I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn’t in there, you say?

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays, especially in this country where many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, “it’s all good, bro.”

In actual fact, there are a lot of urgent truths and important moral lessons in the Bible. Interestingly, almost all of them have fallen out of favor in modern American society. Here are just a few verses that aren’t particularly trendy or popular nowadays:

(WARNING: Politically incorrect truths ahead)

“Whoever harms one of these little ones that believes in me, it would be better for him if a millstone where tied around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the ocean.”

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.”

Strange as it may seem, enlightened, progressive Christians rarely attempt to wrestle Ephesians 5 or 2 Thessalonians 3 into a conversation. Yet, while the bulk of the Bible has ended up on our civilization’s cutting room floor, the warnings about “judging” are quoted and repeated incessantly, by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Apparently, the rest of the Book is outdated, outmoded, antiquated and fabricated, but the verses about judging — that stuff is gold, man.

Here’s a fun experiment: post something on your Facebook condemning any sin — not sinner, but sin. Maybe write a few paragraphs about why we shouldn’t kill babies, or why marriage is sacred. Write something defending truth. Write something combating popular cultural lies about morality. Write something where you call out an act — not a person — an act, and then sit back and wait for the responses. Statistically speaking, it will take only 4.7 seconds before a self identified Christian rushes in to insist that you must never speak out against any evil, ever, for any reason, lest you be guilty of “judging.”

And then the “no judging” chorus will begin:

“We’re not allowed to judge.”

“Christians shouldn’t judge.”

“Jesus said to never judge.”

“You’re not a real Christian because you are judging.”

“You’re judging so I’m going to judge you and tell you that you’re a piece of garbage because you judge so much!”

“Judger! You’re a big fat judge-face, all you do is judge all day like a judging judge McJudgePants!”

And so on.

Now, here’s the thing: they’re right — well, almost. Unfortunately, they left out an important word. It’s not that we shouldn’t judge at all — it’s that we shouldn’t judge WRONGLY. The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in all of Scripture. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

Translation: you shouldn’t judge… except when judging people for judging. There are no absolutes… except the absolute that there aren’t any absolutes.

Yet, have you ever noticed that these “Don’t Judge” folks are nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to the Westboro Baptists, or domestic abusers, or the Nazis, or Republicans? I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these pragmatists would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Behind the Bible, my second favorite book is the dictionary. Let’s consult it, shall we?

Judge: To form an opinion of; decide upon; settle; to infer, think, hold as an opinion.

When you tell someone not to judge, you’re telling them to stop deciding things, to stop forming opinions, to stop thinking, and to stop inferring. Brilliant bit of philosophy, Plato. “Stop thinking and deciding!” Do you really think Jesus meant THAT when he told us not to judge? Well, I guess you can’t think about it one way or another if you’re adhering to this whole “never judge” schtick.

I know we live in a sound bite culture. Everything has to be condensed down to 14 syllables or less, and every concept must be communicated in under 12 seconds. Entire elections are decided this way. And while this strategy doesn’t work well in the democratic system, it’s an absolute catastrophic heretical disaster if you try to utilize it in the realm of theology. Yes, Jesus said “Judge not,” but you have to read the rest of that passage, and then the rest of the Book to put those two words into context. Once you’ve done that, you’ll understand that what He meant is precisely the opposite of how it is translated by modern cowards who are looking for any excuse to shrink away from the task of standing up against our culture and its many lies.

We must judge. We must exercise judgement. We must be discerning and decisive. We must expose evil and identify sin. Only we must do it righteously and truly. Judge, but judge rightly. That’s the point. We are to judge the sin, not the sinner. People seem to love the latter part of that phrase, and then selectively forget the first portion.

We can not condemn a man to hell. We can not see inside his soul. This is an important point, but it doesn’t mean we can’t speak harshly about the atrocities of a particular individual. If a guy commits adultery, I’ll call him an adulterer. That’s not an insult or an evaluation of his soul; it’s a true and accurate judgement based on the fruits he has produced. If a guy steals, he is a thief. If he murders, he is a murderer. If he commits tyrannies, he is a tyrant.

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; he was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, he was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into him strolling in with a shrug and saying, “Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That doesn’t mean that we must be without sin before we can call a sin a sin. Just because we make a judgment does not mean we are throwing rocks at a helpless woman. Sometimes, it means we are shedding light into a terrifying darkness.

Remember, this is the same Jesus who told us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the wolves; the Jesus who called his opponents “snakes” and “vipers”; the Jesus who made a whip and violently drove the money changers out of the temple; the Jesus who said he came to bring a sword and drive a wedge between families.

He was loving and peaceful, but He was also manly, strong, courageous, outspoken, decisive, and commanding. He wasn’t a hippy. He was, and is, a King and a Warrior. Our culture has an agenda, and the agenda has nothing to do with following Christ or His precepts. Flimsy modern weaklings have taken the “don’t judge” concept out of context — twisted it, perverted it, and used it as an excuse to sit silently while all manner of unspeakable evils happen in their midst.

They’ve tried to turn Christianity into a religion of apathy and permissiveness. I certainly make judgments about their slander of my faith. I judge it to be sacrilegious, evil, and despicable.

And I judge it rightly.

So, don’t judge? Wrong. Judge. We must judge. The Bible exists, in large part, to shape our judgement and to tell us how to judge. We must teach our kids to have good and moral judgement. We must equip them with the spiritual tools to exercise it publicly, without fear. We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.

You can not raise your children without judgement; you can’t function as a civilized human being without judgement; and you certainly can’t be an obedient Christian without judgment.

I am a sinful person. If you would ever consider accepting and celebrating my sins for the sake of being “non-judgmental,” please do me a favor and stop doing me that favor. I don’t want to be made comfortable and confident in my wrongdoing.

I’d rather have you hurt my feelings as you help me get to Heaven, than protect my feelings as you usher me right along to Hell.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/12/jesus-wants-you-to-judge/

Read Full Post »

There is some evidence that the founders of AA did have opportunity to hear the Gospel, but instead of receiving Christ as Lord and Savior and experiencing freedom in Christ and victory over sin through faith in Christ alone, Wilson and Smith took only what they wanted from the Oxford Group.

