Doctrine – Page 6

A Cheerful Giver

What are the biblical principles related to raising financial support for a Christian project or ministry? We see a wide variety of approaches, from George Mueller, who never told anyone about any particular need except God, praying for everything required to care for hundreds of orphans for years, to organized religions claiming they’ve replaced Israel in some way and have a right to demand a tenth of our income, to cult leaders promising God’s blessing and favor on generous donors. Where’s the biblical balance?

If we consider the example of Christ and the Twelve, we’ve no record they ever asked anyone for money. Given that the temple was still functioning, they couldn’t pretend to merit the priestly tithes and offerings like the Church does today, and it seems contrary to their spirit of dependence on God to be asking the public or each other for money. It seems our dear brother Mueller may have got it right.

However, we do have an example of the Apostle Paul taking up a collection for the poor saints which were at Jerusalem (1Co 16:1); though he didn’t specify an amount or percentage, he expected everyone to give something in accordance with how God was blessing. (vs 2) How do we integrate this with the example of Christ and the Twelve?

In this particular instance, Paul said it was a matter of spiritual duty for these particular people to give to this particular cause, and he derives this duty from the fact that Gentile believers were indebted to the Jerusalem saints for the blessings of the Gospel. (Ro 15:26-27)

If someone has a duty to donate to a particular cause, then it’s reasonable to ask them to give accordingly. Torah provides many examples of this kind of obligation, specific instances of how we’re to care for the poor and vulnerable. (De 15: 7-8, 12-14, 16:16-17, etc.)

But apart from formal obligation, the rule of common charity must apply. Do we appreciate being asked to give to a ministry we already know about, which we have not already purposed in our hearts before God to support? Does this edify and encourage us, or do we feel pressured to give when we’d prefer not to? Does it feel intrusive, as if someone is meddling in our personal affairs? If we decide not to give, do we feel obligated to justify ourselves? Do we ever decide to give just to make ourselves feel better, or to appear generous to others?

Once we’re aware of a need, directly asking us to donate tends to put most of us on the spot and make us uncomfortable. This should tell us what kind of behavior it is: uncharitable. Unless we’re already interested in donating, most of us feel a sense of pressure in this context, a requirement imposed on us to make an immediate decision: to either decline to give and justify ourselves (as if the ask implies an obligation), or to give so we’ll feel better and appear generous to others. In either case, we perceive the act of being asked as a form of manipulation, to get us to give when we wouldn’t otherwise. This isn’t giving from a cheerful heart; it’s something neither Paul nor Christ would promote, even if it happens to increase donations.

When we desire to support a particular cause that excites us and aligns with our goals and world view, sensing God’s pleasure that we do so, we give with cheerful hearts without being asked. This is the kind of giving God loves (2Co 9:7), and it’s the only kind we should be encouraging in others, outside formal obligation.

Making someone aware of an opportunity to give, informing them of a ministry, its mission and how it’s funded, is perfectly consistent with charity: it doesn’t directly pressure anyone. As we have opportunity to spread the word and inform others of a godly cause, we should leave the commitment between them and God, as they seek His will in the stewardship of their time, money and resources.

articles ♦ posts

Rent in Twain

When Christ died, the veil of the Jerusalem temple ripped into two pieces, from the top to the bottom. (Mt 27:51) From what we know of this veil*, it is evident that this was a supernatural event: God Himself tore this veil. What does this signify?

Most Christians claim this event signifies the abolishment of Torah, the Mosaic Law, or at least the sacrificial system and the ceremonial aspects of Torah, but Christ says the entire Torah will be relevant until Heaven and Earth pass away (Mt 5:18); last I checked, both are still here, so this event must signify something else.

