Pastor's Blog https://www.damascus-demo.website Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:35:39 -0500 http://churchplantmedia.com/ Disowned for Jesus: What I Lost and Found in Christ https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ#comments Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/disowned-for-jesus-what-i-lost-and-found-in-christ Afshin Ziafat
Lead Pastor, Providence Church
Frisco, TX

January 7, 2019

[I first met Afshin Ziafat a few years ago at a gathering of the Council of the Gospel Coalition. He has become a good friend. When he shared with me his testimony of coming to faith in Jesus and what it cost him, I was astounded, and grateful to God for his amazing grace. On January 7, Afshin described his story in an article first posted at the Desiring God website. Take some time and read it closely. You will be blessed!]

When I left Islam to follow Jesus, I didn’t know what it would cost me. I hadn’t realized what it would take to deny myself, lay my life down, and take up my cross (Matt. 16:24). I wasn’t aware that even the precious relationships of my family should not come between me and following Christ — that I should even hate my family compared to my love for Jesus (Luke 14:26).

But God taught me that if I do take up my cross and lay down my life, then I’ll find my life. Over time, I have come to experience this truth. My life of following Jesus has not been the life I envisioned for myself, but it has become the life I want: a life used for the glory of God as I grow in the knowledge of Christ and make him known to others. That’s what I discovered when I was forced to choose between Jesus and my father.

From Iran to Texas

I was born in Houston and grew up in a devout Muslim home. My dad was very involved in the Iranian Muslim community. Growing up, I was taught the five pillars of Islam and that if I did them to the best of my ability, then maybe I’d get to heaven. When I was two years old, my family moved to Iran, where my parents are from. But at age six, the Islamic Revolution of the late ’70s hit that country. My father, who was a doctor, had the means to get us out of the country, so our family moved back to Houston.

I spoke Farsi, not English, and so God, in his incredible plan, provided a Christian lady who tutored me, teaching me the English language every day by reading books to me. In the second grade, she said to me, “Afshin, I want to give you the most important book that you’ll ever read in life.” As she handed me a small New Testament, she told me that I would not completely understand it now, but asked me to promise to hold onto it until I was older.

She gave me that Bible during the Iran hostage crisis, a time during which my family and other Iranians in America were ostracized and hated by many. This lady, however, earned the right to be heard by the way that she loved me, showed me the love of Christ, and poured her life into me. Because the Bible came from her, I believed it was important, and held onto that New Testament. She had planted a seed in my life in the second grade that wouldn’t come to fruition until ten years later.

Leaving Islam

As a senior in high school, I used the Lord’s name in vain while playing basketball. A guy on the court walked up to me and said, “Hey, that Jesus whose name you just said — he’s my God.” As a Muslim, I’d been taught that Jesus was a prophet, so I thought the guy was nuts. A few days later, while watching TV, I stumbled onto a historical documentary on the life of Jesus, where I heard, “Some worship Jesus as God, and they’re called Christians.” My mind went back to the words of the guy on the basketball court, and the Lord reminded me of the Bible that I’d received ten years earlier. That afternoon, I found that small New Testament at the bottom of my closet and began to read in Matthew.

Every day, I’d read under the covers in my bed with a flashlight so that my parents wouldn’t walk in and see what I was doing. Meanwhile, at my high school, a Christian student sat across the table from me at lunch and told me about Jesus. I’d debate against him each day, and then at night I’d go home to read more about his Jesus.

One day, I got to the book of Romans, and the third chapter completely changed my life. I read about a righteousness that comes apart from the law, apart from what I do for God. I read that this righteousness comes as a gift to be received by faith. I was struck by (Rom. 3:22), which says that this righteousness comes to all who believe. I thought I was born a Muslim and would always be a Muslim, but that verse said that this righteousness was for anyone who believes, of any ethnicity. A couple weeks later, a guy invited me to an evangelistic crusade (always an interesting word for a Muslim!), where I heard the gospel proclaimed and came to faith in Christ.

As an aside: I’m often asked what form of evangelism I believe to be most effective. God used evangelism in a variety of forms in my life. He used a teacher loving and tutoring a kid, a guy sharing one-on-one in a cafeteria, a guy speaking up for the name of Christ on a basketball court, an invitation to an evangelistic event, and the preaching of the gospel in a corporate setting. I believe in each of these forms of evangelism because God used each one of them in my own life.

Disowned

I made my commitment to Christ public at that evangelistic crusade, but driving home from the event is when it hit me: “What am I going to tell my family? What am I going to tell my father?” My father had always been the most important person in my life, the guy I’d always looked up to. I’m ashamed to say that I decided to hide my newfound faith from him and the rest of my family. I would sneak out to go to church, intercept mail from the church I was attending, and hide my Bible.

Finally, one day my dad found out. He’d seen my Bible, and he’d also seen other evidences in my life. He sat me down and said, “Son, what’s going on? There’s something different about you.” I said, “Dad, I’m a Christian.” He said, “No, you’re not, young man. you’re a Muslim and you’ll always be a Muslim.” I said, “Dad, the Bible says that if I trust in Christ alone for my salvation, then I’m a Christian — and I do.” My dad said, “Afshin, if you’re going to be a Christian, then you can no longer be my son.”

Everything in my flesh wanted to say, “Forget it. I’ll be a Muslim.” I didn’t want to lose the relationship with my dad. So even I was surprised when I opened my mouth and said, “Dad, if I have to choose between you and Jesus, then I choose Jesus. And if I have to choose between my earthly father and my heavenly Father, then I choose my heavenly Father.” My father disowned me on the spot.

