grace-based, intentional listening to what he actually said. One can memorize facts about a figure without loving him or being in a close relationship, but one cannot love a person apart from caring and loving what he has said about what he is like.

Objection: But I’ve been in so many churches where everyone is all about dry facts and figures about Jesus. What I really need is rest in Him and have His peace, not just more things to do and truths to know about Him, “doctrine” without love. Why are you picking on this book?

Yet any professed “doctrines” about Jesus also become lies by omission, if separated from love for others in Christ — the same love the Father showed us by sending Him to redeem us.

Therefore, I would simply ask: how does correcting for lies-by-omission with more of the same help fix the problem? Jesus does promise rest, absolutely (as in Matt. 11:28). But the best rest we can receive in Him is because He has forgiven us — not just for stressing out or failing to believe His promises to help guide us, but from our rebellion against God Himself.

That is a greater story, and a far greater love, for the actual Jesus Christ.

Christians shouldn’t oppose creative re-presenting of His truth, either in fiction or nonfiction, including devotional books. But we must love the real Jesus. And He calls us to truth, and better honor His precious Word — the same Word that Peter said is “more sure” (2 Peter 1:16-20) even than Peter’s incredible experience on a mountaintop.

Al Mohler has caught up to a controversy that’s been talked about for years in Christendom. In a post last week at his website ¹, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president — I’m sorry to say this — breathed new life into the issue.

Without outlining my own position just yet, here’s an overview of three Christian views on yoga.

1. Pagans came up with yoga for false-religious reasons. Its belief basis, meditations, ideas about the human body, poses and breathing methods do not honor God. Therefore Christians should shun everything about the practice, not wanting to worship idols.
2. While pagans may have come up with yoga for wrong reasons, I as a Christian should be able to do it, even the meditating and whatever, and I’m okay. What’s wrong with it?
3. Yoga began as a system of exercise based on anti-Christian beliefs. Wise Christians will employ Biblically based discernment to weed out the junk, not wanting to dishonor God (and waste their time!) with false religious beliefs. However, although almost any Thing in the world (such as food) may be invented or sold with anti-God motivations (definition: any motivation not sanctified by the Spirit!), a Christian may stretch or exercise in a way that yoga practitioners just happened to popularize first, and not dishonor God.

Mohler takes a stance

This past spring I joined an anti-yoga Facebook group and participated, not because I believed in the group-starter’s beliefs (ahem), but because I wanted to stretch my mind (ahem) and take part in an intellectual exercise and learn (ahem!). That didn’t go over too well with other group “members,” most of whom were anti-Christian activists, polite and otherwise, who had more-crucial issues to complain about. But I did get a column out of it (plus a short sequel).

Still I stand by my conclusions then, that yoga poses, stretches and even breathing techniques and the like are almost direct equivalents to the “meat offered to idols” the Apostle Paul talks about in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.

It seems Mohler doesn’t bring up that issue. To him, perhaps, not discerning yoga as a false religion is the main Problem in Christendom.

Do I agree this is likely Christians’ biggest problem? Yes.

Will I also ask rhetorically whether Mohler may be skipping over potential lesser problems? Yes.

He won’t know anyway, that I’m about to first, quote from his column:

[A] significant number of American Christians either experiment with yoga or become adherents of some yoga discipline. Most seem unaware that yoga cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in yoga, and the exercises and disciplines of yoga are meant to connect with the divine.

… then rework it just a bit, like so:

[A] significant number of Corinthian Christians either taste-test meat offered to idols or become adherents of some pagan temple worship service. Most seem unaware that eating these meats cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in idol-worship, and the exercises and disciplines of eating such meats are meant to connect with the divine.

This changes things somewhat — especially if we also remember that Paul did not say this or anything similar. Rather, the apostle said that while evil is real and we should not participate in actually worshiping demons, nothing is intrinsically wrong with the meats.

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10: 19-30

Spiritual freedom restrictions

A Christian’s only restrictions on doing something that could look evil but is not actually evil, are not based on the possibility that they’ll actually honor a demon by accident. Instead a Christian should avoid eating because another brother, with a conscientious objection, might be hurt.

That’s the catch. Freedom is what we have in Christ, Paul says. But as he himself gave up his freedom for His sake, we should take into account a Christian brother’s honest difficulties.

As I disclaimed in my first column on the issue:

[L]et us assume you are a newer Christian, or truly a more-sensitive sister. Such a person could have experience with an actual pagan-saturated practice of yoga, and want to avoid it. Why? For the same reason that a new Christian with an alcoholic past might avoid any restaurant with a bar: He might be tempted to fall back into that sinful habit that dishonors the Lord he loves.

So if you had a background in New Age practices, paganism or religion-saturated yoga, I would not be telling you like this that certain parts of yoga might be okay. Instead, I would encourage you to think about where the real sin comes from — as I’m doing now. But then I would back off and let God and you make your own decisions and whether it would be sinful for you.

