Wednesday, May 20, 2009

TITHING: A BIBLICAL CRITIQUE

[Part 2: 1, 3]

Introduction: a False Premise or Two

'Tithe' simply means 'ten' or 'a tenth'. The popular idea of 'church tithing' runs something like this: In the bible God commands the Israelites (the Jewish people) to tithe to the storehouse of God (Jerusalem, the Temple). If we ignore the context of the bible and avoid questions like 'what was the intention of the authors and of God?' and if we treat the scriptures as a series of 'universal preposition', then we may conclude that God commands Christians to tithe to the local church.

With this as our first premise we may then conclude that every reference in the New Testament to 'giving' must be understood in the context of 'tithing'. The logical equation goes like this:

Premise 1: Since tithing is a universal principle enforced in the O.T.

Conclusion 1; Premise 2: and since the N.T. when it refers to giving it means 'tithe'

Conclusion 2: Therefore God commands Christians to tithe

Notice: if either one (or both) of the premises are false, the conclusion must be false also. It can easily be demonstrated that both premises are false and that context is crucial to understanding the scriptures. If we ignore the context of the scriptures while formulating doctrine there will no end to spurious interpretations, the scriptures will then be made to say anything anyone wants' them to say and we will not know what it is they intended to say in the first place. We shall forever be misled by poor interpretative methods.

Let us then first examine what the scriptures do say regarding 'tithe'.

Israel: Old Testament Tithe of 23.3 % annually

It may come as a shock to most people to discover that in the Old Testament God instituted three (not one) distinct tithes for the Jewish people! Two annual tithes and a third tithe which was collected every three years, amounting to an annual giving of 23.3 percent. What this bit of information means is that, even in the Old Testament, there is no biblical warrant to teach an annual (or weekly!) ten percent giving (strictly speaking). The three tithes are as follows:

  1. There was a tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan. [Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:21-31]
  2. Another and altogether separate tithe of the produce of the land was to sponsor religious festivals in Jerusalem. If the produce was too burdensome for a family to carry to Jerusalem, they were allowed to convert it into money. [Deut. 14:22-27 – festival tithe]
  3. Finally, a tithe of the produce of the land was collected every third year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers, and widows. [Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13]

As George Barna and Frank Viola point out: "A clear parallel can be seen between Israel's tithing system and the modern taxation system present in America. Israel was obligated to support their national workers (priests), their holidays (festivals), and their poor (strangers, widows, and orphans) with their annual tithes. Most modern taxation systems serve similar purposes" (Pagan Christianity, p.173).

It is interesting to note that when the scriptures are addressing each individual 'tithe' they refer to it in the singular, but when the scriptures are not speaking specifically of 'this' tithe or 'that' tithe, then the word tithe is found in the plural, 'tithes'. A good example is Deuteronomy 14 were two different totally distinct tithes are mentioned one after the other: "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe…" (verse 22-23a), "At the end of every three years bring all the tithes of that years produce and store it in your towns" (verse 28). The first tithe mentioned here is collected every year, but the second tithe is collected every three years, this means that on the third year at least two separated 'tithes' are collected. Notice however, later in Deuteronomy when the third tithe is centered out specifically, the plural moves back to singular: "When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe…" (16:12).

I point this out only because later when the scriptures address all the tithes which God commanded the Israelites to give, they simply use the plural 'tithes' or they will say the 'whole tithe' as a way of referring to all three; Mal. 3:8c, 10a is a good example: "In tithes and offerings… bring the whole tithe into the storehouse".

Conclusion: (1) The institution of tithing in Israel essentially functioned as their national tax, which only makes sense since they were in fact a nation. Gods' people are no longer a national ethnic entity which may explain why the New Testament does not teach that Christians are to tithe to the church as Jews were to tithe to Israel! (2) The tithe in Israel was 23.3 percent annually! This is a biggie. If we truly want to be 'biblical' in promoting tithing then we must teach it as it is, not 10 but a whopping 23.3 percent per year!

What about Abraham and Melchizedek?

Someone may say that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek before the Law (Gen. 14:17-20 – the first and only pre-Moses example of a tithe) therefore showing that tithing is an established principle. But there are a few things we may wish to keep in mind before we too hastily raise this single account up as a standard to model:

  1. First, God did not command Abraham to tithe. It was a personal decision and nowhere in the text is it suggested that everyone after Abraham should follow his example.
  2. Also, Abraham tithed out of the spoils of battle and not out of his own wealth; a similar example would be to tithe after winning the lottery.
  3. And finally, once and only once in all one hundred and seventy five years on this earth is it ever said of Abraham that he tithed.