Not Peace, but a Sword

I went upstairs to my room, and in the defining moment of my life, said, “God, how could you do this to me? Jesus, if you’re real, how could you take my dad away from me?” The Lord led me to where Jesus says,

“Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father.” (Matt. 10:32-35)

I read this just moments after my dad disowned me, and thought, Whoa! This just happened for me! Jesus goes on to say,

“I have come to set . . . a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:35-39)

That’s when I first understood what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Life Lost and Found

I had to lose my father to follow Christ. But I learned firsthand that when you lose your life, you find it. God gave me a roommate in college who was also a former Muslim and was also disowned by his father. After college, God led me to seminary. He provided a businessman in Dallas who paid for my entire seminary degree and a church internship, which eventually led to a position as a college pastor. God gave me a fifteen-year speaking ministry where I traveled all over the United States, preached the gospel, and saw Muslims come to faith in Christ.

I have partnered with a ministry that reaches into Iran with the gospel, and have had the privilege of training and equipping Iranian pastors, helping to spread the gospel in the same nation from which my family came. I now pastor a church in Frisco, Texas, where I get to weekly remind our people to count the cost of following Christ. As a result, we have grown, planted three churches, and sent out several missionaries around the world. Finally, I am thrilled to say that my relationship with my dad has been restored, and I continue to pray for his salvation daily.

What Has Jesus Cost You?

I’m passionate for people to know that there’s a cost to following Jesus. What is it costing you to follow him? It might be that the thing you’re holding onto is the thing that’s keeping you from living for his glory. For me, it was my dad. For you, it might be something else.

There is a huge difference between being a follower of Christ and merely giving mental assent to the truths about Jesus. The call of Christ isn’t simply “Believe the right things about me” but “Follow me.” And following Jesus is defined by losing your life. It is laying down your dreams, your pursuits, your idols to grab ahold of the greatest treasure in life: Jesus. When we lose our lives, God will leverage our lives for his glory and for others to know Jesus. There is no greater joy and fulfillment in life than this.

]]>
Afshin Ziafat
Lead Pastor, Providence Church
Frisco, TX

January 7, 2019

[I first met Afshin Ziafat a few years ago at a gathering of the Council of the Gospel Coalition. He has become a good friend. When he shared with me his testimony of coming to faith in Jesus and what it cost him, I was astounded, and grateful to God for his amazing grace. On January 7, Afshin described his story in an article first posted at the Desiring God website. Take some time and read it closely. You will be blessed!]

When I left Islam to follow Jesus, I didn’t know what it would cost me. I hadn’t realized what it would take to deny myself, lay my life down, and take up my cross (Matt. 16:24). I wasn’t aware that even the precious relationships of my family should not come between me and following Christ — that I should even hate my family compared to my love for Jesus (Luke 14:26).

But God taught me that if I do take up my cross and lay down my life, then I’ll find my life. Over time, I have come to experience this truth. My life of following Jesus has not been the life I envisioned for myself, but it has become the life I want: a life used for the glory of God as I grow in the knowledge of Christ and make him known to others. That’s what I discovered when I was forced to choose between Jesus and my father.

From Iran to Texas

I was born in Houston and grew up in a devout Muslim home. My dad was very involved in the Iranian Muslim community. Growing up, I was taught the five pillars of Islam and that if I did them to the best of my ability, then maybe I’d get to heaven. When I was two years old, my family moved to Iran, where my parents are from. But at age six, the Islamic Revolution of the late ’70s hit that country. My father, who was a doctor, had the means to get us out of the country, so our family moved back to Houston.

I spoke Farsi, not English, and so God, in his incredible plan, provided a Christian lady who tutored me, teaching me the English language every day by reading books to me. In the second grade, she said to me, “Afshin, I want to give you the most important book that you’ll ever read in life.” As she handed me a small New Testament, she told me that I would not completely understand it now, but asked me to promise to hold onto it until I was older.

She gave me that Bible during the Iran hostage crisis, a time during which my family and other Iranians in America were ostracized and hated by many. This lady, however, earned the right to be heard by the way that she loved me, showed me the love of Christ, and poured her life into me. Because the Bible came from her, I believed it was important, and held onto that New Testament. She had planted a seed in my life in the second grade that wouldn’t come to fruition until ten years later.

Leaving Islam

As a senior in high school, I used the Lord’s name in vain while playing basketball. A guy on the court walked up to me and said, “Hey, that Jesus whose name you just said — he’s my God.” As a Muslim, I’d been taught that Jesus was a prophet, so I thought the guy was nuts. A few days later, while watching TV, I stumbled onto a historical documentary on the life of Jesus, where I heard, “Some worship Jesus as God, and they’re called Christians.” My mind went back to the words of the guy on the basketball court, and the Lord reminded me of the Bible that I’d received ten years earlier. That afternoon, I found that small New Testament at the bottom of my closet and began to read in Matthew.

Every day, I’d read under the covers in my bed with a flashlight so that my parents wouldn’t walk in and see what I was doing. Meanwhile, at my high school, a Christian student sat across the table from me at lunch and told me about Jesus. I’d debate against him each day, and then at night I’d go home to read more about his Jesus.