Will the real compromise stand up?

Yet what about Mohler, and other Christians — such as a pastor friend of mine — who either merely bypass another potential problem of the yoga issue (blaming a neutral Thing for sin), or else directly state that you simply can’t have yoga’s physical part without its spiritual part?

For example, Mohler seems to acknowledge an inherent neutrality of yoga-esque positions:

There is nothing wrong with physical exercise, and yoga positions in themselves are not the main issue.

… yet then immediately adds:

But these positions are teaching postures with a spiritual purpose. Consider this — if you have to meditate intensely in order to achieve or to maintain a physical posture, it is no longer merely a physical posture.

Agreed with the meditation part: any connotation, in or outside of Christendom, of meditation without a preposition (we meditate on Christ, on His Word!) comes not from Scripture but from false religion, and has no place for a Christian. It’s also a tremendous waste of time.

But how can a position of the human body teach anything, especially if it is undertaken by a Christian who can and does separate it from its pagan origins?

Isn’t this equivalent to saying “even if you don’t eat meat in a temple as part of a false religious ceremony, the meat itself would teach you to worship idols”?

Furthering Mohler’s point, a pastor acquaintance of mine — whom I much respect — asked this:

There is a difference between accidentally striking a pose and deliberately learning and imitating yoga techniques. To think that we can separate the physical from the spiritual in this matter is to not understand eastern religion.

In response I asked: “But why should we assume that what Eastern religion believes is right?”

Put another way, let’s consider only two of the yoga positions, ruling out the second, which both no. 1 and no. 3 believe is wrong (i.e., Why can’t I practice everything about yoga, it’s okay, right? and I can meditate — without a preposition — and still love Jesus!).

1. We can’t separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, so we need to avoid it all. Eastern religion says the physical and spiritual components of yoga can’t be divided.
2. We can indeed separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, and perhaps assume a yoga-esque position, intentionally, for exercise, rejecting false beliefs.

Now I ask: which view here has actually bought into Eastern religious beliefs?

As for me, I say the Eastern-religious can’t-divide claim is hokum, just like the notion that meat offered to idols automatically gives credit to idols wherever it goes. And while I don’t believe Christians who take the Eastern-religious concepts at their word do so intentionally, I have also begun to wonder whether they’re not avoiding Things not out of concern for weaker brothers, but because the Bad Guys say they’ve “claimed” them and the Christians just go along with it.

What testimony are Christians giving to others about where we believe sin actually originates?

By the way, quasi-sabbatical over. Back to work, now writing three entries three times a week.

By Monte E. Wilson ¹

(Continued from part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.)

Green Berets vs. the Apostles and Prophets

Consider what the apostles demanded of the newly converted Gentiles. At the end of the debate considering what requirements to place on the incoming Gentile believers, the apostles decided to lay no burden on these people other than to require that they abstain from things offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15). Watch your testimony, watch your diet, watch your morals. That’s it.

Can you imagine if one of us had been there? “Now, Jim, my boy, this won’t do. These folks need to be called up to a higher place in God. You apostles go up.to the temple every day to pray, and so should these Gentiles. You own only one coat, one pair of sandals, give most all of your money to the poor, and every time I turn around you are fasting. Why not require the same thing of all these new believers? At least let them know that there is a deeper life to which they can attain through a more spiritually rigorous lifestyle … that is, if they can attain the same level of revelation that we have.”

Or what of Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians regarding walking in love with their fellow believers? They were to lead a quiet life, mind their own business and work with their hands (1 Thess. 4:11). Isn’t this the route to true spirituality within a community? Shouldn’t Paul have added that they needed to have special Sunday evening services for the lost, Wednesday night prayer meetings, Thursday night deacons meetings, Friday night home group meetings and Saturday visitation? How in the world did Paul expect these people to grow in love if they weren’t constantly in church together?

Of course, one of the greatest attributes of many modern Green Beret Christians is living as if Jesus were coming back today, Being a disciple of Hal Lindsey, I knew this was it. We had only a few years left. (This was 26 years ago.) Why, pray tell, should we give ourselves to such mundane matters as developing a career, raising a family, seeing our children get married, building an inheritance to leave our grandchildren and getting involved in matters that concerned the welfare of the cities we lived in? What were these lukewarm Christians thinking about when they so easily tripped off to work or bought a new car or put money in savings or ran for a political office? Had they no sense of the times in which we were living? Obviously they must be in need of a revival or the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Or maybe they are not even saved!