So if we are going to hold Abraham up as our standard for tithing then (1) we only have to tithe if we win the lottery or come across a large sum of money; (2) even if we win the lottery, we only have to give if we want to, (3) and finally we only have to give once in our entire lives!

What about Malachi?

How many sermons have been delivered and applied to the Church on Malachi 3:8-10 which I will here quote at length: 'Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse – the whole nation of you – because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,' says the Lord Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.'"

Yet I have never heard this passage preached (as it should be) in the context of the immediate proceeding verses (5-7). "I will come near to you for judgment… against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice… return to me and I will return to you… But you ask, 'How are we to return?'" then the text begins, "will a man rob God? Yet you rob me…"

This entire passage is so dense with Covenantal Theology that I must strive to reserve myself (3:1)! The point to be noticed here is that in verse 5 we have reached the heart of God for everything which follows; that the widows and orphans and aliens are being oppressed! God is a God of justice who cares for the helpless as the whole of scripture makes abundantly clear! He is coming in judgment to the Israelites because they are breaking the Covenantal Law (vs. 6) of God established by Moses (Deuteronomy in particular). The law in question here has to do with the national tax (tithe) which had the explicit purpose of taking care of the helpless and needy (vs. 5). Because Israel was continuing to break the law of God, they were (nationally) falling under the curse of the law (vs. 9: "You are under a curse – the whole nation – for robbing me" – remembering of course Deuteronomy 28:15ff)

Yet if they are obedient to the laws of God – particularly the law of tithing here – God will bless them so much that they will not be able to contain it (vs. 10) and what's more important, the nations will call Israel blessed because theirs "will be a delightful land" (vs. 12). The overtones here to Deuteronomy 28:1-14 are too great to ignore. Just as God pronounced warnings of curses over the Israelites for failing to keep Gods laws in Deuteronomy 28:15ff, so also he has promised to bless Israel with prosperity in their land – as a testament to the God of Israel it is important to note – if they obey the law of the Covenant. So this entire passage is grounded in the Mosaic Covenant and should not be considered a 'universal preposition'!

Jesus and the Tithe

It should be noted that Jesus, in addressing Pharisaic legalism, comments on tithing, but only as an afterthought and only on two occasions.

  1. In Luke 18:12 Jesus very clearly portrays tithing in a negative and legalistic fashion. It is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, where the Pharisee thanks God that he is not like the tax collector and boasts that he fasts twice a week and gives a tenth of all he gets. The moral of the story? The tax collector, not the tithe paying Pharisee, went home justified before God.
  2. In Matt. 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42) Jesus again confronts Pharisaic legalism, this time not in a parable but in a 'woe'. He says, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former." What is important to observe here is that Jesus is not instructing the disciples on tithing. This passage is dealing specifically with the leaders of Israel who were tithing (half heartedly in a 'since I have to' sense) while neglecting the more important aspects of the law – love. This passage by the way would make for an interesting comparative study with Malachi, specifically 1:8, 13-14; 3:5-7.

Conclusion: Jesus does not once teach or promote tithing to his disciples. Only when addressing specifically the leaders of Israel does he – almost as an afterthought – tell them they should not neglect it – of course Christ had not died yet and the Old Covenant was very much alive during his earthly ministry.

It is curious to note that it seems Jesus and his disciples did not tithe during Christ' three years in the ministry. When Peter was asked by collectors whether Jesus paid the temple tax, Peter lies; "Yes, he does". Jesus is aware of the encounter – what with being God and all – and defends his right not to have to pay the temple tax, but then he tells Peter (so that they do not offend) to go fishing, and the first fish he catches will have enough coins in its mouth to pay for both of their tithes! This of course indicates that neither one were tithing (Matt. 17:24-27), and it seems to have been a onetime occurrence.

Tithing: From Acts – Revelation

This section is going to be short and sweet: Acts – no mention of tithing (see that was easy); the Pauline corpus from Romans to Philemon – again, no mention of tithe; James, Peter, Jude and the final books of John (the epistles and Revelation) – you guessed it, no mention again of tithing or any variation of it. Only in Hebrews chapter 7 is tithing used and even here, tithing is not the point. The point of the text is to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, that he was the greatest priest of them all. By doing this, the author of Hebrews is very cleverly setting up Melchizedek to show that Christ is in fact even greater than Melchizedek and thus Christ is truly greater than all other priests! In short, Hebrews 7 no way promotes tithing, tithing is not event the subject, the greatness of Melchizedek, and how Christ is even greater then he, is the subject.

Final Conclusion:

Having now quickly surveyed the entire body of scripture pertaining to this subject how is it possible to teach that Christians must tithe – according to the bible – ten percent of their weekly income to their local church? How is it possible to separate tithe from 'giving', 'love offering' and the such? Where is the scriptural evidence? Where is the biblical support for such an idea, chapter and verse please?