One day, I got to the book of Romans, and the third chapter completely changed my life. I read about a righteousness that comes apart from the law, apart from what I do for God. I read that this righteousness comes as a gift to be received by faith. I was struck by (Rom. 3:22), which says that this righteousness comes to all who believe. I thought I was born a Muslim and would always be a Muslim, but that verse said that this righteousness was for anyone who believes, of any ethnicity. A couple weeks later, a guy invited me to an evangelistic crusade (always an interesting word for a Muslim!), where I heard the gospel proclaimed and came to faith in Christ.

As an aside: I’m often asked what form of evangelism I believe to be most effective. God used evangelism in a variety of forms in my life. He used a teacher loving and tutoring a kid, a guy sharing one-on-one in a cafeteria, a guy speaking up for the name of Christ on a basketball court, an invitation to an evangelistic event, and the preaching of the gospel in a corporate setting. I believe in each of these forms of evangelism because God used each one of them in my own life.

Disowned

I made my commitment to Christ public at that evangelistic crusade, but driving home from the event is when it hit me: “What am I going to tell my family? What am I going to tell my father?” My father had always been the most important person in my life, the guy I’d always looked up to. I’m ashamed to say that I decided to hide my newfound faith from him and the rest of my family. I would sneak out to go to church, intercept mail from the church I was attending, and hide my Bible.

Finally, one day my dad found out. He’d seen my Bible, and he’d also seen other evidences in my life. He sat me down and said, “Son, what’s going on? There’s something different about you.” I said, “Dad, I’m a Christian.” He said, “No, you’re not, young man. you’re a Muslim and you’ll always be a Muslim.” I said, “Dad, the Bible says that if I trust in Christ alone for my salvation, then I’m a Christian — and I do.” My dad said, “Afshin, if you’re going to be a Christian, then you can no longer be my son.”

Everything in my flesh wanted to say, “Forget it. I’ll be a Muslim.” I didn’t want to lose the relationship with my dad. So even I was surprised when I opened my mouth and said, “Dad, if I have to choose between you and Jesus, then I choose Jesus. And if I have to choose between my earthly father and my heavenly Father, then I choose my heavenly Father.” My father disowned me on the spot.

Not Peace, but a Sword

I went upstairs to my room, and in the defining moment of my life, said, “God, how could you do this to me? Jesus, if you’re real, how could you take my dad away from me?” The Lord led me to where Jesus says,

“Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father.” (Matt. 10:32-35)

I read this just moments after my dad disowned me, and thought, Whoa! This just happened for me! Jesus goes on to say,

“I have come to set . . . a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:35-39)

That’s when I first understood what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Life Lost and Found

I had to lose my father to follow Christ. But I learned firsthand that when you lose your life, you find it. God gave me a roommate in college who was also a former Muslim and was also disowned by his father. After college, God led me to seminary. He provided a businessman in Dallas who paid for my entire seminary degree and a church internship, which eventually led to a position as a college pastor. God gave me a fifteen-year speaking ministry where I traveled all over the United States, preached the gospel, and saw Muslims come to faith in Christ.

I have partnered with a ministry that reaches into Iran with the gospel, and have had the privilege of training and equipping Iranian pastors, helping to spread the gospel in the same nation from which my family came. I now pastor a church in Frisco, Texas, where I get to weekly remind our people to count the cost of following Christ. As a result, we have grown, planted three churches, and sent out several missionaries around the world. Finally, I am thrilled to say that my relationship with my dad has been restored, and I continue to pray for his salvation daily.

What Has Jesus Cost You?

I’m passionate for people to know that there’s a cost to following Jesus. What is it costing you to follow him? It might be that the thing you’re holding onto is the thing that’s keeping you from living for his glory. For me, it was my dad. For you, it might be something else.

There is a huge difference between being a follower of Christ and merely giving mental assent to the truths about Jesus. The call of Christ isn’t simply “Believe the right things about me” but “Follow me.” And following Jesus is defined by losing your life. It is laying down your dreams, your pursuits, your idols to grab ahold of the greatest treasure in life: Jesus. When we lose our lives, God will leverage our lives for his glory and for others to know Jesus. There is no greater joy and fulfillment in life than this.

]]>
Can you experience the love of God alone? Thoughts on Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:14-19 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/can-you-experience-the-love-of-god-alone-thoughts-on-paul-s-prayer-in-ephesians-314-19 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/can-you-experience-the-love-of-god-alone-thoughts-on-paul-s-prayer-in-ephesians-314-19#comments Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/can-you-experience-the-love-of-god-alone-thoughts-on-paul-s-prayer-in-ephesians-314-19 The immediate answer to the question posed in my title is, Yes, of course. Each individual Christian has the immeasurable privilege and joy of knowing and enjoying the love God has for them in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 2:20). But there is a dimension to this experience that God intends for us to enjoy only in the context of relationship with others in the body of Christ. Why do I say this? I say it because of two things Paul said in his prayer in Ephesians 3:14-19. You know it well, but here it is again:

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19).

Many make the mistake of thinking that they can experience what Paul prays for here without the presence or aid or encouragement of other Christians. They think this is a purely individual engagement with the Holy Spirit. But Paul says that this indwelling influence of Christ is in some way related to being “rooted and grounded in love.” Here Paul employs a double metaphor: one from agriculture and one from architecture. Love is both the soil in which believers are to be rooted and grow and the foundation on which they are to be built up spiritually.