I remember one day reading where Jeremiah told the people of Israel who were captive in Babylon to get a life. While the false prophets were running around telling the Israelites they were about to escape from their captivity, Jeremiah said, “Go build houses and live in them, plant gardens and enjoy their fruit, build families so you can multiply in number, and seek the welfare of the city where God has caused you to be carried away captive” (Jer. 29:4-9). Are these words of wisdom for a people who are to come-out -from-among-them -and-be-separate? Certainly we can’t take this tack, can we? This passage was the beginning of the end of my running around the country telling people they had better live like those who were not long for this world. The burning question became, “What if we are still here one hundred years from now?” What sort of world have we left our great-grandchildren? What sort of churches will we leave the generations who follow? Have we left a business to expand, or debts to payoff? Have we left a good foundation for our children to build upon, or will they have to live their lives clearing away the rubble of debris left through our disinterest?

(Monday: Whose ministry style was “better,” John the Baptist or Jesus Himself?)

(Loosely continued from yesterday’s column, Law and love — did Jesus contradict God?)

How many steps is it from confused Christianity to non-Christianity? When it comes to the question of how Jesus Christ and His love relate to God’s Law, it’s only a few:

1. Biblical truth: Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
2. Step down, still true, but less clear: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to fulfill it.
3. Step down, questionable: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to love.
4. Step down, more questionable: God now doesn’t uphold the Law, but only loves.
5. Step down, un-Biblical belief: God doesn’t punish breakers of the Law, but only loves.

In just one simple, four-step process, with slight modifications — perhaps over generations, perhaps over only a few years in one church — a Biblical position becomes un-Biblical. Thus a slight confusion about how Jesus relates to the Law turns into universalism.

And some Christians may act or think like Universalists even if they do not believe everyone in the world will somehow, someday, eventually be saved.

For example, nowadays there’s a derivative view out there that greatly resembles universalism. Proponents refer to this by other names, such as the wider mercy view. From what I’ve read, that refers to God’s mercy supposedly being wider than we often think, and in fact, the most extreme versions of this view claim that people can be saved without consciously repenting of their sins and professing faith in Jesus Christ.

Teaching vacuums

I can understand a few factors contributing to this view.

1. “God is love.” Evangelicals have long overcorrected for notions — which apparently arose from somewhere in the past — that God was a mean tyrant. But for years many of our best and brightest have been saying “God is love” without defining love, or the “rest of” God — including His character traits of holiness, justice and sovereignty.
2. “Make a decision.” Many have overdone the call for a response to the Gospel, as if God Himself is not powerful enough to save someone unless he/she “opens the door” to let Him do it. In response, some others may ask, even if only subconsciously, “why do we think God so powerless”? And to compensate for one extreme, some may lapse into yet another extreme idea: surely God is big enough to save people without their response.
3. “What about those who have never heard?” Though answers to this question can be tricky, Christian leaders and teachers should not shy away from it. A vacuum of teaching about God’s sovereignty and man’s sinfulness (which says: those who have never heard are still guilty for what they do know) leads to the wrong answers filling the space.

From some professing Christian universalists, or “wider mercy” proponents, I’ve heard the reasoning: oh no, this doesn’t mean we believe God is unjust, or fails to punish evil. One person once told me he believes God will punish evil, just not in the ways we assume, etc.

But our intent should not be to maintain a Theology System, whether or not it has all the reasonable facsimiles we’d like of all the moving parts. Rather: does a System follow Scripture?

Apparently enough evangelicals have expressed doubts about whether conscious repentance and belief in Jesus really is the only way to God, that author/pastor John Piper has written a book on the topic. Last week The Gospel Coalition posted a review, which I’ll excerpt here. Based on Scripture alone — not hopes, emotional appeals, or definitions of Biblical terms and themes based not on Scripture but outside sources — it’s wrong to claim anyone is saved without a conscious repentance and faith in Christ.

Is conscious faith in Christ necessary for salvation? According to Piper, it is. His argument comes in four parts. First (chapter four), Christ’s first coming triggered a shift in the history of salvation. The “mystery of Christ” has been revealed,  (Rom 16:25-27; Eph 3:4-10). The “times of ignorance” are past, and God now calls all peoples to turn to him (Acts 17:30-31). Jesus “is now openly installed and declared as Judge, and he alone can receive the appeals for acquittal” (76).

Second (chapter five), the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) shows that true God-seekers still need the gospel. Cornelius was not saved apart from the gospel. He was saved through it.

Third (chapter six), the apostolic message was that men are saved by Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12; Rom 9:30-10:21). Nowhere do we see men saved unaware. All are saved by an explicit confession of Christ. And this comes only through the preaching of Christ.

Fourth (chapter seven), the missionary vision of Paul and John called for repentance and faith of all. Their message was “Repent and believe, and you will be saved.” It was never, “Great news, you’ve already been saved!” They preached the necessity of explicit repentance and faith to both Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18) and Jews (Acts 13:38-52).

As if that Biblically based reasoning wasn’t enough to overthrow “wider mercy,” I’m also still trying to figure out why “wider mercy” proponents seem to deny man’s free will. Do they really believe in a God who won’t respect a person’s meaningful choice to go on hating Him?

