Church Unity

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Church Unity:

Q:  If Jesus desires, as He prayed in John 17:21, that His followers would be one, why are there so many different churches and denominations instead of all Christians joining together as one?  As long as we all believe in Jesus, shouldn’t we overlook our differences on other matters?

John 17, often known as Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, has been the object of growing interest during the past century.  As denominations and individual Christians have increasingly sought to transcend denominational boundaries and definitions, they have often turned to several verses from this chapter as support for their effort. 

In this prayer, it is correct to conclude that Jesus desires unity for His Church.  He expresses this desire not just once, but three times, in the course of the prayer, asking His Father “…that they may be one…” as He speaks, first of His eleven remaining disciples, then of those who would hear their message, then of all future Christians. 

This could appear, before more careful study, to justify the idea that there should be no denominations or divisions within Christianity, and that Christians should overlook their differences to form a single, visibly-united, world-wide church.  However, as we look more carefully at Jesus’ language, as well as statements made elsewhere in the New Testament, we see that the truth is slightly more nuanced than that. 

It is clear from this text, as well as from supporting passages elsewhere, that Jesus does desire a unified Church, without divisions or disagreements.  In fact, the New Testament almost unanimously speaks, not of “churches,” but of “the Church,” and seems to speak of the unity of the Church as an accomplished fact.  This is not only because it was true at the time, but because it is irrevocably true at all times and places. 

This is because the unity of the Church is not based on our effort or ability, but rather on our One Lord.  Because the Church trusts Jesus, it is united—across nations, races, languages, and even denominational differences.  However, this unity is invisible.  It is a spiritual unity based not on human organizations, but upon the accomplished fact of Jesus’ redemption of Christians as their substitute in living a God-pleasing life and dying to bear the punishment of the world’s sin.  When the Bible speaks of The Church, it is speaking of all people of all times and places who trust in Jesus. 

At the same time, we live in the reality where there are many churches, and The Church is hidden from our view.  This is a reality that, this side of the Last Day, we will continue to experience.  These divisions exist because some have departed from the pure truth.  While all people who recognize God as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who acknowledge Jesus as fully God and fully human, and who trust only in Him to forgive their sins, are Christians, various denominations have diverged on many questions beyond this point, and this is the reason that Christianity became, and remains, divided. 

Jesus makes it clear in His prayer that the unity He prays for is not one where people agree to disagree, but rather where they “agree” and are of “one mind” as the apostle Paul later phrases the idea.  Jesus does this by praying that His followers would “be one, even as we are one.”  Jesus desired that the unity of Christians in the Church would be as close as that which He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit experience with one another in the Trinity.

In 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that differences had already arisen in the Church during His time, even explaining to Christians that such a thing was necessary, “so that the genuine among you may be recognized.”  Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament authors desire a united Church, but they desire that this unity be one of agreement and common teaching, not one where each individual believes their own thing under a broad umbrella. 

While The Church is already united by Jesus Himself, and while we certainly desire to make this unity more and more visible, we do a disservice to all people if we achieve this by masking our differences rather than resolving them, and while churches may be more or less divided at various times, it is only on the Last Day, when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead, that the One, united, Church will become a visible reality. 

David and Jonathan

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about David and Jonathan:

Q:  Was the relationship between King David and his friend Jonathan, which is described in the book of 1 Samuel, a close platonic friendship, or was it really a romantic relationship?  If these two men were romantically involved, how can this be reconciled with the Old Testament laws forbidding such relationships?

It has become more common lately for some authors to envision the relationship between David and Jonathan as being a homosexual romance.  However, it is important to note that this is a very recent development.  My research has not revealed evidence that this was proposed by anyone earlier than the 1950s, and even then it seems to have been proposed only rarely and theoretically, and not seriously considered until well after 1970. 

This alone ought to raise skepticism regarding the claim, because whenever we encounter a 40-years-young assumption about a 3000 year old piece of literature, it is highly unlikely that the assumption has any credibility. 

Yet historicity alone is not the only difficulty with this view of the relationship.  The verse that is most frequently the focus of these claims is 2 Samuel 1:26, in which David, while lamenting Jonathan’s death, describes his friendship with Jonathan as “greater than the love of a woman.”  For a reader without a background in Hebrew, I can see how the imagination might seem to suggest a romantic relationship.  However, two linguistic clues lead us to consider other options.

