Theological Musings

hil Hawkins has been doing some excellent commenting here on this blog of late. And sometimes comments are just too good to stay buried in the comments section of the blog. While I don’t seek to exalt any one person above another on this blog (save Jesus!), I just had to put this comment in its entirety up here on the front page for all to read.

To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.

Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?

I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.

And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.

To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?

Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.

Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.

Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.

Until next time,

steve

heesy title for this post notwithstanding, I find nothing amusing or cute about an AP news article that was released today.

When the news about Ted Haggard’s resignation amidst confessions of “sexual immorality” broke last year, I opted not to blog about it in specifics. (I can’t even remember now if I wrote anything at all about it.) My choice to not use his name or specifics was for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I didn’t want a bunch of Google traffic based on his name.

I also wanted to be extremely reserved in passing judgment. Not that I didn’t think that what he admitted to was pretty serious. And not that I didn’t think that the way he handled it was extremely inappropriate for a man of his position.

In the midst of the fallout from that scandal (what a cliché that is, eh?), I had concerns about the way his former church handled it, as well. I thought about writing some posts about that and comparing it to some of my own personal experiences with how churches often deal (or don’t deal, as the case may be) with sin amongst its leaders.

Today, however, I find myself not feeling so reserved. And I find myself torn between feelings of tremendous sorrow and harsh anger. I’m trying to err on the side of sorrow here, but it’s difficult.

So, what was the news that came out today? Well, it appears from this news story on Yahoo (HT: Kansas Bob) that Mr. Haggard is asking for support for the next two years because he doesn’t think that he and his wife have “adequate earning power” and won’t for at least two years.

But here’s the rub: Mr. Haggard reportedly received a severance package which included $138,000 in salary, he made $110,000 + an $85,000 bonus (?!?!) last year prior to resigning, he continues to collect royalties on his books (although I imagine the market for them has declined a bit), and lives in a close-to-3/4 of a million dollar home, which is on the market.

So, Mr. Haggard apparently thinks that he needs people to support him, despite all of that. Why? I can’t think of any good reason, either logically or scripturally, why Mr. Haggard should be entitled to financial support from others.

I will still refrain from passing judgment in a strict sense, but I think that perhaps Mr. Haggard got a little too comfortable asking people for money, expecting financial support to an extreme level, and living off the generous gifts of others who quite likely have a much lower standard of living than he.

Lord have mercy.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Until next time,

steve

istory is always a tricky subject. First of all, you have the problem of having to determine which sources are the most accurate. And there’s a saying that “history is written by the victor” which means that sometimes historical records are skewed by the ones writing them because of a bias toward the ones in control.

Another problem with history is that sometimes it gets recreated in a way that glamorizes things of the past. We’re all familiar with the concept of “the good ol’ days”, and that doesn’t always have to refer to just the time period of our childhood or our parents’ childhood.

Still yet another problem is that historical records necessarily can’t contain every ounce of information, and so sometimes we try to figure out what things were like in a particular time period, and we have to connect dots in a certain way. We have to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

It can be a problem with church history as well. Those of us who are pursuing simple church are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of what the first century church was like. Those who view the Reformation as an incredibly significant turning point are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of the Reformers.

If we realize this tendency, then we can avoid the pitfalls that could result from it. But if we are unaware of this, we run a danger of over-emphasizing certain elements of history and overlooking their downsides.

Such is the case with the events of about AD 300-500 and even later. During this time, there were several church councils held that dictated certain things. Those of us who are “Protestants” recognize that prior to the Reformation, our history coincides with that of the Roman Catholic church. And as such, the church councils that took place prior to the Reformation are part of our heritage, as well.

What ends up happening, however, is that we selectively highlight certain things that took place, and ignore (either through ignorance or willful choice) the other aspects that don’t coincide with our beliefs.

One of the most oft-referenced councils is the Council of Nicaea (or some spell it Nicea). Quite often, as I have pointed out on this blog on several occasions, the Nicean Creed (the formulaic statement that was determined by the Council) is used as a benchmark of “orthodoxy”. Do I want to know if someone is a true Christian? I ask them if they accept the Nicean Creed as correct. If they accept it, good. They’re “in”. If they don’t, they are “unorthodox” and a heretic.