Note where Paul says that a condition for experiencing the fullness of Christ’s indwelling presence is having been rooted and grounded in love. But whose love? (1) Is it God’s love for us in Christ? That would mean: you are rooted and grounded in God’s love for you so that you can know God’s love for you. That doesn’t sound right. (2) Is it our love for God? No, for how can that enable us to know his love for us? (3) Is it our love for one another? Yes (see 1 John 4:7-12). Paul has in view a communal experience. It is only together with other believers that we fully enter into the experience of knowing and feeling God’s love for us in Jesus!

But it doesn’t stop there. Paul prays that we “may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” For all its glory and the great heights from which it came, such love can only be experienced together “with all the saints”! Our experience of Christ’s love is personal, but never private. It is meant to be felt and proclaimed and enjoyed in the context of the body of Christ. It is a personal, yet shared, experience. This is not contemplation of God’s love while sitting alone on a sunlit hillside. It is an experience that comes from belonging to a community of believers where each child of God can encourage every other Christian with the truth of God’s passionate affection for us.

]]>
The immediate answer to the question posed in my title is, Yes, of course. Each individual Christian has the immeasurable privilege and joy of knowing and enjoying the love God has for them in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 2:20). But there is a dimension to this experience that God intends for us to enjoy only in the context of relationship with others in the body of Christ. Why do I say this? I say it because of two things Paul said in his prayer in Ephesians 3:14-19. You know it well, but here it is again:

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19).

Many make the mistake of thinking that they can experience what Paul prays for here without the presence or aid or encouragement of other Christians. They think this is a purely individual engagement with the Holy Spirit. But Paul says that this indwelling influence of Christ is in some way related to being “rooted and grounded in love.” Here Paul employs a double metaphor: one from agriculture and one from architecture. Love is both the soil in which believers are to be rooted and grow and the foundation on which they are to be built up spiritually.

Note where Paul says that a condition for experiencing the fullness of Christ’s indwelling presence is having been rooted and grounded in love. But whose love? (1) Is it God’s love for us in Christ? That would mean: you are rooted and grounded in God’s love for you so that you can know God’s love for you. That doesn’t sound right. (2) Is it our love for God? No, for how can that enable us to know his love for us? (3) Is it our love for one another? Yes (see 1 John 4:7-12). Paul has in view a communal experience. It is only together with other believers that we fully enter into the experience of knowing and feeling God’s love for us in Jesus!

But it doesn’t stop there. Paul prays that we “may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” For all its glory and the great heights from which it came, such love can only be experienced together “with all the saints”! Our experience of Christ’s love is personal, but never private. It is meant to be felt and proclaimed and enjoyed in the context of the body of Christ. It is a personal, yet shared, experience. This is not contemplation of God’s love while sitting alone on a sunlit hillside. It is an experience that comes from belonging to a community of believers where each child of God can encourage every other Christian with the truth of God’s passionate affection for us.

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about Common Grace https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-common-grace https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-common-grace#comments Tue, 29 Sep 2020 07:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-common-grace We should acknowledge from the outset that the adjective “common” does not appear in the Bible as a modifier of the noun “grace.” But we are justified in making use of it in view of how God’s dealings with non-Christian people are portrayed for us in Scripture. Our task will be to determine in what sense, if any at all, the grace of God is given to or is operative in the lives of those who persist throughout life in unbelief and rebellion against God.

(1) The biblical portrait of humanity’s condition apart from God’s saving grace is beyond bleak; it is hopeless. The apostle Paul writes:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10-12).

This is the truth of total depravity. The latter term does not mean that every person is as bad as he/she could possibly be. It simply means that moral depravity and willful spiritual darkness pervades and touches the totality of their being: mind, heart, soul, spirit, body, affections, and will. Some who misunderstand what is meant by “total depravity” find it difficult to embrace for the simple reason that it conflicts with what they see in the world and what they experience in their relationships with other people. There are quite a few extremely evil people in society. However, most of us have close friends and relatives who are not Christians but who are, what we would feel justified in calling, “good” people. They are honest, civil, generous, loving, and show little if any sign of being “totally depraved.” We enjoy their presence and would vouch for their character.

(2) The truth of God’s common grace is driven home when we ask how it is that people who lie under the wrath of God experience so many good gifts at the hand of God. How do we account for the extraordinary gifts, talents, and accomplishments of those who are unregenerate? How is it that so many unbelievers contribute so much to human flourishing, cultural advancement, and scientific discovery?

(3) All mankind are the recipients of the outpouring of God’s common grace, but not all experience it in the same degree or in the same manner. Our use of the term “common,” as Gregg Allison points out, “does not mean ‘in the same measure for all’ but ‘universal,’ extended to everyone. Neither does it mean ‘mundane,’ though common grace is often taken for granted and detached from its source, who is God. It is anything but dull and ordinary, as seen in bountiful fields, medical advancements, artistic genius, loving families, global initiatives against human trafficking, and much more” (50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith, 206).

Consider, for example, the common grace of God as seen in Genesis 39:5 where God is said to have “blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” At Lystra, Paul declares that God “did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Jesus himself said that God “makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). The Father is described as being “kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35; see Luke 16:25).

(4) How, then, should we define “common grace”? Abraham Kuyper defines common grace as

“that act of God by which negatively He curbs the operations of Satan, death, and sin, and by which positively He creates an intermediate state for this cosmos, as well as for our human race, which is and continues to be deeply and radically sinful, but in which sin cannot work out its end” (Principles of Sacred Theology, 279).

John Murray defines common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God” (“Common Grace,” in Collected Writings, II:96).”