It does not exist!

Having illustrated how the doctrine of tithing is harmful to the body of Christ in the previous blog, and having now shown how tithing is not supported by the scriptures (not by a long shot, not in the least!), I will now attempt to outline a biblical approach to giving within the body of Christ. I believe very strongly and passionately in giving! My wife and I give every single week, we work it out in our budget and we support our church, the ministries that go on in it and of course I am thrilled to support the salary of my pastor.

Stay tuned…

Derek

A word on Pagan Christianity: While I wholly endorse Frank Viola's book, Pagan Christianity, I do not agree with all of his conclusions. None the less, I wish that everyone would read Pagan Christianity if for no other reason than to understand where and how our traditions came about. It is this bloggers opinion that Viola goes too far in search of some type of 'ideal' church which I think never existed, and aims for Christians to 'return' to this ideal 'church' which – I believe – frankly is unattainable. For this reason I do not support his Reimagining Church to the same extent that I support Pagan Christianity, which, again, I think everyone should read!

Monday, May 18, 2009

On Tithing Part 1

[Part 1: 2, 3]

A young woman came up to me at work the other day and asked me if we are supposed to tithe. I told her that we should give to support our church and our leaders if we can, but that feeding our children and making sure our bills get paid comes first. To this she responded with another question, ‘but doesn’t the bible say that we have to tithe?’ This second question is asked with a presupposition that expects an answer in the affirmative, in court this would be called a leading question, asked in such a way as to expect no other answer then a ‘yes’. But the answer is – strictly speaking – no, the bible does not tell us that we have to tithe; there is no such command in the scriptures. From Acts to Revelation, in all of the Pastoral Epistles and the other epistles that instruct on operating a church there is not a single mention of this doctrine for Christians!

Not long ago I read a book by John Stott called the Living Church: Reflections of a lifelong pastor. In this book an entire chapter is devoted to giving within the church and to the church and it is filled with exegesis of all relevant New Testament passages – yet not once in the entire book is the word tithe or any variation of it used. Yet today it is difficult to image many churches teaching on church giving without appealing to an Old Testament law on tithing and telling the people that God requires it or they won’t be blessed.

Someone asked me a while back if I would write a blog on this subject and so here it is. On the one hand I want to be sensitive to the fact that tithing is a common practice in many churches, but I also need to be firm – the doctrine of tithing is destructive, unbiblical and against the design of Gods Church. This will be a series of three blogs, the first (present) blog will attempt to support the bold claim I just made. The second will be to examine all the relevant biblical texts that are used to support tithing and will show decisively how the scriptures, when read in context, do not support this terrible idea. I will conclude with a wholesome, biblical and godly practice of giving.

Why does it matter?

There are four pastoral reasons why it matters whether or not we teach a doctrine of tithing to our people: 1. it destroys the faith of the Christian; 2. it hinders a right attitude of giving; 3. it becomes a barrier to the unbeliever; 4. it prevents the Church from being what God designed it to be.

1. It destroys the faith of the Christian

How many times have I heard messages delivered from pulpits teaching that God will financially bless those who faithfully tithe? And so many people give (or try to give) ten percent of their income. Sometimes they are not able to pay their bills, collection agencies are after them. Some people can’t afford to feed their children or keep their phone lines activated. Some can’t afford to get their car on the road (which they need for work) and still, week after week they struggle to give a tenth of their income to the church.

Why isn’t God blessing them with more money or a better job or miraculous food etc? Oh yah sure, someone is going to go up to the platform and describe a miracle that happened to them, but others – and way more in the majority – are living in condemnation and guilt, feeling unacceptable before God, unjustified and weighed down by the sin of either not being able to give ten percent, or else by giving and still – for reasons God only knows – cannot afford to pay their monthly bills! Does this look like the picture of the church that God intended – does this testify of a God whose eyes are on the sparrow? As Mark Hall poetically but it, “if we are the body, why aren’t his arms reaching”? But more on this anon.

The scriptures teach that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [Rom. 8:1] and that we find approval in the eyes of our heavenly father who smiles down on us because of our faith in his Son Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law [Rom 3:28]! Yet when we teach tithing we both place our brothers and sisters (especially those who are already hurting – God help us) in condemnation [Luke 6:37, cf. verse 38] and in shorthand we are essential telling them that their approval rating before God, their level of being justified if you will – is not found by faith in Jesus alone but by works of the Law; the work of tithing! This gospel is not the Gospel! This is not even just another gospel; it is actually ‘anti’ the true Gospel!