I’m not going to bore you with a drawn-out history of what happened at Nicaea. But I was curious as to what really surrounded this council, and I did a little informal research. I decided that the Roman Catholic church would probably have the most positive view of the church councils, so I found one of their sources — The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The website I just referenced gives a lot of detailed information about each of the church councils throughout all of the history of the Roman Catholic church, not just prior to the Reformation. And there are other sources as well, both online and offline.

What I want to point out, however, is that I think there are some major misconceptions about the nature of these church councils. I have seen many comments and heard many statements to the effect that these were groups of holy men, deeply spiritual men, gathering under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to preserve true doctrine and combat heresy.

As such, the conclusions of these councils are viewed as guided by God Himself, and have been accepted wholesale for a long time as landmarks of accomplishment in church history. Or, at least the parts we are told about…

This council was called for, and presided over, by Constantine, an emperor. Emperors were treated as, and worshiped as, God. In fact, descriptions of how Constantine was dressed and the fact that all of the attendees at the council stood in his honor when he entered cause a problem in itself.

The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves.

As if the words of Jesus about authority were not enough to cause some concern as to the relationship between the church leaders and the emperor, what shall we make of this scene in light of James 2? In this passage, James cautions us against showing deference to one “dressed in fine clothes” and giving them a seat of honor. Yet Constantine was seated on a gold throne during the proceedings of this council.

So, apart from the issues surrounding the emperor himself, what were some of the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea? Here’s just a sampling (taken from a translation found at this site with my thoughts in italics):

• Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan. (What did Jesus say about honor again?)
• It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. (So deacons were to be “put in their place” and reminded that they are not on the same level as bishops and presbyters. Already by this point in church history, rank and privilege were valued by those in church leadership in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus. Additionally, note the fact that only certain people were permitted to administer communion.)
• Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing. (Forbidding kneeling during prayer on Sunday?? Elsewhere I read that this was related to a Sabbatarian view of Sunday, although I’m not sure I get the connection. But why did this council feel it necessary to impose requirements on standing during prayer vs. kneeling?)

Yet another issue that was discussed during this council was the date of Easter celebrations. Some areas chose to celebrate it in conjunction with the timing of the Jewish passover, since obviously the death and resurrection of Jesus was during that time of the Jewish calendar.

But what was the attitude of the men at the council? Here are the words of Constantine in a letter to the churches following this council:

At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . for we have received from our Saviour a different way. . . And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment.

Notice part of the reason why Easter was set at a time independent of the Jewish calendar: “[I]t appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin….” This seems to me to be none other than blatant anti-Semitism.

But what should be even more disturbing to most of us is the claim of divine authority for this decision: “[W]e have received from our Saviour a different way….” And this coming from a man who couldn’t seem to make up his mind between Christianity and paganism throughout his life. Not to mention Paul’s words in Romans 14 about whether or not considering one day more special than any other is even necessary.

And I’ve only dealt with the First Council of Nicaea in this post. What of the Council of Constantinople in 381 which, when decreeing how to handle those returning to the church from heretical views, said, “On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them”?

Or the Council of Ephesus in 431 declaring Mary to be “mother of God”?

Or Chalcedon in 451 which said, “We have decreed that, subject to examination, all paupers and needy persons are to travel with ecclesiastical letters or letters of peace only, and not of commendation, since it befits only reputable persons to be provided with letters of commendation”?

What do we make of all of this? Does all of this amount to some elaborate “guilt by association”? No, that’s not the point that I wish to make. If you come away thinking that I’ve been trying to build a case for rejecting the Nicene Creed, you’ve misread me.

What I am trying to get across is that we need to be aware of, and honest about, our heritage. We cannot afford to sugarcoat things in history and make them out to be better than they were.

From all accounts, I think we are naive to think that the Council of Nicaea was a gathering of Spirit-filled men seeking to glorify Christ by careful examination of the scriptures. I’m not saying that nothing good came out of it (I’ll leave that to the reader to determine for themselves), but I am saying that there is a lot that is not indicative of the Spirit of God.