(5) The goodness of God as seen in common grace is first found in the way it exerts a restraining influence on the expression of human depravity or sin. This preventative operation of God’s goodness is not comprehensive, or no sin at all would ever exist. Neither is it uniform, for if it were all men and women would be equally evil or equally good. What we mean, then, is that the manifestation and effects of man’s moral depravity is not permitted to reach the maximum of which it is capable. The simple empirical fact is that if this were not the case, life on earth would be virtually impossible. John Murray explains:

“God places restraint upon the workings of human depravity and thus prevents the unholy affections and principles of men from manifesting all the potentialities inherent in them. He prevents depravity from bursting forth in all its vehemence and violence” (II:980.

For this, see Genesis 4:15; 2 Thess. 2:7. God told Abimelech, king of Gerar, that “it was I who kept you from sinning” when the king considered having sexual relations with Sarah, Abraham’s wife (Gen. 20:6; see also 2 Kings 19:27-28). That God inhibits their sin is an expression of mercy to those who deserve judgment. It is called “common” because it is universal. Both saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate, are the recipients of this divine favor. It is not restricted to any one group of people and it does not necessarily lead to salvation.

(6) Another expression of common grace is God’s merciful determination to suspend the immediate manifestation of his wrath and judgment warranted by human sin. “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4; see also Gen. 6:3; Acts 17:30; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:9).”

(7) In goodness and as an expression of his kindness toward the material creation, God also holds in check the destructive tendencies that are part of the curse of sin upon nature. John Murray elaborates:

“Sin introduces disintegration and disorganization in every realm. While it is true that only in the sphere of rationality does sin have meaning – it originates in mind, it develops in mind, it resides in mind – yet sin works out disastrous effects outside the sphere of the rational and moral as well as within it. God places restraint upon these effects, he prevents the full development of this disintegration. He brings to bear upon this world in all its spheres correcting and preserving influences so that the ravages of sin might not be allowed to work out the full measure of their destructive power" (II:101).

On this, see Romans 8:19-21; 2 Peter 3:11-13. Thus, one explanation for why this sin-cursed earth is not instantly destroyed is God’s common grace in restraining, until the appointed time, his final and inevitable judgment.

(8) Another aspect of common grace is more positive in thrust. God not only restrains the sinful operations and effects of the human heart, he also bestows upon both nature and humanity manifold blessings both physical and spiritual. These blessings, however, fall short of redemption itself. We read in several places where the grace of God results in blessings on the material world. See Psalms 65:9-13; 104:10-30; 145:1-16; 136:25.

(9) John Murray is again helpful in bringing our attention to the way in which God endows men and women with gifts, talents, and opportunities they don’t deserve. He grants them,

“gifts, talents, and aptitudes; he stimulates them with interest and purpose to the practice of virtues, the pursuance of worthy tasks, and the cultivation of arts and sciences that occupy the time, activity and energy of men and that make for the benefit and civilization of the human race. He ordains institutions for the protection and promotion of right, the preservation of liberty, the advance of knowledge and the improvement of physical and moral conditions. We may regard these interests, pursuits and institutions as exercising both an expulsive and impulsive influence. Occupying the energy, activity and time of men they prevent the indulgence of less noble and ignoble pursuits and they exercise an ameliorating, moralizing, stabilizing and civilizing influence upon the social organism” (II:102-03).

We read about this expression of common grace in Genesis 39:5; Acts 14:16-17; Matthew 5:44-45; Luke 6:35-36; 16:25. This is why we may speak of people who are totally depraved doing deeds and supplying services that are deemed “good” (see 2 Kings 10:30; 12:2; Matt. 5:46; Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14-15). However, Murray reminds us that “the good attributed to unregenerate men is after all only relative good. It is not good in the sense of meeting in motivation, principle and aim the requirements of God's law and the demands of his holiness” (II:107). Therefore, such deeds cannot in any way commend them to the righteous standards and demands of the Father. We must never lose sight of the fact that all such operations of “grace” (so-called because undeserved) are non-saving, being neither in design nor effect such as would produce new life in Christ.

(10) Gregg Allison (50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith) points out that “the human conscience is another area of common grace. God has hardwired every human being with an innate sense of ethical duty. This moral arbiter enables people to know the basic principles of right and wrong and to distinguish what is right and wrong in different situations. . . . This common grace is manifested when people do what is good and avoid what is evil, promote a culture of life, and fight against social injustice” (205). It is entirely possible, but far from certain, that the apparent exercise of supernatural power by the unregenerate is the fruit of God’s common grace. On this see Matthew 7:21-23; 12:27; 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; and possibly Acts 2:6, if the miracle at Pentecost was one of hearing and not one of speaking (which is, in my opinion, highly unlikely).

 

]]>
We should acknowledge from the outset that the adjective “common” does not appear in the Bible as a modifier of the noun “grace.” But we are justified in making use of it in view of how God’s dealings with non-Christian people are portrayed for us in Scripture. Our task will be to determine in what sense, if any at all, the grace of God is given to or is operative in the lives of those who persist throughout life in unbelief and rebellion against God.

(1) The biblical portrait of humanity’s condition apart from God’s saving grace is beyond bleak; it is hopeless. The apostle Paul writes:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10-12).

This is the truth of total depravity. The latter term does not mean that every person is as bad as he/she could possibly be. It simply means that moral depravity and willful spiritual darkness pervades and touches the totality of their being: mind, heart, soul, spirit, body, affections, and will. Some who misunderstand what is meant by “total depravity” find it difficult to embrace for the simple reason that it conflicts with what they see in the world and what they experience in their relationships with other people. There are quite a few extremely evil people in society. However, most of us have close friends and relatives who are not Christians but who are, what we would feel justified in calling, “good” people. They are honest, civil, generous, loving, and show little if any sign of being “totally depraved.” We enjoy their presence and would vouch for their character.