2. It hinders a right attitude of Giving

Little is necessary to say on this. We find ourselves – by which I mean the ‘we’ (whoever they are) who teach the law of tithing – in quite the predicament. How do we tell people that they must give ten percent of their income, threaten them that if they do not give ten percent that they will not be blessed, and then have them do it for ‘spiritual’ not legal reasons? In the New Testament Paul can say on the one hand, give with a willing and cheerful heart, but then on the other he can say, give freely [2 Cor. 9:7]. Tithing may say (depending on who’s preaching it) you must give with a cheerful heart, but it cannot liberate you to give freely, on the contrary it demands that you give ten percent of your income ‘or else’.

No wonder people have such a hard time giving, free them up and they will give cheerfully. Demand that they give a certain amount, and they will resist. These two worlds cannot coexist (dichotomy).

3. It becomes a barrier to the unbeliever.

Scenario 1: Imagine you are an un-churched person living in today’s southern Ontario economy – the previous automotive capital of Canada – with all of its auto factories and dealerships folding up operations and moving elsewhere leaving countless without jobs. Now you (and almost everyone you know) are faced with the daunting task of taking care of your family without the financial means to do so. You then meet a previous co-worker on the street who is in the same boat as you are yet as you dialogue with one another you discover that your new friend is not nearly as depressed as you are over the situation and so you ask what’s up. He explains that God is taking care of his financial needs until he gets on his feet. You first scoff, ‘yah I’ve heard that before. What does God do, drop dollar bills from heaven?’ But then he warmly rebuttals, ‘it’s true, the body of Christ, the community of faith, are helping me pay my bills and some of them have even given me short term work to help me out’ he explains, ‘a guy in the bible named James teaches that he will show everyone his faith my what he does and another guy named Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ where we help and support each other by the will of God… and friend’ he says to you, ‘we would love to help you as well’. Tears stream down your cheeks and you are emotionally overwhelmed by the workings of a Christ you don’t even know it yet.

Scenario 2: Now let us consider another more familiar scenario. You are un-churched and a Christian friend invites you to church. The economy stinks yet still a leader of the church steps up and declares that it is time to take up the tithe. He gives a mini-sermon on how God requires that we give ten percent of our income to the church, no matter what situations we are facing. To neglect this is to be disobedient to God, to show a lack of faith and as a result, God will not ‘bless’ you or your family. Or consider this true scenario I recently heard: there was a woman who was ‘seeking to find religion’. After several weeks of attending church – note she was not a believer, but only a seeker – a church leader approached her and warned sternly that if she was to continue to attend the church she must tithe – she ceased attending church altogether (story slightly modified).

Is it even necessary to ask which of the two scenarios above best shines the light of Christ via his body to a lost and dark world?

4. It prevents the Church from being what it is designed to be

This fourth point is simply a corollary to the previous three: The Church of God is a community of faith based missional believers called to be the embodiment of Gods people functioning Gods way to this dark and hopeless world. Instead we have removed the faith from this community and substituted it for law. Then we claim this in the name of that very ‘faith’ which we removed, claiming we must give by ‘faith’ ‘believing’ that God will ‘bless us’, even though James – inspired by the Holy Spirit – has a completely different philosophy: it is you who must prove your faith by helping those who are in need [James 2:18]! When we fail to do this and then demand from those we are supposed to be helping that they must give anyways, we are both destroying their faith while simultaneously proving that we ourselves are faithless! We have consequentially nullified ‘faith’ and God’s divine institution – the Church – and have ceased to continue in the lead of Christ to be Kingdom people!

We have essentially – like Israel before us – become a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution to man’s plot!

Conclusion

You may stand opposed to these four reasons just given, you may find a positive spin somehow in each one and then you may conclude – as though putting the final nail in the coffin – that we must be obedient to God even if we don’t like it, and God – or so you argue – demands that we tithe!

Well it is to this assumption that I will now turn my attention: Does the bible teach that we must give ten percent of our income to the church, or is there a better more biblically faithful way to give within the body of Christ?

Until then, give all you can, give cheerfully and give communally, because when the community of God functions in this way, then when we have need, that which we have given to help others will then be given back to us a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and rolled over [Luke 6:38]!

Hallelujah and amen!

Derek

Friday, May 15, 2009

Done with Dunn

What is the NP: Trying Again…

This whole series on the New Perspective on Paul has come about as a result of my near feeble attempt to nail down what it is and what it teaches. But I got an epiphany the other day and realized that maybe I have been going about this particular subject all wrong.