The veil of the temple represents the physical body of Christ (He 10:20), so on one level the tearing of the veil might signify the death of Christ, the destruction of His earthly, mortal body: the veil was torn as Christ was crucified. The breaking of His body for us (1Co 11:24), His atoning death for our sin, provides a living Way, an eternal way to God, outside time and space, always new (He 10:19-20), the only way anyone has ever connected with God, or ever will. (Jn 14:6)

We might also observe that we aren’t told which temple veil was torn; there were two (He 9:3): the most visible veil, the one most people would be more familiar with, separated the outer court from the sanctuary. (He 9:2) A torn inner inner veil, separating the Holy of Holies from the sanctuary, could easily have been concealed by the priests and never verified. Perhaps both veils were symbolic of Christ in some way, but it is perhaps the outer veil that is the most relevant, for Christ is that essence of the Father Whom we can all see. (Jn 12:45)

God destroying this outer veil in a publicly visible manner may have been a declaration of His departure from the temple. (Mt 23:38) The temple had already been destroyed twice, abandoned by God in advance (Ez 10:4, 18-19a), and it was ready to vanish away again. (He 8:13) It makes sense that God would depart from the temple well prior to it’s being destroyed, and to make this known, giving the people a sign they should repent and seek Him in the context of pending divine judgment and immanent danger.

Since God hasn’t actually yet told us explicitly what the rending of the veil of the temple means, this isn’t something we need to know. What we do know is that the veil is not obsolete; it is essential to a functioning temple, so it will return with the rest of the earthly temple of God. (Re 11:1-2) Any reasonable speculation on this point, why God tore it during the crucifixion of His Son, must be consistent with the whole of scripture.

See comment below.

articles ♦ posts

Knowledge of Sin

How do we know what sin is? How do we know what’s right and what’s wrong? We all respond as if some actions are good and some are evil, but why do we respond the way we do? How do we know?

Because we’re all made in God’s image, we can’t help but react as if good and evil exist; this is built right into our DNA. And it’s perfectly natural to make up our own definitions, to decide for ourselves what’s right and wrong.

But deciding for ourselves what’s good or evil actually contradicts the very concept of good and evil. Claiming something is good or evil means it is so regardless what anyone else thinks about it; we know this instinctively, it’s rooted in the very claim. But if we can decide for ourselves what good and evil are, then everyone else can too, and then it is all just a matter of opinion, contradicting the very essence of what we know intrinsically to be true.

So if good and evil really do exist, then it isn’t a matter of opinion, yours or mine or anyone else’s; not even governments can define morality. If an action is truly good or evil, then it can only be so because some divine Being says so. There can be no other basis for morality.

This is why Scripture says we can’t know what sin is apart from God’s Law: Torah. (Ro 7:7) It’s only through Torah that we can correctly identify sin (Ro 3:20); and any alteration of Torah corrupts the divine standard of righteousness, and thus the very definition of sin. (De 4:2)

Our old man understands Torah as God’s eternal law and rejects it (Ro 8:7), departing from the light of Torah (Is 8:20), loving darkness instead. (Jn 3:19) Those breaking any of God’s laws violate Torah as a whole (Ja 2:10), and are the least in God’s kingdom. (Mt 5:19) But our new man delights in Torah (Ro 7:22); it lights our way (Ps 119:105), for Torah is light. (Pr 6:23)

Who dares presume the right to decide which of God’s laws are no longer relevant? (Ps 119:6) What standard would they use to judge God’s Law like this? (Ja 4:11) How can a finite being prove any of God’s Laws aren’t eternally good? (Ps 119:152) Torah is timeless. (Ps 119:160)

To sin is to break Torah (1Jn 3:4a), for sin is defined as breaking Torah. (4b) We hide Torah in our heart that we might not sin against God (Ps 119:11), for all who err from Torah as a manner of life will be trodden down, exposed as deceitful and false. (Ps 119:118) The nature of God’s children is that we keep His commands. (1Jn 2:3)

articles ♦ posts

Until the Law

It’s commonly taught that God only had one law in the Garden of Eden: Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. (Ge 2:17) The claim is that God started with just one rule to see what we’d do with it, and then added more laws as we continued breaking the ones we already had.

It’s true that God only explicitly stated one rule at the beginning, but that doesn’t mean there was only one rule.

When Cain became angry over God accepting only Abel’s sacrifice and not his own (Ge 4:4-5), God warned Cain that sin was lying in wait if he didn’t choose wisely. (7a)

When Cain murdered Abel it was sin, and God treated Cain as if he knew better, even though there was no official law against it. Clearly, there were unstated rules related to murder and loving others that were common knowledge, long before such laws were formalized at Sinai.