(2) The truth of God’s common grace is driven home when we ask how it is that people who lie under the wrath of God experience so many good gifts at the hand of God. How do we account for the extraordinary gifts, talents, and accomplishments of those who are unregenerate? How is it that so many unbelievers contribute so much to human flourishing, cultural advancement, and scientific discovery?

(3) All mankind are the recipients of the outpouring of God’s common grace, but not all experience it in the same degree or in the same manner. Our use of the term “common,” as Gregg Allison points out, “does not mean ‘in the same measure for all’ but ‘universal,’ extended to everyone. Neither does it mean ‘mundane,’ though common grace is often taken for granted and detached from its source, who is God. It is anything but dull and ordinary, as seen in bountiful fields, medical advancements, artistic genius, loving families, global initiatives against human trafficking, and much more” (50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith, 206).

Consider, for example, the common grace of God as seen in Genesis 39:5 where God is said to have “blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” At Lystra, Paul declares that God “did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Jesus himself said that God “makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). The Father is described as being “kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35; see Luke 16:25).

(4) How, then, should we define “common grace”? Abraham Kuyper defines common grace as

“that act of God by which negatively He curbs the operations of Satan, death, and sin, and by which positively He creates an intermediate state for this cosmos, as well as for our human race, which is and continues to be deeply and radically sinful, but in which sin cannot work out its end” (Principles of Sacred Theology, 279).

John Murray defines common grace as “every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God” (“Common Grace,” in Collected Writings, II:96).”

(5) The goodness of God as seen in common grace is first found in the way it exerts a restraining influence on the expression of human depravity or sin. This preventative operation of God’s goodness is not comprehensive, or no sin at all would ever exist. Neither is it uniform, for if it were all men and women would be equally evil or equally good. What we mean, then, is that the manifestation and effects of man’s moral depravity is not permitted to reach the maximum of which it is capable. The simple empirical fact is that if this were not the case, life on earth would be virtually impossible. John Murray explains:

“God places restraint upon the workings of human depravity and thus prevents the unholy affections and principles of men from manifesting all the potentialities inherent in them. He prevents depravity from bursting forth in all its vehemence and violence” (II:980.

For this, see Genesis 4:15; 2 Thess. 2:7. God told Abimelech, king of Gerar, that “it was I who kept you from sinning” when the king considered having sexual relations with Sarah, Abraham’s wife (Gen. 20:6; see also 2 Kings 19:27-28). That God inhibits their sin is an expression of mercy to those who deserve judgment. It is called “common” because it is universal. Both saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate, are the recipients of this divine favor. It is not restricted to any one group of people and it does not necessarily lead to salvation.

(6) Another expression of common grace is God’s merciful determination to suspend the immediate manifestation of his wrath and judgment warranted by human sin. “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4; see also Gen. 6:3; Acts 17:30; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:9).”

(7) In goodness and as an expression of his kindness toward the material creation, God also holds in check the destructive tendencies that are part of the curse of sin upon nature. John Murray elaborates:

“Sin introduces disintegration and disorganization in every realm. While it is true that only in the sphere of rationality does sin have meaning – it originates in mind, it develops in mind, it resides in mind – yet sin works out disastrous effects outside the sphere of the rational and moral as well as within it. God places restraint upon these effects, he prevents the full development of this disintegration. He brings to bear upon this world in all its spheres correcting and preserving influences so that the ravages of sin might not be allowed to work out the full measure of their destructive power" (II:101).

On this, see Romans 8:19-21; 2 Peter 3:11-13. Thus, one explanation for why this sin-cursed earth is not instantly destroyed is God’s common grace in restraining, until the appointed time, his final and inevitable judgment.

(8) Another aspect of common grace is more positive in thrust. God not only restrains the sinful operations and effects of the human heart, he also bestows upon both nature and humanity manifold blessings both physical and spiritual. These blessings, however, fall short of redemption itself. We read in several places where the grace of God results in blessings on the material world. See Psalms 65:9-13; 104:10-30; 145:1-16; 136:25.

(9) John Murray is again helpful in bringing our attention to the way in which God endows men and women with gifts, talents, and opportunities they don’t deserve. He grants them,

“gifts, talents, and aptitudes; he stimulates them with interest and purpose to the practice of virtues, the pursuance of worthy tasks, and the cultivation of arts and sciences that occupy the time, activity and energy of men and that make for the benefit and civilization of the human race. He ordains institutions for the protection and promotion of right, the preservation of liberty, the advance of knowledge and the improvement of physical and moral conditions. We may regard these interests, pursuits and institutions as exercising both an expulsive and impulsive influence. Occupying the energy, activity and time of men they prevent the indulgence of less noble and ignoble pursuits and they exercise an ameliorating, moralizing, stabilizing and civilizing influence upon the social organism” (II:102-03).

We read about this expression of common grace in Genesis 39:5; Acts 14:16-17; Matthew 5:44-45; Luke 6:35-36; 16:25. This is why we may speak of people who are totally depraved doing deeds and supplying services that are deemed “good” (see 2 Kings 10:30; 12:2; Matt. 5:46; Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14-15). However, Murray reminds us that “the good attributed to unregenerate men is after all only relative good. It is not good in the sense of meeting in motivation, principle and aim the requirements of God's law and the demands of his holiness” (II:107). Therefore, such deeds cannot in any way commend them to the righteous standards and demands of the Father. We must never lose sight of the fact that all such operations of “grace” (so-called because undeserved) are non-saving, being neither in design nor effect such as would produce new life in Christ.