Occult Guidance

Members of the Oxford Group practiced what they called guidance by praying and then quieting their minds in order to hear from God. Then they would write down whatever came to them. Examples of such “guidance” are in the book God Calling, edited by A. J. Russell of the Oxford Group. The book was written anonymously by two women who thought they were hearing from God, but who passively received messages in the same way spiritists obtain guidance from demons. This book is credited for inspiring many “channeling Jesus” type books such as ‘Jesus Calling’ by Sarah Young.

Members of the Oxford Group primarily found their guidance from within rather than from a creed or the Bible. Buchman, for instance, was known to spend “an hour or more in complete silence of soul and body while he gets guidance for that day.”

J. C. Brown in his book The Oxford Group Movement says of Buchman:

He teaches his votaries to wait upon God with paper and pencil in hand each morning in this relaxed and inert condition, and to write down whatever guidance they get. This, however, is just the very condition required by Spiritist mediums to enable them to receive impressions from evil spirits. . . and it is a path which, by abandoning the Scripture-instructed judgment (which God always demands) for the purely occult and the psychic, has again and again led over the precipice. The soul that reduces itself to an automaton may at any moment be set spinning by a Demon. (Emphasis his.)

Dr. Rowland V. Bingham, Editor of The Evangelical Christian says:

We do not object to their taking a pad and pencil to write down any thoughts of guidance which come to them. But to take the thoughts especially generated in a mental vacuum as Divine guidance would throw open to all the suggestions of another who knows how to come as an angel of light and whose illumination would lead to disaster. (Emphasis his.)

In a very real sense their personal journals became their personal scriptures. Wilson practiced this passive form of guidance, which he originally learned through the Oxford Group. He and Smith were also heavily involved in contacting and conversing with so-called departed spirits from 1935 on. This is necromancy, which the Bible forbids. During the same period of time, Wilson was practicing spiritism in a manner similar to channeling. Thus, Wilson combined the Oxford Group practice of guidance with spiritism or channeling, and this appears to be the process he used when writing the Twelve Steps:

“As he started to write, he asked for guidance. And he relaxed. The words began tumbling out with astonishing speed.”

Wilson was accustomed to asking for guidance and then stilling his mind to be open to the spiritual world, which for him involved various so-called departed spirits. Wilson does not identify any specific entity related to the original writing of the Twelve Steps, but he does give credit to the spirit of a departed bishop when he was writing the manuscript for Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, which constitutes Wilson’s commentary on how all of the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions are to be understood, interpreted, and practiced.

When he wrote the essays on each of the twelve steps, he sent some to Ed Dowling, a Roman Catholic priest, to evaluate. In his accompanying letter of July 17, 1952, Wilson says, “But I have good help — of that I am certain. Both over here and over there.” Then he explains that one spirit from “over there” that helped him called himself Boniface. Wilson says:

One turned up the other day calling himself Boniface. Said he was a Benedictine missionary and English. Had been a man of learning, knew missionary work and a lot about structures. I think he said this all the more modestly but that was the gist of it. I’d never heard of this gentleman but he checked out pretty well in the Encyclopedia. If this one is who he says he is—and of course there is no certain way of knowing—would this be licit contact in your book?

Dowling responds in his letter of July 24, 1952:

Boniface sounds like the Apostle of Germany. I still feel, like Macbeth, that these folks tell us truth in small matters in order to fool us in larger. I suppose that is my lazy orthodoxy.

One can see the stretch of years during which Wilson received messages from disembodied spirits. The official biography of Bill Wilson says, “One of Bill’s persistent fascinations and involvements was with psychic phenomena.” It speaks of his “belief in clairvoyance and other extrasensory manifestations” and in his own psychic ability. This was not a mere past-time. It was a passion directly related to AA. The manner in which Wilson would receive messages not of his own making was definitely channeling. The records of these sessions, referred to as “Spook Files,” have been closed to public inspection.

Satan can appear as an angel of light and give guidance that may sound right because it may be close to the truth or contain elements of truth. A discerning Christian would avoid any guidance that comes through occult methods. AA, as the Oxford Group’s revival quickly became contaminated by spiritism, It did not become religiously neutral and did not remain “Christian based”, losing its way and only hope for true revival when it let go of the cross and the Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Rather than faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified, it is a religion of self-improvement and subjective mysticism, working as a cover for demonic oppression and possession, these demons masquerading as “spirit guides” live only for the intent to deceive, mislead and keep men and women from the only gospel that would save their souls.

Edited and Sourced from: Martin and Deidre Bobgan. Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries.

Read Full Post »

Excellent Mission Statement:

“As Christians, we are called, commissioned, and commanded to lay down our lives so that the Gospel might be preached to every creature under heaven. Second only to loving God, this is to be our magnificent obsession. There is no nobler task for which we may give our lives than promoting the glory of God in the redemption of men through the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Christian is truly obedient to the Great Commission, he will give his life either to go down into the well or to hold the rope for those who go down. Either way, the same radical commitment is required.

The Christian who is truly passionate about the glory of God and confident in His sovereignty will not be unmoved by the billions of people in the world who have yet to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we are truly Christlike, the lost multitude of humanity will move us to compassion (Matthew 9:36), even to great sorrow and unceasing grief (Romans 9:2). The sincerity of our Christian confession should be questioned if we are not willing to do all within our means to make Christ known among the nations and to endure all things for the sake of God’s elect (II Timothy 2:10).

While we recognize that the needs of mankind are many and his sufferings are diverse, we believe that they all spring from a common origin—the radical depravity of his heart, his enmity toward God, and his rejection of truth. Therefore, we believe that the greatest benefit to mankind can be accomplished through the preaching of the Gospel and the establishment of local churches that proclaim the full counsel of God’s Word and minister according to its commands, precepts, and wisdom. Such a work cannot be accomplished through the arm of the flesh, but only through the supernatural providence of God and the means which He has ordained: biblical preaching, intercessory prayer, sacrificial service, unconditional love, and true Christlikeness.

The chief end of all mission work is the Glory of God. Our greatest concern is that His Name be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun (Malachi 1:11), and that the Lamb who was slain might receive the full reward for His sufferings (Revelation 7:9-10). We find our great purpose and motivation not in man or his needs, but in God, His commitment to His own glory, and our God-given desire to see Him worshipped in every nation, tribe, people, and language. We find our great confidence not in the Church’s ability to fulfill the Great Commission, but in God’s unlimited and unhindered power to accomplish all. – The Truth about Man

Read Full Post »

Did Paul Really Command Women To Be Silent In the Churches?