No one is saved apart from conscious faith in Christ and the Gospel. Jesus died not to show us that God had moved on from all that Law stuff, but to fulfill the Law’s requirements and to make possible a person’s repentance and faith. To imply that all are saved, or will be saved, is a blatant lie, trying to be more “spiritual” than God — and it does not love others.

Patriarchy. To some readers this could sound, well, patriarchal — chauvinistic, anti-woman, rolling back the rights won by suffragists, resulting in manipulative behaviors, unloving lifestyles, and even domestic violence and abusive fathers.

But to others the term connotes a more-Biblical lifestyle; a rejection of feminism, anti-life attitudes and abortion; the natural conclusion of homeschooling, and/or a return to a safer and more secure mode of life that respects men, returns women to their place in the home and ensures sons and daughters won’t fall prey to worldly influences.

Until last week, YeHaveHeard only included one column touching on the topic, An open letter to newbie homeschoolers (Dec. 2, 2009). Before that, I’d written more about the subject on my old site, FaithFusion.¹ Yet throughout this week, patriarchy, families, fathers’ roles and children’s obedience will be in direct focus, starting with this, the first of a five-column series.

Last week’s open-letter-styled Sure you want to support Vision Forum? named one of patriarchy’s chief proponents, a homeschooling-oriented organization based in Texas.

But my intent isn’t to be just another “watchblog” and go after names and offices. Not that I’m disregarding those either, but I hope to focus not on personalities, but on vital doctrinal issues.

There is a risk to doing this: it’s not like all problems are solved by picking on patriarchalism. After all, they’re often the ones who teach as if all our problems will be solved simply by seeing the dangers of feminism — and that can too easily result in chauvinism. But it’s a start: seeing more clearly what the Bible doesn’t say.

That’s a lot of isms. Before proceeding into what patriarchy proponents believe, let’s lay out how this series will define the three “main” views of male/female roles.

I’m sure people hold to many overlapping subsets of these — for example, some who practice egalitarianism may not even know the term, or do not believe women should be pastors over congregations. But most Christians’ beliefs about men and women can be categorized like this:

1. Patriarchy or patriocentrism

In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.²

This view, advocated by organizations such as Vision Forum or others who like the word “vision” (such as “Visionary Daughters”), emphasizes that a husband/father is the head of his household — patriarchy, similar to how families behaved in the Old Testament.

Some patriarchy preachers even teach about a father being equivalent to the “priest” of his family, representing his wife and children to God. And many other lifestyle choices are based in Old Testament descriptions of, say, King Saul giving his daughter in marriage to David.³

With a man as the head of his household, a wife submits to him, and she, along with their sons and daughters, join in to fulfill his vision for the family. Closely affiliated with these tenets is the belief that one should seek “a full quiver” (Psalm 127: 4-5) — i.e., have as many children as possible.⁴

Daughters, especially, must train as “helpmeets” for their own husbands, if they marry, by serving their father until such time as he finds them husbands.

Many of these beliefs are not inherently anti-Scripture: for example, though many Christians may argue against keeping daughters at home until marriage, or arranged marriage, nothing in the Bible expressly forbids these practices. However, they are also not commanded in Scripture. And to say these beliefs are as Biblical as Scripture’s most important messages, especially the Gospel, leads to problems. If nothing else, some “patriarchy” practitioners, or patriarchalists, teach and act as if their auxiliary beliefs are as vital as the Gospel — at best a risky message.

2. Egalitarianism or feminism

There may be other verses used to support the idea that in Christianity, men and women have not only equal value, but nearly equal roles. Yet Galatians 3:28 is the main one I’ve heard to support this belief in egalitarianism.

Many egalitarians use this is a “filter verse” to interpret many other sex-roles-related Scripture passages, such as Paul’s interesting instructions about head coverings.⁶ In this view, because we already know “there is no male or female … in Christ Jesus,” it makes sense to conclude men’s and women’s roles need not be diverse or unique.⁷

In effect egalitarians’ definition of equal means there is little or no difference how husbands’ and wives’ roles function at home. So while a husband may be his family’s main provider, it’s fine for a wife to work outside the home as well (perhaps with their children in public school).

From what I’ve seen, this leads to lessened emphasis of unique traits of men and women, or boys and girls. Some Christian egalitarians believe women may even serve as pastors in a church; after all, we are all one in Christ, and we don’t want to be chauvinistic.

As one woman once kindly argued to me, to say otherwise would be to limit God’s gifts to members (such as a woman with a teaching gift). That in effect would say to certain parts of the body, “I have no need of you,” she said, a violation of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 12 that the body of Christ has members with diverse gifts.⁸

Most patriarchalists seem to base their views upon reactions against egalitarianism/feminism. From what I have read and seen, patriarchalists are either ignorant of the third belief, which I believe to be more Biblical — or else view it with suspicion as if it’s an un-Biblical compromise.

3. Complementarianism

Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church. It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture.⁹

This seems to be the most solid and Biblically based view — I will not hide my “bias”!