I have been treating the “NP” as though it were a doctrine of some sort, asking questions like, “what does it teach?” and “why are so many reformers up in arms against it?” These are still valid questions but only if I treat the subject differently. The NP should not be handled the same as say Open Theism – the doctrinal, theological, scriptural and philosophical debate over how much of the future God knows – or eschatology – the debate over which theory of the ‘last’ best fits the biblical corpus. The New Perspective on Paul cannot be handled as such because it is not really a solid concrete doctrinal proposal like the two examples above. Rather the NP is an abstract philosophical approach to Paul in particular and maybe to the New Testament in general.

Context, Context, Context…

The best word to sum up this subject may be ‘context’. As we saw in our blogs on Sanders, he – in Paul and Palestinian Judaism – broke the mold of Pauline study and his general principles have stood the test of time. Paul is not to be understood as a Greek Jew combating Jewish legalism by rejecting both the Law and Israel. On the contrary, Paul is very much a Jew of his day who had a real encounter with the Jewish Messiah who is also the Messiah to the world. If God is One, then he must be the God to the gentiles as much as the Jews; Judaism was not a legalistic religion but rather a grace based religion, but salvation, according to Paul (says Sanders and Dunn) is not found in national ethnic election with boundaries markers such as circumcision, food laws and holy festivals (summed up by Paul as “nomos” or “torah”); salvation instead is found in faith in the Messiah, Jesus. If this is true, says Sanders, then the centre of Paul’s theology is not “how are people saved” (i.e. justification by faith), but rather, “what does it mean to be ‘in Christ’”.

To sum up: the New Perspective sees Paul within a Jewish context whereas the Old Perspective sees Paul within a Hellenistic context. Was Paul a Greek Jew rejecting the Law or a Messianic Jew redefining the place of the Law in light of the Messiah? The Old Perspective opts for the first; the New opts for the second.

Why does this matter?

The issues of contention arise when we approach Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans in which Paul declares that Justification is by faith and not by works of the law. While the old perspective understood Paul here to be speaking in terms of “good works” and universal principles of salvation, the New Perspective seeks to understand the text in its’ context, something so basic a principle of hermeneutics but for whatever reason has been resisted by so many in the traditional camp.

An example of this is in Galatians where the context is clearly and indisputably the issue of ‘what is required of Gentiles to be Christian?’ Do they need to first become Jews by keeping the Torah, the Jewish laws that separated Gods people from everybody else, particularly circumcision, food laws and holy days? Paul is adamant, by no means! Justification is by faith in Jesus the Messiah, not by works of the law (i.e. nomos = torah). In other words, Paul is not addressing ‘good works’ in this text! And it is this undeniable truth of the text that has steamed up so many Reformers.

The irony in this is that those who are push for the New Perspective, particularly James Dunn and N.T. Wright, do not believe they are denying the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone, and they go so far as to state outright this fact:

“At the same time I see no reason to dispute – indeed, I wish strongly to affirm on my own account – what the more traditional emphasis highlights and underscores… that justification by faith is at the core of Paul’s gospel and theology [Sanders would dispute this], what is at stake is to secure a properly rounded and integrated grasp of Paul’s teaching” – Dunn, p.369

“Some still use [Paul] to legitimate an old-style ‘preaching of the gospel’ in which the basic problem is human sin and pride and the basic answer is the cross of Christ. Others, without wishing to deny this as part of the Pauline message, are struggling to do justice to the wider categories and the larger questions that seem to be a non-negotiable part of Paul’s whole teaching. This, indeed, is the category into which I would put myself.” – Wright, p.22, italics added.

So what’s clear is that those who adhere to the so called New Perspective, their agenda is to understand and grasp as much from the text of the scriptures as they can – and this is done by good an proper biblical hermeneutics! That while Justification by faith alone is true, Paul has something more – or something else perhaps – in mind. That Gentiles can come to Christ without having to go through the law (i.e. Torah), in particular circumcision, food laws and holy days.

Let me conclude then by suggesting that the ridiculous phrase “New Perspective on Paul” should be discarded altogether, for it is wholly inaccurate and useless. A better phrase, which is no new phrase at all, would be ‘good and proper hermeneutics’ since that is the aim and success of those who adhere to it. The irony then is that so many Reformers resist interpreting Paul in his context when claiming as a fundamental to their entire belief system solo scriptura! If they wish to dispute this or that part of Dunn and Wrights interpretation, that is agreeable and indeed for critical purposes, encouraged. But to disregard the system of Dunn and Wright is to disregard wholly accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics!

In light of this epiphany I have decided that it would be counter-productive (not to mention daunting to everybody) to examine Dunn’s book to the same extent I did Sanders. Through Dunn’s study I began to grasp more of Paul and his letters then before, yet still I find much to disagree with on this or that point. However, having now a greater understanding of the New Perspective – come on folks another term already! – I have once again and finally return to Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said?, and am joyfully gleaning!