And long before God formally gave us any more laws, men became exceedingly evil and wicked (Ge 6:5); they were grievously violating universally understood moral law (Ro 2:15) and were judged accordingly in the Great Flood. (Ge 6:7)

And Abraham kept God’s commandments, statutes and laws long before they were officially stated at Sinai (Ge 26:5); God’s expectations were clear, even though they were not formally written down.

So, death reigned from Adam to Moses even though no one ever broke the same law Adam and Eve did (Ro 5:14); this proves God’s commandments were revealed and known long before He had them written down in Torah: sin was imputed, and men were held accountable for their sin, but this can’t happen unless God’s Law is known and understood. (13)

Torah was given at Sinai, but it wasn’t new when God revealed it; it was in play from the very beginning. (Ps 119:160) The precepts of Torah are timeless, applicable in every age — yesterday, today, and forever. (Ps 119:152)

articles ♦ posts

We Have Sinned

There’s a lot of talk today about white guilt and while privilege; some of Evangelical Christianity’s finest are jumping on BLM’s racism bandwagon to convince white America that we’ve something to be ashamed of, simply because we’re white Americans. They’re teaching us about corporate guilt, being guilty and bearing responsibility for the sins of our group.

As examples, they cite Daniel’s confession of Israel’s guilt for having forsaken God’s laws (Da 9:5), and claim that Achan’s entire family perished for his personal sin. (Jos 7:24-26)

Yet both examples, as well as the general concept, break down in light of God’s clear instruction that children ought not to be punished for their parents’ sins. (De 24:16, Eze 18:20) This would include any of our ancestors.

The truth is that Daniel never admitted any personal guilt for ancestral sin; he did confess that Israel had sinned, stating the obvious, but he didn’t admit that he himself shared in this guilt, that he himself bore any responsibility for it, or that he could repent for the nation – that he could not do so is clear once one understands the nature of repentance.

Similarly, Achan’s family and children may not actually have been stoned along with him, only his animals and possessions included; the biblical text is unclear on this point, and Rabbinic scholars are mixed in their views. If the entire family was put away, we may safely conclude from God’s own command that they each knew about their father’s sin and were complicit in it, guilty along with him, which is certainly plausible.

Corporate guilt is only relevant for a group member when that individual actively and personally participates in the corporate sin; all die in Adam (1Co 15:22) because all in Adam have actually personally sinned. (Ro 5:12)

Apart from personal responsibility, corporate guilt makes no sense if we think about it just a little: if we’re to be punished for our group’s sins, then doesn’t it follow that we’re also to be rewarded for our group’s righteousness? How, for example, can a white individual today be both ashamed that some whites were racist slave owners, while other whites rooted out and extinguished slavery?

And why focus on just the white group? We’re each in practically an infinite number of groups, starting with the human race? Are we all then guilty for every single sin ever committed by any human?

And how far back in history should we go for each group? Ten years? A thousand? Can such guilt ever actually be remedied? By what standard? It makes zero sense.

Those aligning themselves with corporate guilt are, of necessity, aligning themselves with corporate punishment. If I’m guilty for the sins of my group, then I also deserve to be punished for these sins: justice demands it. So, what penalty should be imposed, and by whom? There are no biblical precedents here.

When we support victimization by conceding that one group has unfairly treated another group, we may think we’re being compassionate, but we’re departing from a biblical worldview into the realm of Marxism and group identity. Marxists consistently use class warfare and group victimization to empower themselves through the envy and murderous resentment of the marginalized. Historically, it typically results in genocide of one form or another.

Today, conceding the victim narrative is already excusing the anemic response of officials as rioters intimidate fellow citizens and burn down our inner cities. Those who dare to stand up and defend themselves risk further harassment from employers and leftist officials.

At present, the mob is a marginal fringe, and largely unarmed, yet it’s already the most influential force in American society due to a vast base of passive, empathetic citizens. But the more powerful the mob becomes, the more murderous it will be; there’s no appeasing it.