  Drs. Eddie & Susan Hyatt

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

First of all, this verse would seem to contradict what Paul has said in earlier parts of this letter. For example, in his discussion of head coverings in chpt. 11, it is obvious that he recognizes women praying and prophesying in the church. Also in chpt. 14 vs. 23, he speaks of the potential of the whole church coming together and all speaking with tongues. Then in vss. 24 & 31, he speaks of the potential for all to prophesy. In vs. 31 he says that all may prophesy that all may learn and all be encouraged.

All Can Pray and Prophesy

In no way does Paul imply that all does not mean both men and women in these verses. If he had wanted to exclude women he could have done so, but he doesn’t. Vs. 21 has Paul saying, In the Law it written, with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people . . .. However, men is not in the Greek; it was added by the translators. In a similar way, vs. 27 in the KJV has Paul saying, If any man speak in an unknown tongue . . .. Again, the KJV translators have taken a lot of freedom, for the Greek word translated “man” is tis and actually means “anyone.” In this whole discussion about prophecy and tongues in the church, Paul is obviously careful not to exclude anyone from participating because of their gender.

Some Think This Verse is an Early Gloss

Vss. 34-35 are so out of character with the rest of the chapter and, indeed, the rest of the letter that it has led some prominent, evangelical scholars to conclude that Paul did not write these verses. This is the view of Dr. Gordon D. Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College, who believes that an early scribe/copyist (remember they didn’t have photo copiers) added these words and they found their way into the text. Such an addition by a scribe is known as a “gloss.”

Paul is Actually Repeating a Statement of the Corinthians

The more likely option is that Paul is repeating something that the Corinthians have written to him in a previous letter. It is obvious that, in this letter, Paul answers questions that have been posed to him by the Corinthians. He introduces their questions with the phrase now concerning. For example, he says in 7:1, Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is not good for a man to touch a woman. That part of the phrase, it is not good for a man to touch a woman, is most likely a statement made by the Corinthians in a previous letter to Paul. He repeats it here as a means of introducing the topic for discussion. In 12:1 he says, Now concerning Spiritual gifts an indication that he is now addressing questions they had posed to him about Spiritual gifts. Not only in 7:1, but in other sections of the letter Paul quotes things the Corinthians themselves have said, such as in 1:12 and 3:4: And there is strong evidence that in 14:34, Paul is quoting something the Corinthians said in a previous letter.

You’ve Got to Be Kidding!!

That Paul is here quoting something written to him by the Corinthians is indicated by his use of a tiny Greek word at the beginning of vs. 36. It is the word η which it is often used in Greek as an “expletive of disassociation,” such as the English, “No way!,” or You’ve got to be kidding!,” or “Nonsense!,” or “Get out of here!”

In other words, Paul quotes what they have said about women being silent and then replies, “Nonsense,” “You’ve got to be kidding, “No way!” Did the word of God come originally from you?

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” What? came the word of God out from you? Or has it come to you only? – Paul

Bible  translators have been inconsistent in the way they translate and present verses  throughout 1 Corinthians.  Some Bibles put quotes around certain verses to  indicate that Paul is quoting another source, and other Bibles don’t utilize any  quotes.  For example, in 1 Corinthians we read: “All things are lawful for me”  (6:12; 10:23) and “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”  (6:13).  These verses are marked as quotations in the NCV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV;  but they are not shown with quotation marks in the ASV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV.  In  this instance, the NCV, NIV, NLT and NRSV correctly indicate that  Paul is quoting a slogan that the Corinthians used in order to justify their  immorality.

Another example of where Bibles could use quotation  marks and do not is 1 Cor. 7:1.  Paul writes: Now concerning the things about  which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.  The second  underlined phrase should be placed in “quotes” since Paul is alluding to one of  the questions posed by the Corinthians.  He is quoting them.

Origen, an early Church leader (ca. a.d. 200) considered 1  Corinthians 7:1 as introducing a slogan. [7] Bible translators present 1  Corinthians 14:34-35 without quotation marks, which does not mean that verses  34-35 must be read as a declarative statement.  The New Revised Standard Version  (NRSV) does enclose 14:33b-36 in parentheses to characterize it as a  parenthetical comment meaning that it does not fit in smoothly with the  surrounding texts.  Unfortunately, most Bible readers are unaware of the  significance of such comments.  They generally read these verses as a  declaration forbidding women from speaking in church. Paul is not writing a declarative statement. (Dennis J. Preato)

I had just completed a teaching session in which I had explained why 1 Tim. 2:11-12 does not prohibit women from functioning in leadership roles in the Church. One student, who was obviously disturbed, challenged me with a question. “Can you show me one place in the New Testament where a woman ever functioned as a pastor?” I replied, “If you will first show me one place where a man ever functioned as a pastor!” He was stunned in that he could not think of a single example.

Eisegesis vs. Exegesis

My answer was designed to show him how much we read into the Biblical text. This is known as eisegesis–to read something “into” the text that is not there. On the other hand, exegesis means to “take out” or extract from what is there. It is so easy to practice eisegesis and read into the Bible our own prejudices, assumptions and traditions. The Church is guilty of eisegesis in many areas, but none so much as in the development of its doctrine of women and their role in the Church. An honest exegetical examination of the appropriate passages, however, reveals a very different view.

Women Pastors in the NT

There are numerous women leaders in the New Testament, some who obviously functioned in pastoral roles of oversight. Paul mentions 2 of these female pastors in Rom. 16 as well as a female apostle.

Phoebe, a Woman Pastor

In Romans 16:1 Paul commends to the church at Rome our sister Phoebe who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea. Paul refers to Phoebe as a servant which is the Greek word diakonos. Diakonos, or its verb form, is translated minister in 23 other places in the New Testament. For example, in Eph. 3:7, Paul says that he became a minister (diakonos) according to the gift of the grace of God. Phoebe, therefore, was a minister, probably a pastor, from the church in Cenchrea. This is borne out by vs. 2 where Paul refers to her as a helper of many and of myself also. The Greek word translated helper in this verse is prostates and, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, means to set over, to rule, superintend, preside over, protect, and care for. When this passage is examined apart from our traditions and prejudicial assumptions, the evidence is overwhelming that Phoebe functioned in what today we would call pastoral ministry.