First, the language used in this verse about David and Jonathan’s friendship is that of “love.”  Hebrew does not use the word “love” to refer to a sexual relationship.  In fact, it does not even use it to refer to an emotional feeling.  Instead, to love is to sacrificially and selflessly place another’s interests ahead of one’s own, such as when Jonathan acknowledged God’s will that David be king (1 Samuel 18) rather than clinging to the idea that the throne should rightfully be his own.  In Hebrew it is, instead, the word “know” that is used to refer to a sexual relationship.  Throughout the Old Testament, when a couple consummates an intimate relationship, it uses the language of knowing and not the language of loving.

Additionally, David’s words are set in the context of Hebrew poetry, which was not based on rhyme, as we are used to, but rather on structure and on parallelism.  What we see in 2 Samuel 1:26 is a parallel that is meant to emphasize the difference between the parallel subjects.  So, David is not saying that he relates sexually to both Jonathan and to women and comparing the two experiences.  Instead, He is saying that the friendship he enjoys with Jonathan is not only superior to any relationship he might enjoy with a woman, but that it is of a completely distinct kind.   

Even if it were plausible that the relationship between David and Jonathan were intimate rather than platonic, it would be very difficult to prove with certainty.  On the other hand, the legal prohibitions set forth in Leviticus are very clear.  One of the most basic principles of Bible reading is that the clear passages shed light on the unclear ones, and not the reverse.  Therefore we would have to conclude that the clear prohibitions earlier in the Bible make it impossible that David and Jonathan’s relationship could be simultaneously romantic and honorable in the Old Testament’s worldview. 

Even if this relationship were to be as asserted in the recent opinions, it would not lead to the conclusion that the relationship was moral.  For example, the Bible also describes David’s acts of adultery and murder later in life, but the fact that they are described does not lead to the conclusion that they were exemplary acts.  Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Job’s friends give him all manner of wrong answers about his suffering, but this does not mean that the answers are divinely approved, but rather merely descriptions of the events. 

In any case, regardless of one’s position on homosexual behavior, the fact is that this story is simply not relevant to the question.  The language and context make it quite clear that the relationship was anything but sexual, but even if the potential existed that it were, the mere description of the situation by the Biblical authors would not render it divinely approved, meaning that an intellectually honest person on either side of the question of homosexual relationships will simply have to look elsewhere for their evidence. 

Separation of Church & State vs. Two Kingdoms

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Separation of Church and State:

Q:  Is it appropriate for Christians to influence government and promote laws that are consistent with their morality?  Is the idea of a separation between church and state biblical? 

The accusation is frequently being made in our nation that certain Christians are seeking to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.  These accusations often assume that it is immoral or illegal for religious people to make or enforce laws if those laws are based on religious ideas. 

This opinion is mistaken, though, because the constitution’s protections only go in one direction.  That is, they forbid the government from imposing religious practice on citizens, and they forbid the government from interfering in the religious exercise of its citizens.  However, it does not forbid citizens from choosing leaders or supporting causes based on their religious convictions.  In other words, the constitutional provisions only work in one direction.  The government may not interfere in the practice of religion, but religious people are free to influence the course of government. 

Prior to the Christian Reformation, it was simply assumed that government and religion were unified.  Under this assumption, popes would often coerce kings and princes into ruling according to his desires, and rulers at various levels would often impose their religion on their subjects.  It was in the midst of the Reformation that Martin Luther first introduced the idea that religion and government acted in separate spheres.  Instead of “separation of church and state,” he instead used the language of “two kingdoms.” 

Luther proposed a framework in which God ruled with His “right hand” through the Gospel by grace to forgive sins and save souls, and a separate kingdom where God ruled with His “left hand”, through the work of earthly laws and rulers, to preserve safety and keep order in society.  He saw these as separate, yet complimentary ways in which God provides and protects humanity. 

Often, religious morality makes good public policy, such as when laws are made against murder, theft, fraud, and other ways that people will harm one another, because these laws protect citizens from being injured or robbed by ill-intentioned neighbors by regulating external actions.  On other occasions, religious morality does not make good public policy.  This is particularly true when dealing with internal motivations or desires.  Laws against greed, lust, or hatred, for example, would be impossible to enforce, not to mention universally disobeyed.  Likewise, we have seen that laws prohibiting all alcohol sale or possession and forbidding Sunday commerce have also been ill-conceived. 

This is why you see Christians promoting some Biblical values as worthy of being national law but not others.  So, for example, there is not a strong movement among Christians to promote laws against adultery or the use of obscene language.  When we do see Christians supporting laws which reflect their morality, they are doing so not to impose their morality on others, but in order to help and protect their fellow citizens—not because it is God’s law, but rather because it makes good public policy.