Until next time, be wholly His

Derek

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Star Trek and Dad

Warning: the following blog may contain some spoilers of the new Star Trek film. I suggest you see the film before reading further, but please, after you do return to this blog and allow me to share my heart with you. If you like spoilers, then by all means, read on!

------------------------------------------------------

I just got home from watching Star Trek in the theaters, and let me tell you, even with the high expectation and excitement I built up before going to see it…. It will not and did not disappoint! It was amazing through and through, I even want to see it again and look forward to buying it on DVD. My only critique is that there simply wasn’t enough, I wanted more; I want a sequel to the prequel!

I know my blogs are designed to be theological in nature, and I’m sure someone will offer some profound philosophical and theological insight as they did to Lord of the Rings and Narnia, but not me and not today. I do however want to share I small unexpected emotional insurgence I experienced during the climax of the film.

The scene was reaching a climatic peak; Spock set his small one man vessel on a collision course with enemy ship, a monster of a ship destroying entire fleets and even planets! Kirk was aboard the enemy vessel alone and terribly outnumbered attempting to rescue the previous captain. The enemy ship had launched an armada of missals to destroy Spock’s little pod… in short, all hope seemed lost.

Just then – and the scene was so incredible it brings a smile to my face even now – the Enterprise dropped out of warp and opened fire on the enemy ship with effects and fire power no other Star Trek movie ever produced.

At that moment, while I watched the orgasmic scene unfold, everything became surreal as I could almost hear my father’s voice as if he had been the one to see it and he was tell me about it fully excited and overjoyed: “Derek, you’re gonna love It! I mean, the Enterprise came out of nowhere guns blazing! It was awesome! I mean, it was like, ‘beam me up Scottie’, it was so cool son. You’re gonna love it.”

Right then and there, while watching Star Trek in the theaters, tears filled my eyes (and again as I type this). It has been a little over three months since my dad passed away and it catches up to me when I least expect it, when I’m surrounded by a hundred and fifty strangers watching a movie with my wife on my shoulder and here I am tearing up at a Star Trek film no less. My dad would have loved that movie, and I would have loved to see it with him.

We need to cherish the people in our lives, make the extra effort and spend the extra time, because when they are gone, all we have left are memories and tears.

What I wouldn’t give to hang out with my dad one more day.

I love you dad, and painfully miss you.

Derek

Monday, May 4, 2009

The Ultimate Evidence


“It is of great significance that the great outpouring of God’s Spirit in this twentieth century was granted to, of the many Christian bodies available, a people whose primary concern was the ethical issues of life – the Holiness movement! That fact should speak volumes to us.” – Newman, p.71

Overdue Adjustments

Larry Newman has a section in his book which well reflects one of my complaints in the first blog of this series; namely that Pentecostalism needs to readjust ‘ethics’ in its paradigm. If tongues is the evidence that one has been Spirit-Baptized then what about one who speaks in tongues but lives an unethical life? If tongues is the evidence, then one who speaks in tongues has the Spirit regardless of one’s lifestyle. “This adjustment is sorely needed in our day” says Newman [p.85], “When Pentecostals are sometimes noted not so much for their charismatic expressions as for their lack of character, something is surely amiss”. (For examples of this read “this” blog.)

Newman adds, “Chapters 10 through 14 [of 1 Cor.] contains Paul’s argument that the charismatic is meaningless without the ethical dimension of the Christian life. Positioned in the middle of these chapters is Paul’s great ode to love. That is not accidental! It is intentional!” [p.86]

Another adjustment Newman calls attention to is the need to add emphasis to the “charisma of discernment” and adds, “We are rather naive in this day relative to manifestations of the Spirit. We have a tendency to accept any and all such expressions as being of the Spirit, with little concern that they might be the product of the flesh, or possibly, of demons” [p.88]; “I am afraid that in our eagerness to see people experience Spirit-Baptism we may prematurely declare someone to be Spirit-filled without a full accounting of the evidence. Again, the ethical dimension of the Christian life must be held to be primary in these considerations” [ibid].

Paul – Tongues are not the evidence!

Newman echoes one of the question I have been asking for nearly a decade now: “It seems logical that if Scripture intended to convey to the Church that glossolalia is to be understood as the primary evidence of Spirit-baptism, literature as important to Christian theology as the Pauline corpus would convey a didactic strain that would confirm such a notion” [p.91]. He points out that though Paul confirms the gift of tongues, he does not elevate it to the place of primary evidence! F.F. Bosworth shares similar sentiments, “Think of it, and then think again, all the New Testament epistles, and not a single mention of this doctrine” [p.126]. (The question of the necessary assumption of distinguishing between “tongues-evidence” and the “gift of tongues” will not be taken up here because it is an unfounded and unfortunate corollary which crumbles under the demise of the doctrine of tongues-evidence, making distinguishing assumption no longer necessary.)