Priscilla, A Woman Pastor

In verses 3-5 of the same chapter, Paul refers to Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house. Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned together in Scripture which indicates that they worked and ministered together as a husband and wife team. This is confirmed by Acts 18:26 where both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and both explained to him the way of God more accurately. In the Greek, Priscilla is always mentioned first. Since Paul reversed the culturally accepted manner of mentioning the husband first, he obviously wanted to make a point about her leadership role. Many commentators conclude that Priscilla is mentioned first because she was the spiritually gifted one and the leader of the church that met in their home. Again, the evidence is overwhelming. Priscilla functioned as a pastor.

Junia, A Woman Apostle

In verse 7 of the same chapter, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a feminine name and so we have here a woman who is recognized by Paul as an apostle. The early church father, John Chrysostom, commenting on this verse, said, “Oh how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle.” If a woman can function as an apostle, may not she also function as a pastor.

What About 1 Timothy 2:11-12?

“But,” some will ask, “What about Paul’s admonitions in I Corinthians 14:34 and I Timothy 2:12 for women to be silent?” For the sake of space, we will look at 1 Tim. 2:11-12 which many consider to be the Bible’s clearest statement against women functioning in leadership. It says, Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. On the surface and out of context, this passage sounds quite clear in its restriction of women. But a different picture emerges when we consider four simple exegetical facts.

1 Timothy Was Written To An Individual, Not To A Church

First of all, the letter of 1 Timothy was written to an individual, not to a church. We should expect, therefore, that the things written in the letter are related to the situation of the individual, i.e. Timothy, to whom it was written. It is a “personal” letter.

1 Timothy Addresses A Personal, Local Situation in Ephesus

Secondly, vs. 3 of chpt. 1 clearly states the reason for this letter to Timothy. It is not to lay down a universal system of church order. It is to encourage and instruct him as he deals with a false teaching that is circulating among the Christians in Ephesus where he is located.

This requires rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul obviously was not issuing universal edicts for all churches of every time and place. He is addressing unique issues related to Timothy and the church in Ephesus.

A Strange Greek Word

That Paul is addressing a unique situation in Ephesus is further borne out by the fact that the word “authority” in 2:12 is a translation of the Greek word authentein which is found only here in the entire New Testament. If Paul is here giving a universal edict for church order, why doesn’t he use the normal word for authority, exousia, which he and all other New Testament writers use. Why does he here use a word that neither he nor any other New Testament writer ever uses–a word that refers to someone who claims to be the author or originator of something.

The obvious answer is that Paul is here dealing with the unique situation that exists in Ephesus. If Paul had been giving a universal rule for church order in this passage, he would have used the normal New Testament word for authority.

Paul May Have Been Addressing A Particular Woman in Ephesus

Fourthly, this view is borne out by the fact that there is a change from the plural to the singular and then back to the plural in this passage. In vss. 9-10 of chpt. 2, Paul refers to “women” in the plural. But when he comes to the restrictive admonition of vss. 11-12, he changes to the singular and refers to “a woman.” Afterwards, in vs. 15, he returns again to the plural. This may indicate that, in writing this passage, Paul had a particular woman in mind who was primarily responsible for spreading the false teaching in Ephesus. Be that as it may, Paul, in this passage, is obviously addressing a unique, local situation in the city of Ephesus.

So, who says women can’t pastor? Not Jesus! Not Paul! And not the New Testament!

Read Full Post »

WHO’S THE BOSS?

THREE  REASONS WHY EPHESIANS 5:21-33 IS NOT
ABOUT AUTHORITY IN MARRIAGE.

By Drs. Eddie L. Hyatt & Susan C. Hyatt

(This article is a brief summation of the arguments presented
in the Hyatt’s book by the same name.)

WHO’S THE BOSS? is probably the most commonly asked question among Christians concerning marriage.  The idea that the wife is to submit graciously to the leadership of the husband has become a sacred cow in Spirit-filled and Evangelical Christianity.  The favorite passage for advocates is Ephesians 5:21-33.

But is this position Biblically correct?  The answer to this important question is NO.

REASON #1 – A MATTER OF CULTURE THE KIND OF MARRIAGE PRACTICED BY THE EPHESIANS INDICATES THAT THIS PASSAGE IS NOT ABOUT AUTHORITY

The form of marriage practiced by the Ephesians was known as “marriage without hand,” meaning “marriage without commitment.” In this pagan model, the wife remained under the authority of her father or the oldest male in her birth family.  Since the wife’s family could remove her at any time, uncertainty destabilized the marriage relationship.

Furthermore, a father-in-law could pressure the husband to do his bidding by threatening to “recall” the wife.  This could be especially trying for Christian couples since a pagan father-in-law could threaten to remove his daughter unless she and her husband renounced their faith.

Important in this discussion is the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso, translated by the English word “submit” in this passage.  An informed study of the meaning, as opposed to a biased, cursory rendering, clearly reveals Paul’s intended meaning as being “to identify with.” It has nothing to do with “being put under.” The Ephesians’ readers understood what Paul really meant: A married woman was no longer to identify with her birth family but was, instead, to identify completely with her husband; and the two were to be one.

REASON #2 – A GRAMMATICAL ISSUE PAUL BEGINS THIS DISCUSSION OF MARRIAGE WITH A CALL FOR MUTUAL SUBMISSION.

That “submit” in this passage has nothing to do with subordination to authority is further clarified by the fact that Paul begins this discussion in vs. 21 with a call for Christians to identify with one another.  It reads, “Submitting yourselves [all believers} to one another in the fear of Christ.”  It is a call to solidarity, loyalty, and all that such intimate commitment demands.  And it works in both directions equally; it is unilateral.  It is mutual; it is not male-dominated.

In vs. 22, most of our English translations have Paul saying, Wives, submit to (hupotasso) your own husbands as to the Lord (NKJV).  But the word “submit” is not found in the Greek! It was inserted by translators.  The passage literally reads, wives to your own husbands.  This means that the verb for vs. 22 is found in vs. 21.  This means that disposition of “submission” expected in vs. 22 must be the same as that required among all believers in vs. 21.