So when we see Christians supporting pro-life measures, they do so for the sake of protecting living-yet-unborn citizens.  When Christians support measures which protect marriage and preserve the family, it is because these interests promote the good of the nation, and it is not in the best interest of the state to adopt innovative definitions in this sphere. 

For the government, religious origin could never become a standard for accepting or rejecting law, because then a vast majority of laws, even those forbidding murder, would have to go.  For the Church, this means that she ought not have the illusion that her hope is in the government reflecting her morality.  The Church does not deal in the sphere of legislation and coercion, but rather in the sphere of proclamation and persuasion by God’s Word, so that Christ’s message will go forth regardless of the laws of the state.  As the Psalm says, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation…the Lord will reign forever, your God, O Zion, to all generations.”

Why do Churches face East?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Church Architecture:

Q:  As I travel, I have observed a tendency for churches to face east.  Is there any significance to this, and is there a rule about what direction a church must face? 

In Matthew 24:27, Jesus says, "As the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."  Ezekiel 43:4 also speaks of God’s presence as arriving from the East. 

In light of these verses, as well as other verses that compare God’s encounters with Christians to the rising sun, Christians have chosen to represent Jesus second coming in architecture, art, and other types of symbolism as being "from the east to the west."

Since Christian worship is sometimes described as a preview of Jesus’ return as well as a moment of heaven coming down to earth, and because Christians are reminded in Scripture to always be watchful regarding the return of Jesus, the Church chose to represent this in traditional church architecture by situating the Altar (which is the focal point of Christian liturgy) in the East end of the building, so that as Christians worship, they are facing the direction from which Jesus’ return is represented—as if they were watching for the Lord to arrive.

Other passages from the Bible use Jerusalem to represent the center of the reign of Jesus in the life of the world to come, and it is a popular to think of Jerusalem as the location where Jesus will touch down and sit in judgment when He returns “just as [the Apostles] saw him go up into heaven” at His Ascension.  For those of us Christians who live in the United States, Southern Europe, or Northern Africa, this also means that when we worship facing east, we face Jerusalem, making the visual imagery of the Church worshiping in expectation of Jesus’ return even more vivid. 

This custom is also represented in traditional cemetery planning.  Caskets have historically been placed with the head to the west and the feet to the east to paint the picture of the saints worshipping in the Church and being resurrected to face Jesus when He returns. (a person laying with their head to the west would face east if they were to stand up.) Additionally, when funerals are held in liturgical congregations, it is customary during the service to place the casket with the feet toward the altar to reflect a similar image and to remind us that the deceased believer and all the company of heaven continue to worship along with the Church even in death.

One particularly interesting exception to this custom exists, which is the funeral and burial of pastors. Pastors caskets would be situated with the head facing the altar during the service and buried with their head facing east and the feet west. The reason for this is that in the picture presented by this custom, the pastors would rise to proclaim the return of Jesus to their people, thus rising with their backs toward Jesus and facing the rest of the saints.

This is different from the traditions of other religions, such as the tradition of the Muslims which requires them to face Mecca during prayer, because this is not intended as a command or mandatory regulation, nor is it intended to earn anything from God.  Instead, it is for the purpose of visually representing and spatially depicting the reality of Jesus’ promised return, and thus better instructing the gathered faithful about the teachings of the Church.

False Witness

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the 8th Commandment:

Q:  What does it mean when the Bible commands against bearing “false witness against your neighbor?”  What things does this commandment require Christians to do and forbid them from doing?

Among the Ten Commandments, this one (the 8^th) is certainly in the running to be considered the most frequently misunderstood.  Some have paraphrased this commandment as “You shall not lie,” but it is really much more than that. 

The first three commandments deal with how humans are intended to act toward God, and the fourth through seventh commandments can be sinned against with thoughts, words, or actions.    Now this commandment deals primarily with our words, and how they relate to other people’s reputation. 

It is obvious that this commandment forbids Christians from lying—not only in formal testimony but also in private conversation.  This would include repeating untrue things we have heard from others, as well as starting the untruths ourselves, and it includes all lies, both those told publicly to many people or privately to only one person. 

Not only does this commandment apply to lies, but also to telling the truth in ways that are harmful.  This would include revealing secrets or other information one has been told with an understanding  of confidentiality.  It would also include revealing sins or other unfavorable truths that were previously private or giving even greater publicity to unfavorable truths that have already been made public about another person. 