Complementarianism is (or should be) founded not just in a this-is-the-way-it-must-work basis, or a reaction against either feminism or patriarchy, but passages such as Genesis 2, Ephesians 5 and many other texts that echo this glorious truth: God has always planned to pattern human marriage, and husbands’ and wives’ roles, upon Christ’s love for His Church.

That love, grounded in the Gospel of the living Word Who is both grace and truth (John 1) is the basis of our roles. And how Christians teach and act those roles must come from the heart — not simply by following a particular education or courtship model.

This allows for some varying perspectives on many more-difficult Scripture passages about, say, women keeping silent in church.¹⁰ It also helps prevent legalistic attitudes about a wife working outside the home, or daughters going to college. This avoids practicing The Gospel Plus Patriarchy, but the Gospel alone — born out in these areas of life.

Regardless of how Christians apply those beliefs exactly, Christians should agree on this: no view claiming husbands and wives have different roles (i.e., servant-leader or servant-follower) means that anyone is inferior. Many theologians show from Scripture that this is reflected in the Trinity: God the Son, Jesus Christ, obeys God the Father and is even “subordinate.” This in no way means either “Person” of the Trinity is more important; in fact, they are all fully God.

Perhaps the best source for learning more about complementarianism is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and their main book, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (I still haven’t read it all; I tend to focus on the chapters relate most to what I need to learn. Perhaps that’s how it should be read.)

Conclusion

The rest of my series this week will focus more on what complementarianism is not.

While I don’t want to commit the same error of only reacting against the wrong idea, it can be helpful to learn by contrast. And too many patriarchalists teach and act in ways not only not commanded in Scripture, but often commanded against. At stake is not only families’ health, or whether parents encourage a son or daughter to use all of his or her gifts for God’s glory, but whether Christians are upholding the Gospel, and not The Gospel-And-My-Shiny-Family-Belief.

To the [popular and solid Christian organization] ¹ staff,

It’s been a privilege to know [ministry contributor] for five years, since meeting him at the [university name]. In April 2005 he and I […] both attended an on-campus lecture by [atheist spokesperson, well-known as enemy of Christian organization]. We soon found each other to be Christian brothers and have stayed in touch ever since.

[…]

Recently […] we have been discussing the organization Vision Forum (VF) and its beliefs about “patriarchy.” My wife and I have been married for a year and we are strong and joyful “complementarians,” believing the Biblical truth (in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere) that God has patterned husband/wife roles and marriage after the loving union between Christ and His Church. However, we have concerns about VF, and [your organization’s] affiliation with this organization — which has included offering VF materials and columns on VF’s website.

[My friend] has asked my wife and I to relay to [your] staff some sourced quotes from VF’s online materials.

No doubt you have heard of some online sites whose writers — some of whom push un-Biblical feminism — play “watchdog” against Vision Forum and its affiliates. But because of the difficulty in sorting through these (and sorting truth from opposite error, including many true-life raving “Christian feminists,”) we have not included their critiques. Instead we ourselves have collected the following quotes, and I (Stephen) have written some thoughts on VF’s views, and especially its misuse of Scripture to support them.

Our concern is not based on any cultural “fundamentalist” belief in “strict separation” or “second-degree separation.” Nor do we claim to have all the “issues” against VF or its affiliates presented here. Rather, we ask: does [your ministry] know about VF’s beliefs in at least three areas? We also hope your staff will undertake their own careful research into VF’s teachings, found online and in their tapes, DVDs and books.

Here our emphasis will be VF’s “patriarchy” beliefs that they’ve publicly articulated, and not any “under the table” teachings. We also include quotes from Vision Forum-approved leaders (many of whom are women), such as Jennie Chancey of the Ladies Against Feminism website, and the Botkins.

1. Vision Forum insists a Christian woman must not obtain an education or hold a job outside the home; rather, if she is unmarried, she must stay under her human father’s authority.

Though many Christians (including me) would argue against this view, it is not itself anti-Biblical. However, VF does not seem to recognize this as an issue about which Christians can hold different views. VF’s leaders and resources encourage all Christian young women to remain under their human fathers’ spiritual authority and vision for his family, until the father releases his daughter to be married.

Thus, the Gospel and true Biblical authority on actual unquestionable matters are both sadly cheapened.

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection.

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

Readers can decide whether Vision Forum’s cited verses for the specific beliefs about father/daughter relationships (Genesis 28:1-2; Numbers 30:3ff.; Deuteronomy 22:21; Galatians 4:1,2; Ephesians 6:2-3) are faithful and natural readings of Scripture, taking into account the differences between Old and New Covenants; and, for the epistle references, the simple contexts of the Apostle Paul’s arguments. Yet in my view, VF here has contradicted sound hermeneutical principles (which the organization says it endorses).

How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” . . . A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine) and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her to work).