This model of mutual identification fits with Paul’s other teaching about marriage found in 1 Corinthians 7, which is actually his most extensive teaching on marriage.  In this chapter, Paul addresses husbands and wives separately; and in each instance, he gives exactly the same responsibility and “authority” to each.  There is perfect mutuality throughout the chapter.  Neither is to exercise authority over the other.  In fact, Paul alternates between men and women twelve different times in this passage; and, as Gordon D. Fee points out, “In every case there is complete mutuality between the two sexes.” [Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 270].  Why haven’t we heard teaching on marriage from 1 Cor. 7?

REASON #3 – A SIGNIFICANT WORD PAUL’S CHOICE OF THE GREEK WORD KEPHALE (“HEAD”) INDICATES THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT RULERSHIP

The meaning of this passage has been distorted because of the assumption that kephale means “ruler,” “leader,” or “boss” in the same way that the English “head” can carry this figurative meaning.  We now know that this assumption is wrong.  Unbiased research reveals that had Paul wanted to convey the idea of “authority,” he would have chosen the word archon.  This word, archon conveys the idea of authority, rulership, or leadership.

Kephale means “source.” This is important because it teaches the Ephesians that women were created from the same substance as men.  It refutes the pagan idea that women were made of an inferior substance between that of man and animal.  Paul, therefore, undermines this pagan notion by referring to the man as the kephale (“source”) of the woman in creation and exhorts husbands to love their wives as their own bodies (vs. 23).  She is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, (Gen. 2:23)–a fitting and equal partner.

This rendering is neither bizarre nor fringe but is, in fact, confirmed by the best research in the field.  For example, one of the most complete Greek lexicons, Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, list various meanings for kephale, but it does not list “authority over, ” “ruler,” “boss” or anything similar as a definition.  Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, in their study of headship in the Septuagint discovered that when the word ro’sh (“head”) was used figuratively to mean “source” or “beginning,” the translators used kephale.  However, when ro’sh was used figuratively to mean “ruler” or “boss” (e.g., the head of the tribe of Judah), the translators used archon meaning “ruler.” Many other Evangelical scholars, including F. F. Bruce, Catherine Kroeger, and David Scholer, concur.  Some disagree, not because of lack of evidence, but because of a prior commitment to “male headship.”

SO WHO’S THE BOSS?

The idea that Eph.5:21-33 teaches that man is the boss is incorrect and harmful.  It does not harmonize with Biblical teaching as a whole.  Nor is it true to the literary or cultural contexts in which it was written.  As with all error, it has caused untold damage, in this case, to individuals and to Christian marriage.  Further, it quenches the gifts and abilities of women by telling them that they must always fill a subservient role.  And it puts ungodly pressure on men by demanding that they function in areas for which God may not have gifted them.  Also, studies show that this model has contributed to rampant domestic abuse in the Church.  So, WHO’s THE BOSS?  For a truly successful marriage, there can be only one–the Lord Jesus Christ.

Read Full Post »

Mary Magdalene: An Apostle To The Apostles

All four Gospels agree that the first person to receive the glorious news of Christ’s resurrection is Mary Magdalene. The church proclaimed this startling fact no less than three times in the first four days of Easter. Mary Magdalene is truly one of the most remarkable women in the Bible.

She is named a total of 14 times in the Gospels, more than any of the apostles. Instead of being identified by who she belongs to (so-and-so’s mother or sister or wife) she is identified by the town she comes from: Magdala. This fact gives the impression that she was an independent woman who, along with Joanna and Susanna, “provided for (Jesus and the disciples) out of their means” (Lk 8:2-3).

Her significance in the early church earned her the title “Apostle to the apostles,” an honour bestowed by St. Augustine of Hippo back in the fourth century. Hippolytus, an early bishop of Rome in the third century, affirmed female apostleship as follows: “Christ himself came to women so that they would be apostles of Christ.” Many medieval theologians followed St. Augustine in granting Mary Magdalene this exalted title. The Apostle Paul, himself not one of the Twelve, but the greatest missionary the Christian church has ever had, defined apostleship as any person who had seen the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1-2). This was the basis upon which he argued his own right to claim the title of apostle. Mary Magdalene can claim no less.

However, despite this encouraging beginning, throughout most of church history Mary Magdalene has had a bad rap. The non-biblical image of Magdalene as a repentant prostitute became widespread in the sixth century, thanks to a powerful sermon preached by Pope Gregory in the early 600s in which he conflated into one person an unnamed woman with Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke. In chapter 7:37-38, Luke tells of a woman, “a sinner” who goes into a dinner party and anoints Jesus’ feet.

The following chapter immediately introduces “Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. . . .”

The early church subsequently misinterpreted this, linking Mary Magdalene with the sinner from the chapter before. And it’s that image that has persisted ever since through countless Christian sermons, paintings and movies. The misreading of Mary Magdalene is further facilitated by the fact that there are up to five different Marys in the Gospels and seven in the New Testament as a whole! Interestingly enough, the Eastern Orthodox Church never made this mistake; Magdalene the prostitute was never part of the Eastern tradition. On the contrary, the Eastern Church has her preaching in Rome, even before the emperor himself.

It took two millennia for the Catholic Church to dispel the long-standing myth that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In 1969 the church indirectly removed the stain of her alleged sins by assigning new scriptural readings for her feast day on July 22. Passages from the erotic Song of Songs are no longer read, and the passage from Luke 7:37-38 about “a woman from the city, who was a sinner” was also deleted. Now, on the feast of Mary Magdalene, they read the passage that features so prominently at Easter from John’s Gospel in which Mary is the first to see and talk with the risen Christ. Along with Paul, Mary became a preacher and missionary. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in a cave in the 1950s, we now know that there was a Gospel named after her, The Gospel of Mary.

We now know that women played significant roles in those early years of the Christian church. Single women travelled and preached with Paul as equals. Priscilla, who was later martyred and canonized, led a church in her home. John Mark’s mother hosted some of the earliest Christian worship in her home.

For most of church history Mary Magdalene suffered from mistaken identity because she got mixed up with Mary of Bethany (John 12:1) and an unknown woman “who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37-38). Both these women took oil and bathed Jesus’ feet with their hair. In Luke, Jesus points out that this generous gesture by the woman is evidence that her sins, which were many, were forgiven. In John, Mary of Bethany’s generous outpouring is interpreted by Jesus as a preparation for his burial. And in Matthew’s version of the same story, Jesus is quoted as having said: “What she has done will be told in remembrance of me.”

Now in the ancient world, anointing for burial was a significant job done by women. And so it is no surprise that, early on Easter morning, Mary Magdalene rushed to the tomb, carrying oil and herbs for the preparation of Jesus’ body.