We need to be very careful how we articulate this, because the price for getting this wrong in western culture this election cycle is our safety and freedom. It’s an ideological warfare, and it’s powerful because it contains much partial truth which appeals to compassionate souls who aren’t thinking for themselves. Yet even if intentions are good, oversimplification here will be devastating.

There are certainly generational consequences for sin, in that we tend to inherit sinful patterns of behavior from our parents. We’re also influenced by our culture and our upbringing, and will tend to be swept along with the crowd if we aren’t careful.

But in the final analysis, we’re each individually responsible only for our own personal choices, and we’ll be judged entirely on our own merits. (Ga 6:4) So, we’re wise to be watchful for sinful patterns within ourselves that are common in our culture and ancestry, repent and root out every trace of these iniquities from our own lives. To the degree that we’re successful in doing so, we’re free of corporate guilt.

Scripture never clearly shows God treating an individual better or worse merely due to what their ancestors have done, when they themselves were not complicit in the same sin, nor does God ever encourage anyone else to do this.

articles ♦ posts

Confess Your Faults

A common misconception is that God wants us to be transparent before others, open about our sins and brokenness, perhaps confusing this with humility. The reality is we should be wise, careful who we trust with our inner selves. (Mt7:6) Few are worthy of our trust (Jn 2:24), so we must guide our affairs with discretion. (Ps 112:5) Our motive in speaking truth should seldom be about ourselves; we should be moved in love to edify others. (Ep 4:29)

Even so, when we get ourselves in a spiritual rut, such that we’re consistently off path and unable to recover ourselves, God tells us to confess our faults to those in close spiritual community, praying for each other that we might be healed. (Ja 5:16) God has designed spiritual community around this purpose; God heals some sinful patterns only as dear brothers and sisters pray for us. This endears us to one another in love, and shows us we need Christ in each other to overcome, to live as we should for Him. (He 10:24-25)

Yet, even in such close relationships, God doesn’t encourage us to confess all of our individual sins to each other: He says we’re to confess our faults, which are not entirely the same as sins. The Greek for sins is ἁμαρτίας, hamartias, the idea of missing the mark, relating to discrete acts of Torah violation. (1Jn 3:4) However, the word translated faults is παραπτώματα, paraptomata, to fall beside or near something, connoting a repeating, persistent pattern of iniquity rather than a single act.

Most all of our modern English translations have the Greek hamartias in this text, and thus translate it as sins, trespasses, offenses, etc. This is because three of the four oldest Greek New Testament (GNT) manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, from the 4th and 5th centuries C.E., the Egyptian Text) contain this reading, compared to all other surviving (Majority Text) manuscript witnesses of James. Textual critics typically presume older manuscripts are more accurate, ignoring the fact that the greatest corruptions to the GNT were introduced well before the 4th century. Further, they ignore the fact that no plausible explanation for the existence of the Majority Text has yet been proposed, if it isn’t grounded in the autographs themselves.

The Egyptian hamartias, aside from having an inferior historical claim to legitimacy, is problematic from a practical perspective. The command to confess our sins, applies to every single instance of each and every kind of sin, obligating us all to confess all of our sins to each other, which is not possible: even if this is all we ever do, we’re continuing to commit individual sins faster than we can possibly confess them, so the more earnestly we attempt to obey such a command, the farther behind we will fall in our obedience to it. And there is nothing in such a practice that would be edifying. (Ro 14:19)

A second problem relates to what it means to be healed of a sin which hasn’t been imputed to us. (Ro 4:8) What’s in view here cannot be forgiveness, for this has already been done in full, once for each believer, by Christ Himself. (Col 2:13) Rather, this is the healing of a spiritual wound or malady (Pr 18:14) in an ongoing sinful context. If we need others to pray for our healing from each specific historical act of Torah violation in order to be healed, then we shall never be healed of the vast majority of our sins, so we must remain forever crippled in them. This cannot be our Lord’s intent; it’s the kind of perversion we expect from those corrupting the word.