In general, Christians should make every effort not to harm the reputation of other people if it can be avoided.  Private sins and offenses should be dealt with privately for the preservation of the reputations of everyone involved.  In Matthew 18, Jesus instructed the people to first go to a person who has sinned against them privately, then with 2 or three witnesses, and only if all other attempts had failed to make a matter public. 

The only occasion when it would not be sinful to keep a sin or other unfavorable truth secret is if it is revealed for the sake of helping the person in question or other people who might otherwise be endangered if the secret were kept. 

Some obvious examples of this would be when citizens report a crime, children report bullying or other harmful acts in school, or friends and relatives reveal an addictive behavior or suicidal intent with the intent of finding help for the person.  Even in these cases, though, one is not to declare such things in public, but rather only to those who have the proper authority to deal with them, such as law enforcement, teachers, pastors, or parents. 

Another instance in which it might be not only permissible to make unfavorable truths public is to correct an false statement that has been made publicly by another.  For example, if one businessman has publicly defamed another, the only way to correct the lie is to make the first man’s sin public in order to defend the good reputation of the second.

A similar instance comes concerning religious teaching.  If a religious leader is making public statements or publishing books about God, the Bible, or religious teaching that are blatantly untrue, not only would it be a faithful pastor’s option to make this known to the people under his care, and perhaps to the community at large, but he would be negligent if he became aware of such statements and failed to do so.

In both cases, the businessman and the religious leader have made their own sins public, and those seeking to correct them have no choice but to address them likewise. 

In any case, the Bible speaks frequently, such as the books of James and Proverbs, about the importance of using our words wisely.  We do so when we speak for the sake of helping others and defending their reputation rather than with the intent to do them harm.

Happy about Hell?

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about whether Christians should be pleased with people going to hell:

Q:  Why do some Christians seem so happy to declare that other people are going to hell?  Doesn’t Jesus forbid this kind of judging, and if hell is a real place, wouldn’t it be cruel to be pleased that another person going there?

The Biblical teaching about eternal punishment is one that has caused a large amount of distress in recent church history.  Because the reality of the subject is so horrible, people often find it difficult to deal with, and unfortunately, they often do so in inappropriate ways.

One inappropriate response to the Bible’s statements about eternal punishment is to deny its existence.  In spite of severe warnings by New Testament authors about eternal punishment, including very clear statements by Jesus Himself, about the subject, it has been common, especially during the past century, to deny that eternal punishment is real.

Some adherents to this position would cite verses like John 3:16 that “God so loved the world…” and others to deny that God would ever punish anyone, and thus dismiss the possibility of eternal punishment.  In order to achieve this, it becomes necessary to consider the Bible verses about eternal punishment to be inauthentic or to explain them away as meaning something else. 

One variation of this position is to acknowledge the existence of eternal punishment, but insist that only the very worst tyrants of human history, such as Hitler, Osama bin Laden, or various serial killers will actually be sentenced to it.  The trouble with any denial of eternal punishment, either in whole or in part, is that for a Christian to hold such a position, they have no choice but to admit that their position is contradictory to the position expressed by the Bible’s authors.  In addition, it also implies that salvation is a matter of human behavior rather than a result of Jesus’ sacrifice.

The opposite inappropriate response, as mentioned in the question, is to defend the reality of eternal punishment to strongly, that it overshadows the Gospel itself and gives the appearance to the casual observer that the preacher is pleased that certain individuals will suffer eternal punishment. 

On very rare occasions Christian groups have arisen that do seem to genuinely take pleasure in the condemnation of others.  Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas, has received significant publicity in recent years for taking just such a stance, as evidenced in their protests at American soldiers’ funerals condemning our nation for allowing various sins that they consider particularly objectionable in comparison to others.

An appropriate response to the Bible’s claims regarding eternal punishment by Christians is concern and sorrow.  For a person who claims that the Bible is a factual account of Christian Truth, it is impossible to deny the reality of eternal punishment, regardless of how uncomfortable that acknowledgement is, but the Bible’s claims about it should never result in joy or pleasure on the part of the Christian. 

Instead, it ought to drive Christians to greater humility concerning their own position before God as forgiven sinners and greater urgency at making others aware of Jesus and His free gift of forgiveness as the only remedy for the consequences all people rightly deserve.  Because the Christian acknowledges that salvation is solely the result of Jesus living and dying as our substitute, and not at all from anything in himself, it would be completely inappropriate to take personal pride in one’s salvation while rejoicing in another’s punishment. 