Jennie Chancey Responds to Titus 2 Cynics, Jennie Chaney, Dec. 10, 2003, Vision Forum website (accessed June 7, 2010).

By contrast, a recent post to the “Ladies Against Feminism” site, by Jasmine Baucham (daughter of Dr. Voddie Bauchum) offers a kinder and more grace-based approach that simply encourages women to rethink any wrong ideas they hold about Biblical roles and their education choices.

However, VF’s resources, articles and culture overwhelmingly see only secular feminism as Christian families’ main enemy. They do not talk about the risks of overcorrecting into chauvinism, much less the possibility of minimizing Christ’s role as believers’ only High Priest in their haste to uphold fathers’ roles as their families’ heads. Worse, statements about fathers’ “authority” over adult unmarried daughters are not accompanied by Gospel-centered context or support for this teaching from Scripture.

By serving her mother, creating a peaceful home atmosphere, and furthering her father’s goals, this young woman is a blessing to her family and to others. Her secret is placing herself under her father’s authority and at his disposal, content in her God-given role. This daily training has another reward—she will be well-fitted for marriage as a help-meet suitable for her husband. Fellow daughters, do you truly work at pleasing your father and helping him to accomplish his goals? Do you enjoy spending time with him?

Being Your Father’s Daughter, Elisha Ann Wahlquist, June 27, 2005, Ladies Against Feminism website (accessed June 7, 2010)

To raise a daughter without thought to marriage, to instill in them a spirit of independence from the family, or to focus their training on a career outside the home, is actually to disqualify them for graduation and the next step in life. In contrast, a woman who meets the biblical requirements for graduation is one who is comfortable being under the jurisdiction of her father and seeks to make him successful in every way.

Christian Graduations and Young Ladies, Doug Phillips, June 16, 2003, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

Let me tell you, there is liberty in submission. There is liberty in submitting to your father. Don’t let your heart be taken captive by the independent spirit of feminism. We as daughters are not sufficient to guard our hearts — God has placed us under the authority of our fathers to protect our hearts.

So I encourage you — give your heart fully to the Lord Jesus Christ and to your father (or if you are married, to your husband) and be under his authority. Find your mission in being his helpmeet. Your job is to honor and serve him as your leader, your protector, your head. The Word of God tells us as women to delight in being keepers at home and to love children. We are to make our father’s (or husband’s) home and work as productive as possible.

The Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters, Sarah Zes, Jan. 14, 2004, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010).

VF and affiliated advocates seems not to recognize the lack of any Biblical support for the false dichotomy that either a daughter is influenced by worldly feminism or she must serve as her father’s “help-meet,” being under his authority and serving his vision until such time as the father allows her to be married.

In this seemingly polarized view of either compromising feminist Christian or Biblical “patriarchy” believer, VF ignores Biblical balance and emphasis on Christ, His holiness and love (and sacrifice under God’s wrath for sin). And secondarily the Gospel brings Biblical complementarianism, which upholds husband and wife roles of loving leadership and submission, yet also recognizes cultural variables and Scripture’s silence about whether fathers ought to have authority over their daughters until giving daughters to husbands, etc.

2. Vision Forum promotes father-supervised “courtship,” not just as optional or beneficial for Christians, but required especially for a man’s daughter.

This concept recurs in many VF articles and resources, and is often promoted by VF-affiliated homeschool moms (such as Jennie Chancey) as part of the antidote to feminism. These principles are purported to be based on several Scripture verses — whose application upon closer inspection utterly falls apart.

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. Upon a Marriage taking place, a new household with new jurisdiction is established, separate from that of the father. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, authors and date unlisted, Vision Forum website (emphasis added; accessed June 7, 2010)

The above-listed Scriptures do not at all support VF’s this-is-how-it-should-be assertions about courtship.

1 Corinthians 7:38 could be addressing a father and daughter, or a man and his betrothed, or other scenarios. According to my reading, Biblical scholars disagree on exactly what is happening here. But VF’s citation of this Scripture as only applying to fathers and daughters, not even allowing for differing views by orthodox and even Biblical-complementarian scholars and readers, is at best disingenuous.

Scripture also describes Old-Testament men (such as Abraham, Jethro and Saul) giving their daughters in marriage, but never endorses this as the Biblical method for a man to find his daughter’s spouse.

VF is guilty of eisegesis and bad hermeneutics, applying descriptive Scriptures as if they are prescriptive.

This text fails to provide context and read Scripture naturally, rather, forcing from narrative a lifestyle that Scripture does not promote. Such “literal” readings, in the wrong sense, disrespect God’s Word and give credence to atheists’ and skeptics’ false charges that too many Christians “read all of the Bible literally.”

3. Vision Forum has obscured many views of its leaders by removing videos, resources and articles due to their controversial statements — yet has not publicly amended its beliefs.