In comparison, confessing our faults — patterns of sin we observe in ourselves, which remain stubbornly persistent even though we’re struggling to obey – is perfectly reasonable. In resisting sin we become aware of such patterns of iniquity, rooted deeply within, where we’re unable to obey God even as we’re doing our best. It’s perfectly natural then to involve godly brothers and sisters, asking them to pray for us in specific ways so we might overcome and walk in obedience. We’re healed as the lies at the root of our sinful patterns are exposed and replaced with truth. (2Ti 2:25-26)

Confession of specific sins should only be as public as the offence (Mt 18:15a), and pursued, not for personal healing, but as a means of promoting reconciliation and restoration of trust. (b) Confession of faults should only be with trusted allies in the faith for sanctification and growth in personal holiness.

articles ♦ posts

Tithes and Offerings

It’s all too common for us to complain about how churches are always asking for money; many pastors expect us to support them with a tenth of our gross income, claiming anything less is robbing God. (Ma 3:8) Most take a public collection every Sunday to remind us, making us feel a bit uneasy if we don’t fall in line.

The Bible has a lot to say about money and how to use it, and the clergy are quick to point this out. What they don’t tell us is that when Paul the Apostle addressed the topic of supporting Christian ministry, he didn’t mention the tithe; he quoted an obscure Mosaic law about not muzzling an ox as it was treading corn. (1Co 9:9-10) The reason is simple: the tithe has nothing to do with supporting Christian ministry; it never has and it never will.

Tithing is God’s way of providing for the judiciary and temple system within the nation of Israel, as well as a safety net for any poor living in the land (De 14:28-29), and a means of funding an annual family pilgrimage to the Feast of Tabernacles. (De 12:17-18)

The Levites are charged with maintaining the temple and sacrificial system (Nu 18:6), and also for administering justice in civil disputes. (De 17:8-9) In this role, the Levites haven’t been given their own farmland, and so have no way to earn a living for themselves (De 18:1); they depend on God’s chosen people doing the right thing and taking care of them. So, as keepers of the law (De 17:18), the Levites have a vested interest in ensuring the people have access to and understand God’s law, encouraging God’s people to earnestly follow it, and in being exemplary spiritual guides of the nation. Think of it as the basis of separation of powers in government.

Although the temple system vanished in 70 CE (He 8:13), it isn’t obsolete – the temple’s been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. It will return, and the biblical sacrifices restored. (Re 11:1) The church hasn’t replaced Israel, and has no right to our tithes and offerings.

Even so, giving financially to support christian laborers is definitely taught in scripture; as they invest so much time in caring for our spiritual well-being that it’s difficult for them to support themselves, this is perfectly reasonable. (1Co 9:11) When men of God are pouring into our lives like this, by all means, taking care of them is the right thing to do. (1Ti 5:17-18) This is not, however, an application of the tithing principle; it’s free-will giving based on spiritual relationships, and varies by circumstance.

Evidently, most Christian pastors are not feeding the flock like this; very few have a personal relationship with any of their members, or any real clue how any of them are actually doing spiritually. They believe they’re entitled to a comfortable salary for producing a weekly sermon, running the church as a commercial business, and providing counseling or consolation from time to time. This isn’t God’s intent, not by a long shot; it’s actually quite harmful to the church, preventing the regular, organic participation of brothers in the assembly.

While I wouldn’t say supporting the typical Christian church is necessarily a sin, I do think it’s unwise unless there are no better options, which may indeed be the case. Biblical foundation is exceedingly rare today, yet we’re called to be good stewards of our time, energy and money, focusing all, everything we are, on honoring God the best we know how. (De 6:5) We must make the best of what opportunities we have, but we shouldn’t be ignorant of the underlying principles, or let anyone guilt us into supporting what’s essentially corrupt, foreign to the Word of God.

articles ♦ posts

The Liberty

In Christ we’re free, absolutely free; He paid a great price to deliver us, so we should stand fast in that freedom, rejoice in it, and not return to bondage. (Ga 5:1) It’s like He’s given us the key to our own prison door and expects us to use it. But what exactly is freedom, and how do we walk in it?