So, let’s just call it what it is. Take the good and discard the bad. But don’t turn it into something that it’s not.

Until next time,

steve

avid Wayne, aka JollyBlogger, wrote a post early last week that touched on the subject of tithing. In his post, he looked at one of the passages that gives detailed information about the tithe in the Old Testament.

This topic can be touchy for a lot of people. As David, a vocational minister, noted in his post, his very livelihood depends on people tithing. I know of very few people who are in that position who would question how tithing is taught in our churches today.

The common thinking says that tithing is still a requirement for believers, and that the “storehouse” mentioned in Malachi 3:10 equates to the local church. Therefore, Christians are required to give at least 10% of their income to the local church. But the passage David looked at raised some questions in a small group discussion in which he was participating.

The passage is Deuteronomy 14:22-27:

You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year. You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.

In his discussion of this passage, David came to the conclusion that in cases of hardship, tithing was not absolutely required. Specifically, in his own words:

I also think this is a good little point to make in our discussions on tithing and giving so that we don’t become more strict than the Bible. Ordinarily all of the tithe was to go to the Lord, but there were times when God allowed that giving of the tithe could create a hardship on the family and said it was ok to take care of the needs of the family.

I raised a question in the comments section regarding how David got this conclusion from the passage. This post here is the delayed response on my part to David’s request for more information from me regarding my difference of opinion.

First of all, the passage says nothing about concessions for hardship. What is conceded in the passage, however, is the practicality of traveling with large amounts of produce and animals.

In a nutshell, God instructed the tithe to be brought each year to “the place where He chooses to establish His name”. But for what purpose were the Israelites to bring the tithe? To put it in the storehouse? That’s not what this passage says.

The passage says that they were to eat the tithe. This is vastly different from how tithing is taught. The tithe was to be enjoyed in the presence of God by the one bringing the tithe.

Now, God does give a concession here if the distance to travel was too far to carry all of the tithe there. But the concession is not with regard to financial hardship, and the concession is not saying that those people did not have to tithe.

Rather, God says that if the distance is too far to carry all of it, the one tithing should sell their tithe for money, and then bring that money with them to the place designated.

Once they arrive, they should then purchase food with that money in order to eat in the presence of the Lord. And God even goes so far as to say, “Buy whatever you want to buy for this feast.” (my paraphrase)

In short, I do not understand the conclusion David got from this passage. This passage is not saying that in certain circumstances of difficult times, it is permissible to spend the tithe on your own food. Rather, this was the instruction for everyone tithing once a year.

Think about that. Once a year, the Israelites were to tithe by bringing their tithe to Jerusalem (eventually) and eating it in a celebratory feast in God’s presence!

Now, in the passage that I quoted above, I used the exact same group of verses that David did. However, I do want to point out that the passage mentions one other aspect of tithing that is made clear by the verses following what portion David quoted.

At the end of the passage above, the Israelites were instructed not to neglect the Levites that lived in their own town. What does this mean? Is this justification for tithing to our local church? Well, apart from the mistaken equation of church leaders to Levite priests who had no inheritance or land on which to raise his own food, it helps to look at the next statement in verses 28 and 29:

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

The provision for the Levite was that every third year, instead of eating the entire tithe in Jerusalem, the Israelites were to bring the produce tithe to a place in their own town. This contribution, then, would service the Levites and widows and orphans over the next three years.

Now, David is right in saying that we shouldn’t be more strict than the Bible. So, with that in mind, I’d like to open this up for discussion. Where did the concept of tithing to the local church come from? And why is it taught as a requirement for believers to support the local church in this way by equating it with the Old Testament tithe?

Until next time,

steve

or those of you who don’t regularly read Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk blog, I wanted to point you to an interview Michael recently did with me.

The topic was “Worship and Music” and Michael gave me four very insightful questions on which to share my thoughts. You can read the interview on Michael’s blog here.

There are already some good responses over there, and you can feel free to join the discussion there (I think you have to register for Michael’s blog in order to comment) or provide responses here.

Thanks for the fun interview, Michael! I hope that the discussion is productive.

Until next time,

steve