This is less substantive than other criticisms, but still worth mentioning. Perhaps the clearest example is this: without explanation or retraction, VF has removed articles that directly claim it is a sin, and a violation of the role of Christian husbands as heads of household, for a woman to go to college or vote in elections.

And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?

[. . .]

God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11 ff).

Originally seen in Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation as of Sept. 20, 2007, since removed. Cited in Answering Vision Forum, Don Veinot (a rebuttal to Vision Forum’s Aug. 29 letter), on Midwest Christian Outreach’s The Crux blog.²

Conclusion

In our view, [your organization’s] relationship with Vision Forum is a matter of concern for Christians who believe the authority of Scripture, yet believe differently about Biblical requirements of family relationships.

Wise Christians (we hope we are among them!) know that it is not technically heresy to claim that women must never attend college and must serve their fathers as “helpmeets” until marriage; or that the best method of “courtship” is for a father to choose his daughter’s husband and supervise their relationship; or even that women should not vote (though we are among those who would argue heartily that such ideas are wrong!).

However, it is at least approaching disregard of Biblical authority, and perhaps even heresy, to add any of these ideas to Scripture as if they are required or “normative” of Christians.

One reason we appreciate [your organization] is its emphasis only on matters upon which Scripture is so clear. [The ministry] has glorified God and earned Christians’ respect for avoiding secondary issues, or taking a stand on issues about which Christians can sincerely disagree and still be counted within the true Church (such as end-times beliefs, Calvinism and Arminianism, politics, the nature of baptism and so on).

We wonder if Biblical authority is as much undermined by adding to the Bible as by taking away from the Bible. Perhaps such error can be even more dangerous — it’s easier to discern something is not in the Bible Biblical as it is to discern that someone’s belief has been added to it, “proved” by twisting Scripture.

Thank you for your time, and even if we disagree on this, we wish God’s speed, blessing, growth and wisdom to the ministry, its leaders and employees, efforts and front-line work for Christ’s Kingdom.

Which is the most popular error today:

1. Saying the Song of Solomon¹ is only allegorical?

2. Going crazy with sermons about sex based on the book, and with really annoying and juvenile ads about the sermon series that tend to offend even non-Christians?²

I’m not sure which is more prevalent; however, I do know I hear more of the latter extreme.

But recently I heard another presentation of the former view: The Song of Solomon is clearly allegory.

And a related thing Christians often say is something like: I am the bride of Christ.
Continue reading …

(Let’s see how a semi-daily schedule works for this site …)

She may not have meant it this way, but an online forum netizen I know recently said, without disclaimer:

When we praise God, we should lift up our hands to Him.

Always? Is this “required”? It’s certainly possible for a believer to give true worship to God with hands held elsewhere.

From my brief response:

For now I’m dodging the raising-of-hands issue — that is, I won’t write a giant essay about it or something. However, here are a few points, and I think others have already been making some of them:

1) One must not have to raise hands to worship.
2) Raising hands in worship can be okay.
3) What is not okay is automatically looking down on someone who raises hands in worship, or looking down on someone who doesn’t.
4) Worship should encompass everything a Christian does (Colossians 3:23).
5) Raising hands in worship can unfortunately be abused to draw attention to one’s self — just like anything a Christian uses in worship (ministry, art, music, writing, internet debate!). What matters is one’s heart. But any discussion of the virtues of raising hands, its Biblical precedent, and that sort of thing, should also include the risks associated with it — and the aforementioned other ways of worshiping God.
6) I’m married to a girl who would love to be able to worship God again with tambourines and even Messianic Jewish dance. However, I am not myself naturally expressive, and yet can worship God just as much as anyone who is more external. I hope I’m worshiping God now, even while not saying a thing, but only thinking as I write these words, hoping He uses them for His glory.

And while I know some raise (ha ha!) the objection that if we’re worshiping, it doesn’t matter what people think around us … yes, it does.

If you’re worshiping by yourself, it may not matter as much what “style” you have, more-charismatic or otherwise.

Yet believers worshiping together must be loving and sensitive to others. If this were not necessary, Paul would not have written so much, especially in 1 Corinthians 12-14, about the need to worship with different spiritual gifts “decently and in order”¹

Christians can and should worship by themselves. Yet worship with other believers bring many more needs into play. And applying the Romans 14 principles of not wrongly offending “weaker brothers” would also mean we should be careful about what even our heartfelt expressions of worship might mean to those around us. Clearly, Paul thought this was true about tongues and other means of spiritual gift-practice.²

What do you think?

Though many people this week are writing about how Jesus died, what His wounds were like and more, I’d like to try something different.

Even in my last column I thought about doing something similar. “What might His death have been like?” was how it ended. Then I planned to move onto this idea, in a third column.

But most people already know how He died. Asphyxiation from the crucifixion added to the already tortuous loss of blood from the thorns piercing His head, and the scourging of His back. “Five bleeding wounds He bears,” says the hymn: two in His hands, two in His feet, and the one in His side where the soldier stabbed His dead body with a spear, to see if He was dead.