Those who find A Scandalous Freedom (Steve Brown, 2004) in Christ, define freedom as “exemption or liberation from the control of some other person, or some arbitrary power.” (p.6) To them, freedom in Christ means we may live as we please, with no rules, constraints, expectations or obligations toward God. The claim is that we have God’s permission to do whatever we want; anything else is “a weird sort of freedom.” (p.7) Their claim is that God will love us just as much, be just as fond of us, no matter what we do, and that He will never be angry or disappointed in us. (p.14)

Yet Christ defines freedom differently, as the ability and tendency to keep God’s Law: when we break God’s law we become slaves to sin (Jn 8:34); so freedom is deliverance from the tendency and inclination to sin (Ro 7:24-25a), being given a new nature that aligns with God’s law. (He 8:10) He says, in effect, that freedom is the ability to live according to our design, and that our design is to be in right relationship with God, to love and obey Him; there’s no salvation, deliverance or freedom apart from this. (1Jn 3:7-8)

Freedom isn’t about having no master; it’s about having the right master. We all have a master: we either serve sin or we serve obedience. (Ro 6:16) Outside Christ we’re slaves to sin (vs 17), but Christ sets us free from sin to serve righteousness. (vs 18) Our new nature serves God’s law, but any lies remaining within us will always serve sin. (Ro 7:25b)

Sin always springs from a lie and takes us captive (2Ti 2:25-26); so freedom is walking in truth, for the truth makes us free. (Jn 8:32) Those who find permission in Christ to sin are simply twisting God’s grace into indulgence, missing Christ entirely. (Jud 1:4)

Lies about freedom are often rooted in a misunderstanding of grace, confusing it with leniency, mercy, and forgiveness, and thus reading related scriptures incorrectly. Grace is the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life. (Strong) Grace is the very power of God enabling us to live free of sin, to be aligned with His law. Grace is divine enablement, not unconditional forgiveness and love. So, thinking grace gives us freedom to sin is an open contradiction: it’s like freedom to be sick in our healing, or filthy in our cleansing. It is this misunderstanding of grace, turning God’s truth into a lie (Ro 1:25), which gives the half-truths of Christian “freedom” their insidious appeal.

It is true that God loves and forgives believers totally and unconditionally; there is no sin that Christ did not atone for, and He will never impute sin to any believer. (Ro 4:8) But this is only half of the truth.

The rest of the truth is that believers don’t sin, or break God’s Law (1Jn 3:4), on purpose, carelessly, negligently or presumptuously, as a manner of life. (1Jn 2:4) God has commanded us to keep His law diligently (Ps 119:4), and believers have a new nature that longs to be perfect (Ps 119:5); we actually are obedient to God (1Pe 1:2), inclined toward righteousness and holiness. (Ep 2:10)

Yet believers do sin (1Jn 1:8), drawn away by our own lusts and enticed (Ja 1:14), missing the mark of perfection even as we try our best to obey. And when we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1Jn 2:1) So, once we have salvation we can never lose it: it is eternal. (He 5:9) But thinking this implies freedom to sin willfully and presumptuously is a gross misunderstanding of the gospel. (He 10:26-27)

As believers, we work out our deliverance from sin with fear and trembling (Php 2:13), knowing God Himself is working His grace in us according to His good pleasure. (vs 14) And He that began this good work in us will continue to perform it until the Day of Jesus Christ. (Php 1:6)

articles ♦ posts

Women Keep Silence

Scriptures offending the progressive mindset challenge us profoundly; in receiving them we’re scorned — to align with the world we must corrupt the word and explain them away. Yet God is good, so His ways are eternally good (Ro 7:12); as we depart from them we grieve Him, harming ourselves and others.

One such command is that women keep silence in church. (1Co 14:34a, 35) We can dismiss this as cultural, for a distant time and place, yet within the command itself God affirms this as His timeless law, grounding it in Torah. (vs 34b)

God reinforces this in a separate context: women aren’t to teach men, or to be in authoritative roles over them; rather, they’re to learn in silence with all subjection. (1Ti 2:11-12) God grounds these principles in Creation itself, and also in the Fall (vs 13-14); it’s about transcendent reality, not local cultural trends.