(10) Gregg Allison (50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith) points out that “the human conscience is another area of common grace. God has hardwired every human being with an innate sense of ethical duty. This moral arbiter enables people to know the basic principles of right and wrong and to distinguish what is right and wrong in different situations. . . . This common grace is manifested when people do what is good and avoid what is evil, promote a culture of life, and fight against social injustice” (205). It is entirely possible, but far from certain, that the apparent exercise of supernatural power by the unregenerate is the fruit of God’s common grace. On this see Matthew 7:21-23; 12:27; 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; and possibly Acts 2:6, if the miracle at Pentecost was one of hearing and not one of speaking (which is, in my opinion, highly unlikely).

 

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about Shame and Guilt https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt#comments Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-shame-and-guilt Shame and guilt are often confused in people’s thinking. What are they, and how do they differ? More important still, how might we be set free from the debilitating effects of shame? Here are ten things to keep in mind.

(1) Shame is the painful emotion that is caused by a consciousness of guilt, failure, or impropriety, that often results in the paralyzing conviction/belief that one is worthless, of no value to others or to God, unacceptable, and altogether deserving of disdain and rejection. As you can see, shame and guilt are not the same thing.

Guilt is the objective reality of being liable to punishment because of something we’ve done. Shame is the subjective feeling of being worthless because of who we are. As someone said, it’s the difference between making a mistake and being a mistake. Feeling guilt when we sin is a good and godly and healthy response. So we run to God and seek his forgiveness. But feeling shame when we sin is a bad and destructive response that compels us to run from him for fear of his disdain and contempt.

(2) Shame can lead to a variety of emotions and actions. It leads to feelings of being not just unqualified but disqualified from anything meaningful or of having a significant role in the body of Christ.

People enslaved to shame are constantly apologizing to others for who they are. They feel small, flawed, never good enough. They live under the crippling fear of never measuring up, of never pleasing those whose love and respect they desire. This often results in efforts to work harder to compensate for feeling less than everyone else.

(3) Shame has innumerable effects on the human soul. Those in shame have a tendency to hide; to create walls of protection behind which they hunker down and hope no one will see the true you. They are terrified that their true self will be seen and known and rejected by others. So they put on a false face, they adopt a personality or certain traits that they think others will find acceptable. They are convinced that if someone were to see them for who they really are, they’d be repulsed and disappointed. So they are led to be less than their true self. They deliberately stifle whatever strengths they have. They say to themselves: “Whatever I do, don’t be vulnerable. It’s dangerous.”

(4) We must be careful to differentiate between justifiable, deserved, and well-placed shame, on the one hand, and illegitimate, undeserved, and misplaced shame, on the other.

When our actions, attitudes, or words bring dishonor to God we justifiably and deservedly should feel ashamed. There are other actions, attitudes, or words for which we should not feel ashamed, even though they may expose us to ridicule, public exposure, and embarrassment.

Misplaced or unjustifiable shame is often mentioned in Scripture. Here are four examples.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

We should feel boldness and courage in proclaiming the gospel. If people mock us and mistreat us because of our vocal and visible declaration of the gospel, we should not feel any shame. After all, the gospel is the power of God to save human souls. The non-Christian world may think we are weak and silly, but the gospel is powerful and true.

“Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8).

If you feel shame when the gospel is made known or when you are identified and linked with someone who is suffering for having made it known, you are experiencing misplaced or unjustifiable shame. Christ is honored and praised when we boldly speak of him and willingly suffer for him.

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Pet. 4:16).

Being maligned and mistreated solely because of your commitment to Christ is no cause for shame. In fact, it serves to glorify God. Thus, shame is not determined based on how we are regarded in the minds of people but rather based on whether or not our actions bring honor and glory to God.

“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor [shame] for the name” (Acts 5:41).

To be arrested and stripped and beaten and exposed to public ridicule is a shameful experience. But the apostles did not retaliate. The willingly embraced the feeling of shame because it ultimately honored God.

(5) Often the Bible speaks of behaviors or beliefs that ought to induce shame in a person’s heart.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

In other words, when we refuse to obey the exhortation of Jesus to be humble and meek because we fear that people will laugh at us for it, we should feel ashamed. When we fail to strive to live a life free of sexual immorality and the world congratulates us for not yielding to an “outdated” view on morality, we should feel shame.

“I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:5-6).

“Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1 Cor. 15:34).

In both cases their behavior is bringing disrepute on God. They have dishonored him and thus should justifiably feel shame. Two other texts that speak of well-placed shame are:

“But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed?” (Rom. 6:21).

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

(6) We wage war against the lies that bring shame by fighting for faith in the forgiveness of God. In other words, belief in the truth of the gospel is the power to overcome shame.

The prostitute who anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and wet them with her tears had much of which to be ashamed. She was a “sinner” and an outcast. But Jesus pronounced that her sins were forgiven and told her to “go in peace” (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus overcame her shame by promising that her sins were forgiven and that she could now live “in peace.” She could have chosen to believe the condemnation and judgment of the other guests, and remain mired in shame. Or she could choose to believe that Jesus had truly forgiven all her sins. The way to wage war against the unbelief that we are not truly forgiven is to trust the promise of Christ.