But instead of Jesus’ dead body, Mary finds something of much greater significance at the tomb.

“Go and tell my brothers . . .” says the risen Jesus to Mary. Go and tell — key terms for defining an apostle as one sent on a mission by Jesus himself. In these words of the risen Jesus, Mary received her call as apostolic messenger and witness. And Mary responded — she went and told, all right.

This in itself is an amazing thing: In the ancient world, testimonies by women were considered untrustworthy. “Never believe a woman” was the common conviction. In fact, Mark’s Gospel states it rather bluntly: “Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it” (16:19-22).

The Twelve, to whom Jesus had entrusted the entire enterprise, would not believe a woman. Were they jealous that the Lord didn’t choose them to appear to first? The risen Lord chose to appear first, not to any of the Twelve, but to the women, and Mary Magdalene in particular. This is the one fact all four Gospels agree upon.

But why should that surprise us still? Do we not know by now that in Jesus the entire world order has been turned upside-down? God’s upside-down message came through clearly in everything Jesus said and did in his earthly life: Those who lose their life will gain it. Blessed are the persecuted. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Eat with outcasts and sinners, heal/touch the untouchables, have compassion on the lowly.

Then, in Jesus’ last days, the one without sin felt total abandonment and suffered an innocent death. The God who surprised us in Bethlehem again surprised us at the cross. Everything seemed an utter failure, yet everything has been transformed forever.

Consistent with this pattern, then, entrusting to a woman — the unbelievable witness — the most important message of Jesus’ entire mission is not surprising at all. The same risen Lord who appeared to Paul, and made him an apostle to the gentiles, appeared to Mary with the same startling news, the news that gave birth to the first Christian communities.

At last, Mary Magdalene is being restored to her rightful place of honour, thanks to sound biblical scholarship and new archeological findings. This first witness to the resurrection is once again being honoured appropriately as the Apostle to the Apostles. And her voice still echoes throughout history — I have seen the Lord, he is risen!

Are we as church in the 21st century prepared to recognize and bless all women who are thus called by the risen Jesus to follow in her apostolic footsteps?

by: M. T.G

“Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.” John 20:18

“When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.  It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.  But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.  Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.” Luke 24:9-12

Read Full Post »

APRIL 27TH, 1873.

An Excerpt From a Sermon On The Beatitudes

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” — Matthew 5:8.

“It was a peculiarity of the great Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, that his teaching was continually aimed at the hearts of men. Other teachers had been content with outward moral reformation, but he sought the source of all the evil, that he might cleanse the spring from which all sinful thoughts, and words, and actions come. He insisted over and over again that, until the heart was pure, the life would never be clean. The memorable Sermon upon the mount, from which our text is taken, begins with the benediction, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” for Christ was dealing with men’s spirits, with their inner and spiritual nature. He did this more or less in all the Beatitudes, and this one strikes the very center of the target as he says, not “Blessed are the pure in language, or the pure in action,” much less “Blessed are the pure in ceremonies, or in raiment, or in food;” but “Blessed are the pure in heart.”

O beloved, whatever so-called “religion” may recognize as its adherent a man whose heart is impure, the religion of Jesus Christ will not do so. His message, to all men still is, “Ye must be born again;” that is to say, the inner nature must be divinely renewed, or else you cannot enter or even see that kingdom of God which Christ came to set up in this world. If your actions should appear to be pure, yet, if the motive at the back of those actions should be impure, that will nullify them all. If your language should be chaste, yet, if your heart is reveling in fowl imaginations, you stand before God not according to your words, but according to your desires; according to the set of the current of your affections, your real inward likes and dislikes, you shall be judged by him. External purity is all that man has at our hands, “for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart;” and the promises and blessings of the covenant of grace belong to those who are made pure in heart, and to none besides.

In speaking upon our text, I want to show you, first, that impurity of heart is the cause of spiritual blindness; and, secondly, that the purification of the heart admits us to a most glorious sight: “the pure in heart, shall see God.” Then I shall have to show you, in the third place, that the purification of the heart is a divine operation, which cannot be performed by ourselves, or by any human agency; but must be wrought by him who is the thrice-holy Lord God of Sabbath.

I. First, then, I have to remark that, IMPURITY OF HEART IS THE CAUSE OF SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS, – the cause of a very large part if not, of all of it. A man who is intoxicated cannot see clearly, his vision is often distorted or doubled; and there are other cups, besides those which intoxicate, which prevent the mental eye from having clear sight, and he who has once drunk deeply of those, cups will become spiritually blind, and others, in proportion as they imbibe the noxious draughts, will be unable, to see afar off. There are moral beauties and immoral horrors which certain men cannot see because they are impure in heart. Take, for instance, the covetous man, and you will soon see that there is no other dust that blinds so completely as gold dust. There is a trade which many regard as bad from top to bottom; but if it pays the man who is engaged in it, and he is of a grasping disposition, it will be almost impossible to convince him that it is an evil trade. You will usually find that the covetous men see no charm in generosity.

He thinks that the liberal man, if he is not actually a fool, is so near akin to one that he might very easily be mistaken for one. He himself admires that which can be most easily grasped; and the more of it that he can secure, the better is he pleased. The skinning of flints and the oppression of the poor are occupations in which he takes delight. If he has performed a dirty trick in which he has sacrificed every principle of honor, yet, if it has turned out to his own advantage, he says to himself, “That was a clever stroke;” and if he should meet with another man of his own kind, he and his fellow would chuckle over the transaction, and say how beautifully they had done it. It would be useless for me to attempt to reason with an avaricious man, to show him the beauty of liberality; and, on the other hand, I should not think of wasting my time in trying to get from him a fair opinion as to the justice of anything which he knew to be remunerative.

You know that, some years ago, there was a great fight in the United States over the question of slavery. Who were the gentlemen in England who took the side of the slave-owners? Why, mostly Liverpool men, who, did so because slavery paid them. If it had not done so, they would have, condemned it, and I daresay that those of us who condemned it, did so the more readily because it did not pay us. Men can see very clearly where there, is nothing to be lost either way; but if it comes to the a matter of gain, the heart being impure, the eyes cannot see straight. There are innumerable things that a man cannot see if he holds a sovereign over each of his eyes; he cannot even see the sun then; and if he keeps the gold over his eyes, he will become blind. The pure in heart can see; but when covetousness gets into the heart, it, makes the eye dim or blind.”