In assigning different roles and responsibilities to each gender, God isn’t valuing one over the other: God values all human beings infinitely, and therefore equally; there are no gender-based value differences. (Ga 3:28) However, God has indeed designed the sexes differently, for different purposes in His kingdom, and assigned distinct responsibilities accordingly. (Ep 5:33)

God designed Woman as a perfect counterpart for Man (Ge 2:18) … physically weaker and more vulnerable (1Pe 3:7), yet more intuitive, more subjective, and more emotionally aware. Female minds and souls process differently, giving them unique and precious perspective, but also rendering them more impulsive and emotional, so God provides for their protection through male authority. (Nu 30:13)

This design works as God intended when a man and woman are in a mutually interdependent relationship, husband and wife acting as one flesh rather than two (Mk 10:8), deferring to one another in love in matters of preference, yet where the male bears ultimate accountability for leadership (1Co 11:3), and the woman respects and honors this. (Ep 5:22-24) The man reasons through things, and the woman appeals when she’s concerned he might be overlooking something. Working together they have a powerful, resilient synergy. This is balance, and it is beautiful.

This isn’t to say women shouldn’t testify of their understanding of God’s revelation (Mt 28:5-7), or that they shouldn’t publicly exercise supernatural gifts (Ac 21:9), yet when it comes to public debate and problem solving, as men assemble for the purpose of deliberation (as in the Greek ecclesia), women should let the brothers hammer it out. Sisters should offer insights, concerns and questions privately and discretely with a husband or father, letting the men filter, frame and refine the public flow of ideas as they labor together to find unity. (1Co 1:10) This pattern isn’t new; it’s rooted in timeless precepts. (De 16:16)

As we pursue holiness, brothers and sisters meditating on these kinds of passages, it isn’t our place to correct those who’d rather not hear (Pr 23:9), imposing and enforcing our views on others. We must each obey our Lord as best we can: it’s before our own master we stand or fall. (Ro 14:4) Let’s each so run our own race, finishing our course, longing to hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” (Mt 25:21)

articles ♦ posts

As a Little Child

Christ tells us that to enter God’s kingdom we must receive it like a little child would. (Lk 18:17) Some manner of childlikeness is therefore intrinsic in regeneration, so it’s important to understand what this looks like: there’s no salvation without it.

Firstly, we note that God isn’t telling us to be childish (1Co 13:11), foolish (Pr 22:15), or childlike in our understanding (1Co 14:20a,c); God wants us to be mature in knowledge and wisdom. Rather, we’re to be as children in malice (vs 20b), not bitter, vengeful, jaded and resentful, wishing harm to others for the sake of it.

Neither are we to be voluntarily weak and vulnerable, inappropriately dependent on others. God commands us to be poor in spirit (Mt 5:3), not spiritually self-sufficient (2Co 3:5), but He also commands us to be strong (1Co 16:13)

Godly childlikeness seems to be primarily in the context of humility: small children don’t tend to think too highly of themselves. (Mt 18:4) They’re not preoccupied with status, with how they stack up against others, or in feeling certain tasks are beneath them. They aren’t envious or bitter.

Further, small children are generally very teachable, curious, wanting to learn, grow and understand. (1Pe 2:2) They tend to trust what adults tell them, depending on those who are older and wiser to guide and protect them. This isn’t the same as being gullible (Pr 14:15); children aren’t capable of understanding the world well enough to navigate it wisely (Lk 2:52), so they’re involuntarily dependent and vulnerable. (Mt 18:6) They aren’t locked into preconceived biases which blind them to the truth when they hear it. They are, in a sense, strong in faith. This is how we’re to respond to God, as a little child trusts a loving parent: God is infinitely beyond us in power and knowledge, so we should trust what He says implicitly, and without reservation.

Small children tend to repent when appropriately corrected, and to try to please those in authority when consistently and lovingly disciplined. Their hearts aren’t hard; they enjoy being loved and cared for, being in relationship with their father, being close to him and nurtured by him. Similarly, regeneration produces in us an obedient heart (1Pe 1:2), one that readily yields to correction and seeks to serve and obey our Heavenly Father.

Unless we’re transformed, and become as little children, we won’t enter His kingdom. (Mt 18:3) We must find God at work in us, transforming us in humility and holiness such that we’re unassuming, trusting in the goodness of our Father, not pretending to be worthy of the gift, simply joyful and grateful.

articles ♦ posts