Christians recall these truths easily when they want to remember the physical nature of what He suffered. The brighter among us keep the documentation mentally stored for when the myth comes up that Jesus didn’t really die. And perhaps it’s the brightest among us who recall that despite the physical suffering Jesus endured, it was nothing compared to what He suffered when the Father turned His face away from His Son out of disgust for the sin Christ took on Himself.¹

Details of His death are well-known.

What we don’t consider as often is how He might have risen.

Last night my wife and I finished viewing The Gospel of John. This superbly done film did not show the actual resurrection of Christ. And over my decades of exposure to the Christian subculture, I don’t remember any adaptation of the account, life-action, animated or whatever, that dared to show Jesus walking out of the tomb. (Tomorrow we’re helping with a children’s Sunday school class; it’s even hard to find coloring-book pages showing His resurrection.)

Scripture itself doesn’t tell us exactly what happened. Evidently the Holy Spirit didn’t think it necessary to reveal such details to the Gospel writers. Does that mean we shouldn’t speculate?

I hope not, because — based on what we learn later about Jesus’ new body — I’m about to try.

Inside the tomb

A damp blackness is stifling; nothing can be seen. It’s much worse than a cave, partly because one could almost sense the walls so close, and the rough-hewn ceiling hanging low. A stench fills the chamber, the odor of death. For about two days² the mutilated body has lain here, as still as the rock.

Barely anything can be heard from outside the heavy stone rolled before the cavity’s tiny entrance. But if one could go outside, one might see the gardenlike area beyond. At least two Roman soldiers are stationed at the entrance, with an official government seal upon the stone.

Was dawn already approaching? I’d like to think it wasn’t. All is dark outside, still and normal —

Then comes the tremor. It starts low in the earth, making the guards snap to attention.

Inside, the stone walls shake. Maybe a pebble or two falls from the ceiling. Quaking fiercely, the ground rumbles even louder. Will the cave fall in? No — but then maybe — I like to think there was a glow. What sort of supernatural light might have accompanied this transformation?

Under the layers of thick, perhaps dirty and bloodstained fabric, it begins.

Resurrection.

Energy from God — Christ Himself — courses through His dead body. Instantly cellular activity begins. Life returns. The revitalized heart starts to pump, slowly at first, then faster, faster!

Sparkling power flows through every artery and vein, repairing breaks, drawing together the torn flesh in His back. Wounds there disappear almost instantly, as if they had never existed. The same is true for the horribly deep scratches in His head. They vanish as if time itself is reversed. What about the metal bits from the whip that may have lodged in His back, or any shrapnel from the cruel thorns that may have broken off into his scalp? Did they simply fall out into the grave cloths? Or did they crumble into nothingness, vanishing as if vaporized?

And as for the five other, formerly bleeding wounds of His …

They will remain. He will keep them as evidence of His sacrifice and also to prove that His body, though new and with supernatural powers, is the exact same body they had seen before.

Tissue mends itself, just beneath His wrists and on His feet. Blood vessels and muscles, already woven back into better-than-perfect health — they could be moved away from the wounds so they will never bleed again. On His hands, the flesh around the holes hardens into new, tougher, impenetrable skin, yet they still show the scars.

On His feet, the nerves, same as all through His new body, are impervious to pain. Yet they still show the scars, on either side where the nails had been.

In His side — perhaps between His underarm and ribcage — the wound from the spear piercing remains. But it will never again bleed or cause pain. Did He know, even as He felt the skin around the wound adjusting itself, that in days He would be showing it to His disciples?

Was His awareness — the spirit He gave up after He breathed His last³ — already reunited with His human body? Or did His awareness return⁴ seconds later? No one can know yet, but perhaps all along He was aware that He had returned, that His body was being rejuvenated, that He had won!

How long did the physical Resurrection take? Several power-charged seconds? Or in an instant?

Did His eyes open, still wrapped in the grave cloths? Or did He keep them closed while He lifted Himself off the stone slab? Did He pass through the cloths as if He were pure spirit — which He definitely was not — or did He, with a mighty shudder like the earthquake, burst out of them?

Death could not hold Him.

Either way, His body is not simply His restored human body. He has triumphed over death and sin, and His new body — a prototype of our future resurrected bodies⁵ (though surely far more powerful) — has amazing, superhuman powers we can only guess about from later descriptions in the Gospels.

So He is out of His grave clothes, and surely wearing some other clothing supernaturally given to Him. Dried blood has disappeared from His glorified skin. His wounds are healed perfectly, His scars visible. Blazing with glory, He stands to His feet and walks through the tomb.

Supernaturally the stone has rolled away. Perhaps by now the earthquake has ceased. The guards have fainted at the sight of the angels.

Into the new dawn of the first Resurrection Sunday, the Son of Man walks, victorious over death and the grave.

(Next: what could He do?)