Read Full Post »

Saturday, February 23rd, 2013

What is the ROOT of the Olive Tree in Romans 11?

The Question:

What is the ROOT of the Olive Tree in Romans 11?

The Answer:

Isaiah 11:10 In that day the ROOT OF JESSE will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.

Isaiah called the future Messiah the “Root of Jesse”, who will stand as a banner for all nations.

Isaiah 53:2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a ROOT out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

Isaiah also speaks of the Messiah as growing up like a root out of dry ground.

Matthew 13:6, 21 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no ROOT. …But since he has no ROOT, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus talks about plants springing up that have no root, which exemplify people who at first receive the Word and but do have a ROOT, which is Christ Himself, to anchor them.

Mark 4:17 But since they have no ROOT, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.

Mark identifies trouble and persecution that comes because of the Word as the reason that rootless believers fall away quickly.

Luke 8:13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no ROOT. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Luke goes further to tell us that they receive the Word with joy when they hear it, but still fail to have a root. And he tells us that the persecution and troubles are times of testing, but without a root, they wither and die.

Romans 11:16-18 If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the ROOT is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive ROOT, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the ROOT, but the ROOT supports you.

In Romans 11, Paul compares the kingdom of God, with both Jewish and Gentile believers, to an olive tree. This olive tree has a “Holy ROOT” that “supports” both the Jewish and Gentile branches and nourishes them.

Romans 15:8-12 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews [literally circumcision] on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says, “The ROOT OF JESSE will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.”

This root is identified by Paul as Jesus Himself.

Revelation 5:5, 22:6 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the ROOT of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.” …”I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the ROOT and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The Apostle John in his great Revelation of Jesus Christ and the end times also identifies Jesus as the Root. Notice that Jesus is identified as the Root AND Offspring of David. Not only is Jesus a descendant of David, but since He created all things and is the source of everything, He is also identified as the Root of David.

So what is Paul talking about in Romans 11? The imagery of the Olive Tree is similar to the imagery of the Body of Christ. Whereas in the Body of Christ, Jesus is the Head and we are all members one with another, Jewish and Gentile, in the Olive Tree we are all branches, Jewish and Gentile, and flourish from the support of the Root, which is Jesus.

In both cases, Paul is stressing our need for unity one with another, and that no branch or body member can be arrogant and think they are superior than any other branch or body member.

What this is NOT teaching is that Jewish and Gentile believers alike have to be Torah observant to partake of Jesus and to fellowship one with another. It is also NOT teaching that the ROOT is Abraham, Jacob, Moses or any other Biblical personage. While it is true that Christianity has Jewish “roots”, THE ROOT, the stabilizing and nourishing factor in the Kingdom of God is Christ.

Paul’s theme and rationale for writing the book of Romans is summed up like this:

Romans 15:4-7 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.

All of the branches of the Olive Tree need to accept each other and glorify God the Father with one heart and mouth, drawing nourishment and support from our one and only ROOT, our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Word “Grafted”  1.  We are grafted into Christ purely by grace.  2.  God keeps us grafted into Christ through His Law and Gospel. (The LAW of Christ)

“I want to make sure you understand what grafting is.  Grafting is when you take a branch from one tree, cut it off and bind it to another tree, and then that branch grows into being a part of its new tree.  In our text Paul compares believers to the branches of an olive tree.  God Himself planted the tree of believers. In the Old Testament the Children of Israel’s roots included their adoption as sons, seeing the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the Law, the Temple worship, the promises, and the Savior being born to them.  But how did Old Testament Israel get to be God’s olive tree?  They didn’t choose this, anymore than a baby chooses who its parents are.  God made the Children of Israel to be partakers and sharers of His salvation purely by grace.  He told them in Deuteronomy: The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.  Deuteronomy 7:7

Sadly, many in Israel rejected grace.  They insisted their roots were evidence that they were better than others.  They also felt safe to dabble with sin, and then a little more and a little more, because, “They were God’s people and that would never change!”  Gradually the Jews had gotten so far away from their spiritual roots that they became dead branches.  If a hurricane is coming and you got some big dead branches in a tree beside your house, what should you do?  You better get those branches out of there.  That’s what God did.  He cut off those unbelieving branches.  Then He took us, whose original roots were the sinful nature we inherited from Adam, and the influences of this world and the control of Satan.  He cut us off from all that through our Baptism and He grafted us into His tree of believers.  But why us?  Why not first people in China or Africa or some other place?  Jesus answered that when He told His disciples how they became disciples.  He said: You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.  John 15:16   Did you catch that?  We are called to faith by grace, so that we may work to lead others to Him.” – (source O.T)

The Vine and the Branches

15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. ² He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes^[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. ³ You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. ⁴ Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

⁵ “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. ⁷ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

⁹ “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. ¹¹ I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. ¹² My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command. ¹⁵ I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. ¹⁶ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. ¹⁷ This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:1-17)

http://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/hebrew-roots-movement-believers-are-grafted-into-and-become-israel-um-no/

Read Full Post »

Myths about the Crusades

By Subby Szterszky
September 9, 2013

“History is written by the victors,” says the oft-quoted and rather jaded assessment. But truth be told, in our own time it might be more apt to say, “History is written by Hollywood and popular opinion.”

Not that Hollywood and popular opinion have found much resistance in this regard. Ours is a comparatively ahistorical culture. We live in the moment and plan for the future but typically don’t place too much value on the past. Consequently, when a movie comes along and claims to be based on “actual historical events,” many of us simply accept the picture it paints without questioning whether that picture is in fact true. When politicians or journalists make pronouncements about history, most of us aren’t familiar enough with that history to cry foul where appropriate.

Take the Crusades as an example. Together with the Inquisition, the Crusades make up that treasured pair of historical trump cards that opponents of Christianity love to toss on the table. “How can anyone believe in a religion responsible for such atrocities?” they ask.

Most of us are likely familiar with the standard Crusade narrative: During the Middle Ages, several waves of boorish, bloodthirsty Christians, egged on by their fanatical popes, trundled across Europe to the Holy Land in search of loot. Once there, they attacked and slaughtered thousands of peaceful, sophisticated Muslims in an unprovoked display of early-onset Western imperialism. In the process, they caused the decline of Medieval Muslim culture, thereby giving modern Muslims a justifiable grievance against the West.