In my work as a pastor, I sincerely avoid any attempt to judge a person’s unseen thoughts or beliefs, especially regarding their eternal reward or punishment when this life ends.  However, a person’s words and actions are an indication of what they believe, so Christians can speak concerning what we see and hear—although never out of pride or by our own standards.

My typical response in such a circumstance is to say, “Based on what he has said…” or “If he truly believes the things he has written…” what a person would expect to face in eternity as already declared by God in Scripture, while at the same time allowing for the fact that those words or actions may be inconsistent with the beliefs of a person’s heart, or that the Holy Spirit may intervene during the final minutes in a way I am not capable of observing. 

Horoscopes & Divination

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Horoscopes and other forms of Divination:

Q:  How should the Christian approach Ouija boards, palm reading, horoscopes and other similar practices?  Can these rituals really allow us to communicate with spiritual beings or discern the future, and are Christians permitted to engage in them?

All of these things fit into a category of actions that the Old Testament calls divination, which includes any method of seeking communication with spiritual beings other than the One True God or seeking to gain knowledge about the future from any source other than God and His Prophets.  The Bible forbids divination because it is a form of idolatry. 

The First Commandment forbids idolatry in every form, commanding the people of Israel that they are not to have anything to do with any other supposed god or to seek spiritual good from any source other than the One True God.  Practices such as the use of Ouija boards, which overtly call on various spiritual powers are obviously forms of idolatry in these terms.  In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul even goes so far in 1 Corinthians 10 as to state that the gods of non-Christian religions are actually demons posing as deities, and therefore the worship of false gods is actually the worship of demons. 

When it comes to palm reading, horoscopes, and other methods which seek to discern present knowledge of future events from entirely unrelated natural signs, it should be completely obvious to any logical person that there can be no possible correlation between the lines on a person’s hand or the alignment of the stars that would indicate what will happen in their future.  If the predictions revealed through these methods prove to be untrue, that should be exactly the result we expect. 

In the event that they do prove to be true, there are several possible explanations to what has happened.  First, and most obvious is random chance—much like a broken clock is still right twice a day.  Second, and nearly as likely, is deception.  Often practitioners of these rituals learn things about their subjects through subtle conversation (like a street-corner fortune teller) or they write predictions that are so vague nearly any event could be seen as a fulfillment of the prediction (as in magazine horoscopes).

A third, and most dangerous, possibility is that knowledge has been in fact being revealed to the practitioner.  This knowledge even comes from the spiritual realm, but it is important to remember that not everything spiritual is good—a truth often overlooked in modern spirituality.  In such a case, the knowledge would actually be demonic in its source and given for the purpose of undermining or distracting from trust in Jesus. 

In any case, all of the practices and rituals in this category are to be rejected by Christians and are unwise for a number of reasons.  All forms of divination are foolish because they are logically unfounded and typically just a trick or deception, but additionally, if one actually relies on these methods, it could be a form of idolatry which would be spiritually dangerous for that person. 

Readers are encouraged to submit questions for inclusion in future issues.  You may submit questions by email to revjpeterson@yahoo.com or by mail to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA  50522.

Rev. Jason P. Peterson

Pastor, St. John’s Lutheran Church – Burt

Zion Lutheran Church - LuVerne

Is Baptism Necessary/required?

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the necessity of Baptism

Q:  Is Baptism required in order for a person to be saved?  What does the Bible say about people who die without being baptized?  What is required for a Baptism to be valid?

Even though Baptism is a key element of Christian practice and an important point in Biblical theology, there still remains some degree of diversity among the various Christian denominations regarding their beliefs about and the practices surrounding Baptism.

For example, the majority of Christians worldwide believe that Baptism is for all Christians, even infants, while a minority insist that only those old enough to desire and request Baptism should be baptized. Some would set some particular age, while others would judge based on the person's development or understanding, and may insist that Baptisms performed prior to their specified milestones must be repeated at an age when the individual can verbally articulate their faith. An even smaller minority would insist that only baptisms performed in their church or other churches within their specific fellowship are valid, and would insist any person baptized elsewhere be rebaptized.

Even though there are often a variety of ceremonies associated with Baptism, such as blessing and naming rituals in churches which baptize infants, or personal testimonies given before Baptism in churches which Baptize only older individuals, or gifts like a white garment or a burning candle given in recognition of the event and its meaning, such things are not a requirement of a valid baptism.  So, for example, when baptizing an infant in an emergency situation, I may include nothing more than applying water to the child with the words, "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  At other times, only the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer might be added, and some of the previously mentioned ceremonies delayed until the Baptism is publicly recognized in the Sunday Service, but as long as these two elements are present--water and God’s Word, particularly the Triune name--the Baptism is valid, and we can say with confidence that it has done what God has promised.