Newman does a great job at examining the Pauline (and elsewhere in the N.T.) key text as they relate to this subject; but for brevity sake I want to focus on what I perceive to be the “left hook” of his Pauline study which deserves serious consideration. Perhaps, contrary to popular opinion, Paul does in fact have something very relevant to add to the “tongues as evidence” paradigm.

What does Paul mean when he says, “Tongues, then, are a sign not for the believer but for unbelievers”? I have heard many theories over the years, but the most prominent one has been that when someone comes into the church and hears you speaking in tongues they will say you are “mad” and as a result they will blaspheme the Holy Spirit, therefore, tongues is a “sign of Judgment”. There have been other theories, but this one I have heard the most. Newman’s exegete however is perhaps the best I have heard to date, taking into consideration the full context of 1 Cor. 12-14 and also the historical context of the church.

You will recall in the previous blog that there was a popular Greco/Roman cult which practiced speaking in tongues and that this cult was very active in first century Corinth. The glossolalia was practiced not just by the priestess of the cult, but also, during festival times, a power seized the average adherents and they too would speak in tongues. What is highly relevant is that such tongues speech was a sign for the adherents of this cult that a god had entered into them and had taken them over so that they were considered to be “out of their minds”. This is not to be understood the way we in our culture flippantly do, as in nuts or crazy, rather they were out of their minds because another mind had taken over – ecstasy (with the assistance of drugs no doubt). Now let us survey the text in question:

1. Paul situates the Corinthians firmly in the midst of this context when he says “Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols” (1 Cor. 12:1-2). So Paul is making an explicit connection between the pagan cult of which the Corinthians had come out of and the gifts of the Spirit, in particular, the gift of tongues which Paul devotes an entire chapter to (14)!

2. Next Paul moves on to show how every gift is on equal footing! Whether tongues or prophecy, or teaching or healing or interpretation etc, they are all given by one and the same Spirit (chpt. 12). It is interesting to parallel the love chapter of 1st Corinthians with the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5 – love is the keynote by which you have the Spirit; and if you speak in tongues but have not love you are nothing but a blabbering gong. I find it interesting that Paul begins the ode to love by negatively contrasting “tongues” with “love” to show that love is the “most excellent way”!

3. Lingering on the ode to love chapter just a little bit longer, as we progress through these three chapters of Paul’s letter towards his main point, I am struck by these words: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” [13:11] – Paul almost sounds condescending. How does this verse relate to the most excellent way as it is contrasted to the Spiritual gifts – especially tongues? Paul immediately narrows the discussion as he moves quickly to the issues at hand – tongues and prophecy. It is here where Paul explicitly applies what he said earlier [13:11] directly to the Corinthians just in case there was any doubt: “Brothers, stop thinking like children!” [14:20]; he makes this statement after affirming tongues as a legitimate gift, but then proclaims that he would rather speak “five intelligible” words that could be understood then “ten thousand words in a tongue” [14:18-19]. So the Corinthians were being childish both in their teaching and in their practice regarding tongues and Paul is crying out, mature in your theology, there is a more excellent way!

4. And so, you Corinthian who is still caught up in your carnal ways, you who came out of a tongues speaking pagan cult religion, let me remind you – Paul is in essence saying – that tongues is a sign for the unbeliever; a sign to the pagans that a god has come in to them and that they are out of their mind because another mind has taken over – but tongues are not a sign to the Christian that a god is in them; let me show you a more excellent way!

5. Prophecy, however, when it says that it is for the believer and not for the unbeliever, it means that it is not used as a “sign” among unbelievers – the pagan practitioners. However, it is a sign to the Christian, because when someone delivers a message from God “the secrets of his heart will be laid bare… So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming ‘God is really among you’” – as will the pagans [14:25]. However, even though prophecy is not considered a sign of the presence of the god’s in the cultic Greco/Roman religions, nonetheless, when an unbeliever hears prophecy among Christians – i.e. the preaching of the Word in the power of the Spirit – “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner” [14:24].

Conclusions:

It seems that while the scriptures do not teach anywhere that the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, the Corinthian church had taught and practiced this very notion or something similar to it, and Paul deemed it necessary to correct them exclaiming, “Brothers, stop being childish in your orthodoxy and orthopraxy!” and “come out of your Pagan roots and influences”. Tongues may be a sign to the unbeliever that a god is among them, but Jesus made it clear, they shall know you are His by your love! And so if I speak with the tongues of angels and of men and have not love I am nothing, for the fruit of the Spirit is love (Gal.5).