This narrative is so widespread as to seem virtually beyond dispute. It’s found in many popular history texts on the subject. It was on full display in Ridley Scott’s 2005 feature film, “Kingdom of Heaven.” It was referenced by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in a speech after 9/11 to suggest that – just maybe – those attacks were understandable from a certain viewpoint. Many Muslims, both extremists and moderates, have embraced it and used it for political advantage. And some Christians, labouring under its weight, have even felt compelled to publicly apologize for the Crusades.

The problem? Like Ridley Scott’s film, the received Crusade narrative is essentially a work of historical fiction. It’s based on “actual historical events,” mingled with generous helpings of exaggeration, distortion and flat-out falsehood. Here are just a few common Crusade myths, briefly noted:

1. The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by militant Christians on peaceful Muslims

This is probably the most basic misconception about the Crusades. It requires a massive suspension of disbelief to ignore the politically incorrect elephant in the room: by the time Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had been attacking and conquering Christian lands for over 450 years.

In 632, the year Muhammad died, virtually the entire Mediterranean world was in Christian hands. Within a century, most of these lands had fallen to the Muslim onslaught. This included Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and most of Asia Minor. Southern France and Italy were under attack, and would soon lose their island possessions. In the east, the Byzantine Empire desperately clung to a small corner of Asia Minor around Constantinople. Far from being an unprovoked war of aggression, the Crusades were the first large-scale European counterattack against the dire and ongoing threat of Islamic expansion.

2. The Crusaders were barbarian bigots attacking a tolerant and advanced Muslim culture

Like most of the myths about the Crusades, this was fabricated by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century intellectuals with an axe to grind against Christianity. In reality, Europeans of the so-called “Dark Ages” were not the benighted primitives of popular imagination. They had already made technological advances in food production and war craft, among others things, that gave them a distinct edge over their adversaries. Moreover they showed little interest in forcibly converting others to their faith, at least during this period of history.

On the other hand, the Muslims weren’t the model of enlightened multiculturalism that’s commonly depicted. They had a complex and uneasy relationship with their conquered subjects, by turns persecuting and “tolerating” them as second-class citizens. Regarding the achievements of Medieval Muslim culture, sociologist and historian Rodney Stark is quite blunt:

The civilization we typically associate with Islam was in fact the civilization of the Christians and Jews they were ruling. When those Christians and Jews finally disappeared, so too did that advanced “Muslim” civilization. Suddenly the Muslims were all backward, and the question was, “How did they lose all that civilization?” They didn’t. They never had it.

3. The Crusaders used religion as an excuse for their greed, bloodlust and imperialistic ambitions

This is a gross distortion that reads modern secular assumptions back into the Medieval mind. The Crusaders were violent people living in violent times. They were also deeply religious, with a keen sense of their own sinfulness. Labouring under a theology that had lost track of salvation by free grace through the Gospel of Christ, they sought to do acts of penance for the forgiveness of their sins. Going on Crusade, enduring hardship to help their embattled Christian brothers and suffering a martyr’s death fit the bill nicely.

Far from dreaming of Eastern wealth and political glory, most Crusaders mortgaged themselves, their families and even their countries into insolvency to finance their venture. Most of them expected to die on Crusade, and many of them did. It was a price they were willing to pay for the salvation of their souls.

4. The Crusades gave Muslims a legitimate grievance against the West

This one is a genuine case of truth being stranger than fiction. Until the early twentieth century, the Muslim world thought little and cared less about the Crusades. If anything, they were a distant memory of a series of skirmishes with pesky Westerners that ended when the victorious Muslims finally booted the Europeans out of the Holy Land, as they did in 1291. After that, the Crusades faded from the Muslim consciousness for the next 600 years.

Then the dissolution of the Turkish Ottoman Empire after World War I gave rise to a new Arab nationalism, which needed a narrative to frame its struggles and aspirations. It needed someone to blame for the backward state of Islamic culture at the time.

In one of the most sublime examples of historical irony, the Arab nationalists and the Islamic fundamentalists after them took up the Enlightenment version of the Crusade story, distortions and all, and made it their own. Historian and political scientist Paul Crawford sums it up neatly:

So it was not the crusades that taught Islam to attack and hate Christians. Far from it. Those activities had preceded the crusades by a very long time, and stretch back to the inception of Islam. Rather, it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades. The irony is rich.

To the present day, many Muslims of every stripe take it as a point of faith that the Crusades were the first shot fired in the West’s ongoing war of oppression against Islam. All based on a historical fiction.

Conclusions

At this point, a couple of clarifications are in order.

First, these ideas are not the product of fringe revisionism, but are taken from leading contemporary scholarship on the Crusades. Indeed, top Crusade historians have been saying similar things for a long time, but their voice generally goes unheard. This is mostly because what they’re saying rubs against the liberal secular zeitgeist, which loves to blame all the world’s woes on Western civilization, Christianity in particular.

Second, the point of this exercise isn’t to whitewash Medieval Christians, or to give them a free pass for terrible things they may have done. Bottom line, it was a time of war in a larger era of warfare. Atrocities were committed on both sides that we simply cannot pass over, as modern people or as Biblically faithful Christians.

But as Christians we’re also committed to the truth, not just theological and moral, but scientific and historical as well. We’re not all historians, but we can equip ourselves so that when someone rejects the faith from a faulty understanding of history, we can at least begin to engage them with the truth.

Sources and further reading

Brendan Case, “God’s Battalions: The case for the Crusades (book review),” Relevant, December 9, 2009, http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/gods-battalions-case-crusades

Paul F. Crawford, “Four myths about the Crusades,” Intercollegiate Review, Spring 2011, http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1483

Timothy Dalrymple, “Crusade for Christ: An interview with Rodney Stark,” Patheos, May 13, 2010, http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Crusades-for-Christ

Thomas F. Madden, “Inventing the Crusades,” First Things, June/July 2009, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/05/inventing-the-crusades-1243195699

Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The case for the Crusades, New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Subby Szterszky is the managing editor of Focus Insights.

http://www.focusinsights.org/article/society-and-culture/myths-about-crusades?utm_source=Focus+on+the+Family+Canada+-+eNewsletter+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=c02eb9c1be-FI_Sept_11_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_772e501ac9-c02eb9c1be-306677773

Read Full Post »