There is also some diversity regarding the method of baptizing. Some insist on full immersion of the individual in water, while others allow other methods, such as sprinkling or pouring the water on the individual. Again, even though a minority insist on a particular method of applying the water, most agree, with support from the Greek text of the New Testament there is no Scriptural command regarding the method of applying the water.

Baptism is almost universally understood to be the means of entry into the Christian congregation and the boundary between those inside and outside of the Church.  In recognition of this, traditional church architecture often places the baptistery at the entrance to the church building so that one passes it every time they enter the worship space.  However, Pastors and Biblical Scholars would rarely describe Baptism as “required” as something we must do in order to be saved.  Instead, they might choose terms such as “necessary” without being “absolutely necessary.”

What this means is that in the regular order of things, a Christian is always to be baptized. For the child of Christian parents, this may happen soon after birth, while for others who come to Christianity as adults, their Baptism may follow their instruction in the Faith, but if an adult convert were to die after they had heard the message of Jesus and trusted in Him but before it was possible to receive Baptism, nearly no person would question that the person was forgiven and saved. However if an adult convert would claim trust in Jesus yet refuse Baptism for a prolonged time, the question would eventually have to be asked whether they were, in fact, a Christian.

One reason for this is because for a person to claim to trust Jesus, but then refuse to receive the Sacrament He commanded would be extremely inconsistent. More importantly, though, since Baptism is not primarily something the person does as an act of devotion to God, nor is it merely something the priest/pastor does for the person.  Instead, Baptism is something God Himself does for the recipient, by the hands of the pastor or priest, and if the person refused to receive the Sacrament through which God has promised to deliver His blessings, then it would necessarily raise questions about their profession of faith.

Unbiblical, Man-made laws

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about how to respond to man-made rules that do not come from the Bible:

Q:  How should a Christian respond if their church insists on following rules that are man-made instead of Biblical?  How does one know what church rules are Biblical and which are not?

Throughout the History of Christianity, this has been a problem which has plagued churches.  Often people have a hard time separating the biases and preferences of their culture from actual Biblical law, often with the result that the pastors and churches begin enforcing man-made rules and making them equal with God’s law.  

We can see this beginning even during the life of St. Paul, as he writes to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:3) condemning those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods, as Peter is criticized for exercising His God-ordained freedom to eat non-kosher meat and dine with gentiles, and as Paul has to correct the Galatians after they are misled by false teachers to think they must accept Circumcision to be true Christians.

Over the years, the details change repeatedly, but the tendency remains the same.  Fewer than 600 years after Jesus resurrection, a movement gained traction which forced priests to remain celibate and unmarried.  150 years ago, my own denomination was known to superstitiously forbid the purchase of insurance with the accusation that it was a failure to trust God to provide and protect. 

Early in the 20^th century, the movement for a ban on alcohol consumption overtook many churches and for a time the laws of our nation, and to this day new and different ways are being introduced to override God’s Law with rules of human origin.

How one reacts to these demands depends on how and why they are being made.  Governments, for example, are free to make laws not found in the Bible, and according to the Fourth Commandment and Romans 13, Christians are obligated to obey them, unless that law would command them to sin.  When spiritual leaders or church bodies make the laws, however, the situation is different.  If a command cannot be supported by an honest and accurate reading of the Bible, a church or a pastor have no right to demand it be followed. 

When something has neither been commanded nor forbidden in the Bible, the Christian is free to follow His own conscience in the matter and ought not attempt to enforce his choice on others.  Examples of issues where this might apply would include such things as alcohol consumption (in moderation), tobacco use, dancing and styles of dress (within certain boundaries of modesty).

Although I haven’t been able to find the reference in print to provide a precise quote, I heard a story from a professor in college about Martin Luther responding to such a demand, saying something like, “If any man tells me I may not drink Wittenberg Beer, I shall drink a second for him.”  The idea behind this is that if the demand is made out of pride, the Christian should be deliberate in boldly displaying His Christian freedom so that the other person would be freed from their bondage to the man-made law. 

On the other hand, when another Christian fears out of weakness that something is a sin, (not out of pride and trying to mislead others), or when an act may be harmful to a person (such as drinking in the presence of an alcoholic) the Christian ought to voluntarily abstain from that act in the presence of that person so as not to cause them unnecessary guilt or temptation in their weakness.  The Apostle Paul discusses this at length in Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 9. 