This is not to say that the modern Pentecostal movement must “come out of their Pagan roots”. The root of modern Pentecostalism was holiness, and so the context of Corinthians and modern Pentecostalism are not the same. However, modern Pentecostalism is a ‘young’ movement, and many of it’s’ keynote doctrines – especially the one at hand – was developed out of a need of defending this experience to the church at large (i.e. tongues-evidence doctrine was birthed for apologetics sake!). But today – praise God! – the Pentecostal movement is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world and no longer needs to defend its existence. This point is critical, for as the premise of Newman’s books suggest, it’s time for modern Pentecostalism to mature in its’ theology! As Paul said to the Corinthians, “Brothers, stop thinking like children!”

Ultimate Evidence: A Most Excellent Way

It should be clear by now what the ultimate evidence that someone has been Spirit-Baptized is! As Newman said earlier, it is imperative that we find an evidence construct that can neither be faked by the flesh nor imitated by the demonic. An evidence is some kind of ‘proof’ that something happened, in this case, that a person is Spirit-Baptized; and if the evidence can be faked or mimicked then it makes for a poor construct, for how can we be sure that it is of the Spirit and not the flesh or demonic? Hopefully by discernment, but then again, discernment is not always utilized (in my observation, “rarely” would be a better term), thus we have run into our same problem; Logic, history and scripture all suggest that this doctrine must be false!

As already suggested, Paul and Jesus affirm the reality that a Spirit-filled, overflowing, empowered person is a life of love which works itself out in obedience. If we have charisma but not the active fruit of the Spirit in our lives, we surely do not have the Spirit and thus do not belong to the Spirit (Rom. 8:9 – gk. Lit.; you are controlled by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is in you, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” – i.e. the “Spirit” of Christ).

So then, in conclusion, Newman offers an alternative evidential paradigm – love. For neither the flesh nor the demonic are able to sustain for any length of time, an imitation of the Fruits of the Spirit. Life has a way of drawing out whether one is empowered by the fruit of the Spirit, or that of the flesh. But darkness cannot stand light and no demon can stand love without soon afterwards showing his scales, that he is a snake.

An Open Letter to Ministers and Saints in the Pentecostal Movement – a Final Thought

F.F. Bosworth, author of Christ the Healer, as stated in a previous blog, left the assemblies of God over the tongues-evidence issue. Later on he wrote a letter addressed to all the “ministers and saints of the Pentecostal movement” which has never had more relevance then today. I cannot fully treat the letter here and implore you to pick up a copy of Newman’s book which contains the letter in its appendix.

I will only cite two quotes from Bosworth, please read the second carefully I plead, for in it he sums up my own experience perfectly, and if we claim the Christ of love and the God of unity of one people and recognize the reality that we, as one belonging to Christ, are called to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19), then we are obligated to acknowledge the effects of this teaching, that it may destroy the faith of a dear saint, a child of God. This I do not want on my conscience, and those with a shepherds heart should be doubly concerned!

He says:

“I am certain that those who receive the most powerful Baptisms for service do not receive the manifestation of speaking in tongues. And I am just as certain many who seemingly speak in tongues, are not nor ever have been Baptized in the Spirit. Although I have in the past very tenaciously contended for it, as many of the brethren still do, I am certain that it is entirely wrong and unscriptural to teach that the miraculous speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost was not the gift of tongues God set in the Church, and which is so often mentioned in the first letter to the Corinthians. Not only is there not a solitary passage of Scripture on which to base this doctrine, but on the other hand the Scriptures flatly deny it.” [p.123 italics added]

Now pay close attention:

“After God has most powerfully Baptized the seeker, and, with perfect faith Divinely inwrought, he is rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory, with every ounce of his flesh quivering under the power of the indwelling Spirit, some one will tell him that he has not yet received the Holy Ghost because he did not speak in tongues. This destroys his faith, which Paul says is both “the evidence” and “the substance,” Heb. 11:1, and sends him home discouraged, to continue his seeking, as some have for several years”. [p.29, italics added].

Perhaps in the next blog I will share my testimony of when I received the fullness of the Spirit – it was an event that transformed my life and set me for three weeks praying unceasingly with joy unspeakable while hovering on cloud nine. I have never been the same. Yet, it is most unfortunate that I spent several more years (as long as a decade!) seeking for the fullness of the Spirit which I was told I did not have because I did not speak in tongues. I will not linger here, to see how this has affected me, read the first blog in this series.

Be blessed in the fullness of the presence of the Spirit of God, allowing him to tranform you from one state of Glory to another!

Thank you for reading,

Derek

Followers