Ultimately, a simple way to know whether a rule is Biblical is to know the Ten Commandments, and see if the law can be connected to one of them.  If it can, it is most likely Biblical.  If it cannot, it is most likely man-made. 

Churches and their pastors ought not ever be hesitant to declare a law that God actually has made, and cautious never to demand obedience to a law that He has not, while Christians in their lives ought never be ashamed to obey a law that God has given, and at the same time careful to discern whether their neighbor with a different position needs to be comforted in their distress or confronted for their pride.

Why be moral?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the reason for morality:

Q:  If Christianity is not primarily a moral code, why should Christians pay attention to the Bible’s moral commands?  Couldn’t they just live any way they choose?  Why do churches differ so widely on what moral commands they consider applicable to Christians, and how do I know which church is right on this matter?

First and foremost, Christianity is about Jesus forgiving sins and giving eternal life, as a gift, and as a result of His crucifixion.  Consequently, Christianity is not primarily a moral code, but the Bible’s moral commands do act in service to this primary purpose of distributing forgiveness and eternal life. 

This is because those moral commands first, convict those who do not yet trust in Jesus that they have displeased God and cannot correct the problem themselves; then, once a person does trust in Jesus, which results in a desire to live in a God-pleasing manner, these commands describe what that godly life looks like. 

Even though Christianity is not primarily a moral code, its moral commands do still matter, and it is important that we be able to accurately identify what they are.  In order to make this identification, it is first necessary to acknowledge the ground rule that the Bible will be the sole source for making such a determination.  Secondly, it is necessary to read the Bible accurately. 

The first important part of this is to read the Bible like any other book—that is to look at the whole text rather than reading a verse apart from its wider context; consider the language and structure (subjects, verbs, objects, setting, main ideas, etc.); understand what type of writing is being presented (prophecy, poetry, history, etc.) and how the book or verse fits into the broader picture. 

Then it is necessary, to the highest degree possible to separate oneself as the reader from any presuppositions and read the text for what the text says rather than in light of one’s own experiences and biases.  Most importantly, know when to stop.  Sometimes the Bible just doesn’t answer certain questions, and we have to accept that.  Be confident in what the Bible has said, but don’t give in to the temptation to make it speak where it hasn’t really spoken.  Failure on the three points just mentioned can account for a vast majority of the differences between churches. 

Bible commentaries or Bibles that contain study notes can be helpful, but they also have the potential to be misleading, depending on their source.  Knowing Biblical Greek is the best possible tool to have at one’s disposal, but since time or cost would be prohibitive for most people to do this, settle for befriending a pastor who knows it.  Having expended the effort to learn it, he will be glad to speak with someone who appreciates and takes an interest in this rare ability. 

If evaluating a church, don’t just consider the moral commands but all teachings of a Church.  Whenever a church reflects what is taught in the Bible, it is acting as a true church, but whenever a church overrules a Biblical teaching to suit the leaders or the members, or if they teach in such a way that bends the Bible to fit their presuppositions rather than adjusting their presuppositions to align with the Bible, they are teaching falsely and leading people away from Jesus. 

All of this matters, because the Bible’s promises and commands are inseparable.  Disregard for the Bible’s commands ultimately undermines any confidence in its promises, and if its promises are undermined, it would be just as spiritually powerless as any mere idol statue that human hands have carved or sculpted over the centuries. 

Central Teaching/Moral Improvement

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the central thing in Christianity:

Q:  What is the main thing in Christianity—the central idea or goal around which everything else revolves?  What is the place of things like a changed attitude or moral improvement in Christianity?

If a Sunday School teacher were to ask her students to answer this question with a single word, they would most likely give the answer that Sunday School students always give when they don’t know the answer:  “Jesus.”  On this occasion, that answer would be correct.  Now, since every teaching of Christianity either comes from Jesus or points to Jesus, it will be necessary to answer an additional question:  “What did Jesus come to accomplish?” 

The purpose for which Jesus came was to forgive sins, resulting in eternal life for all who would trust in Him.  He accomplished this by living perfectly and dying innocently as our substitute, therefore fulfilling the law of God and suffering the punishment of God in our place.  The consequence of this is that all who rely on Him and His life and death in their place are credited by God with a perfect life and as having the punishment for their sins already served, with the result that at death their souls rest with Christ at death and then they will live forever after the Resurrection on the Last Day.

Because this is thoroughly a gift from God to the Christian, we call this God’s grace, and this grace is distributed to humans through Churches where the message of Jesus is taught and proclaimed from the Bible, and Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are administered as means through which this grace, won by Jesus, is delivered to individual Christians. 

Everything else which follows in Christianity is built upon the foundation of those two truths.  Unless God forgives sins, none of the other blessings found in Christianity are relevant, because if one remains a sinner in God’s eyes (and even one imperfection renders that judgment) everything else, whether good deeds done by the individual or positive attitudes experienced by the individual, are immaterial. 

The place of our moral improvement or positive attitude in Christianity is as a result of having sins forgiven.  God’s forgiving is not merely a step on the way to a greater goal of moral improvement, but instead, moral improvement is an inevitable consequence of one’s sins being forgiven by God.  God does desire us to live morally and be empowered to deal in a healthy way with the challenges of life, but it is not the central thing in Christianity.

Regrettably, dislocating moral improvement in the life of the church occurs all too frequently—either by improperly elevating it to the goal and central aspect of Christianity, or by disregarding it entirely as unimportant, and it is precisely this dislocation that is at the root of many of the disagreements among Christians about moral issues today. 

One camp desires to approve and encourage any act that individuals feel in their hearts is moral, even when there are clear Scriptural prohibitions to the contrary; while another adamantly defends The Bible’s moral commands, but in doing so, at least gives the appearance, if not outright stating, that certain sins are worse than others—a clearly un-Scriptural position.  Both of these equal-but-opposite errors occur because moral improvement has been dislocated in the life and teaching of a Church or its members. 

When Christian morality is held up as a good and important thing; but the grace and forgiveness of God through Christ alone, and the delivery of it to the gathered saints, are retained as the most important goal and central activity of the Church, steady balance is retained and the truth shines forth.  Whenever these priorities become dislocated, the foundation becomes unstable and the truth is obscured.

Pastoral Absolution

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the validity of public absolution:

Q:  When visiting a church on Sunday, I observed that the congregation began the service with a Confession of Sins, and at the end of that Confession, the pastor said to the congregation, “I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  Can the pastor forgive sins or only God?  Does the pastor also have the power to refuse to forgive sins?

The Confession described here is the opening element of services in many liturgical churches.  It functions in much the same way that private confessions do, but in this case, confession is done generally, as a group, with specific individual sins recounted only silently rather than named individually to the priest or pastor. 

Much like private confession, the pastor’s declaration of forgiveness is, in Martin Luther’s words, “just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord had dealt with us Himself.”  Even though this may be an uncomfortable thought for many individualistic do-it-yourself Americans, and even though all who trust Jesus have their sins forgiven, the idea that God desires to deliver forgiveness in specific ways, which involve pastors, also is Biblical. 

In Matthew 16, we see Jesus promise this authority to Peter, saying, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  In this case, Jesus promises that this authority will be given in the future, and makes the promise to Peter individually.  However, when Jesus fulfills this promise, as recorded in John 20, saying, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you…  Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld,” He grants this authority not only to Peter, but to all of His disciples, and by extension to the pastors who would follow them in coming generations. 

This is not to say, however, that pastors may grant or withhold forgiveness according to their own whim or based on their own standards.  Instead, they are called to grant and to withhold forgiveness solely as a reflection of what God has already determined by God in heaven, which the Greek words John writes in these verses make clear.  In private confession, this means that pastors forgive those who acknowledge and repent of their sins, but withhold from those who refuse to acknowledge their sins or repent of them.  Since pastors are not capable of judging anyone’s heart, they must base their actions on what is declared or confessed by the person seeking forgiveness.  Likewise in public confession, the absolution is given under the assumption that those confessing are confessing sincerely. 

Additionally, pastors do not forgive sins as independent agents, nor do they have the power within themselves to forgive or withhold sins.  Instead, they have been called to a particular office to act on behalf of Jesus and His Church, and their authority to forgive sins is exercised in the congregation “in the stead and by the command” of Jesus, as is stated in the absolution itself.  Another way to say it is that when the pastor is forgiving sins, Jesus is forgiving sins; or that Jesus forgives sins through the pastor. 

So, it would not be possible for a pastor to improperly keep God’s forgiveness from getting to a person or to effectually grant forgiveness when the person was unrepentant.  If it would happen that a pastor were to attempt to act in violation of Jesus command or apart from the proper authority to do so, the warnings and promises of Scripture would still prevail respectively for the benefit of the repentant and the condemnation of the unrepentant, in spite of a mistaken or improper act of the pastor.