The solution to sin in our culture is to celebrate it, brag about it, join in a public parade to declare your pride in it. Thus, people tend to cope with the pain and weight of guilt by simply declaring that the behavior in question isn’t bad after all. It’s actually quite good and will contribute to my sense of identity and flourishing in life. As someone said, “By denying sin, they attempt to take away its sting.”

But the solution for shame isn’t celebration or denial but forgiveness. The message of Scripture is that you are probably far worse than even you can imagine, but that you are far more loved than you could ever possibly conceive. You can’t solve your struggle with shame. Only Jesus can. And God’s immeasurable and inconceivable love for you was demonstrated and put on display by his sending of his Son Jesus to endure the judgment you deserved.

Some of you think that the solution to your shame is to try harder, do more, obey with greater intensity. Sometimes you are tempted to create even more rules and commands than are found in the Bible and by legalistically abiding by them all you hope to suppress or diminish or perhaps even destroy your feelings of inadequacy and shame and worthlessness. No! The solution is found in only one place: the cross of Christ, where Jesus took your shame upon himself and endured the judgment of God that you and I deserved.

(7) We overcome the crippling power of shame when the Holy Spirit strengthens us to trust and experience the reality of God’s immeasurable love for us in Christ.

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:14-21).

The Holy Spirit is directly responsible for making possible our experience of feeling and rejoicing in the love God has for us in Christ.

(8) We break free from shame when the Holy Spirit awakens us to the glorious and majestic truth that we are truly the children of God.

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal. 4:4-7).

Notice that in both texts the experiential, felt assurance of our adoption as the children of God is the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

(9) We win in the war against shame when, by the power of the Spirit, we turn our hearts to the unbreakable promise of Christ that nothing can separate us from his love.

“But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:12b-14).

Here we see that Paul overcomes the tendency to be ashamed by trusting the truth of God’s promise that he will guard him. It is “by the Holy Spirit” that we find the strength to guard the good deposit of the gospel. “The battle against misplaced shame,” says Piper, “is the battle against unbelief in the promises of God.” As Paul elsewhere says, “everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).

(10) When we are made to feel shame for something that we didn’t do, we conquer its power by entrusting our souls and eternal welfare to the truth and justice of God.

“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God” (1 Cor. 4:3-5).

In other words, explains Piper, “for all the evil and deceitful judgment and criticism that others may use to heap on us a shame that is not ours to bear, and for all the distress and spiritual warfare it brings, the promise stands sure that they will not succeed in the end. All the children of God will be vindicated. The truth will be known. And no one who banks his hope on the promises of God will be put to shame.”

 

]]>
Shame and guilt are often confused in people’s thinking. What are they, and how do they differ? More important still, how might we be set free from the debilitating effects of shame? Here are ten things to keep in mind.

(1) Shame is the painful emotion that is caused by a consciousness of guilt, failure, or impropriety, that often results in the paralyzing conviction/belief that one is worthless, of no value to others or to God, unacceptable, and altogether deserving of disdain and rejection. As you can see, shame and guilt are not the same thing.

Guilt is the objective reality of being liable to punishment because of something we’ve done. Shame is the subjective feeling of being worthless because of who we are. As someone said, it’s the difference between making a mistake and being a mistake. Feeling guilt when we sin is a good and godly and healthy response. So we run to God and seek his forgiveness. But feeling shame when we sin is a bad and destructive response that compels us to run from him for fear of his disdain and contempt.

(2) Shame can lead to a variety of emotions and actions. It leads to feelings of being not just unqualified but disqualified from anything meaningful or of having a significant role in the body of Christ.

People enslaved to shame are constantly apologizing to others for who they are. They feel small, flawed, never good enough. They live under the crippling fear of never measuring up, of never pleasing those whose love and respect they desire. This often results in efforts to work harder to compensate for feeling less than everyone else.

(3) Shame has innumerable effects on the human soul. Those in shame have a tendency to hide; to create walls of protection behind which they hunker down and hope no one will see the true you. They are terrified that their true self will be seen and known and rejected by others. So they put on a false face, they adopt a personality or certain traits that they think others will find acceptable. They are convinced that if someone were to see them for who they really are, they’d be repulsed and disappointed. So they are led to be less than their true self. They deliberately stifle whatever strengths they have. They say to themselves: “Whatever I do, don’t be vulnerable. It’s dangerous.”

(4) We must be careful to differentiate between justifiable, deserved, and well-placed shame, on the one hand, and illegitimate, undeserved, and misplaced shame, on the other.

When our actions, attitudes, or words bring dishonor to God we justifiably and deservedly should feel ashamed. There are other actions, attitudes, or words for which we should not feel ashamed, even though they may expose us to ridicule, public exposure, and embarrassment.

Misplaced or unjustifiable shame is often mentioned in Scripture. Here are four examples.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

We should feel boldness and courage in proclaiming the gospel. If people mock us and mistreat us because of our vocal and visible declaration of the gospel, we should not feel any shame. After all, the gospel is the power of God to save human souls. The non-Christian world may think we are weak and silly, but the gospel is powerful and true.

“Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God” (2 Tim. 1:8).

If you feel shame when the gospel is made known or when you are identified and linked with someone who is suffering for having made it known, you are experiencing misplaced or unjustifiable shame. Christ is honored and praised when we boldly speak of him and willingly suffer for him.

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Pet. 4:16).

Being maligned and mistreated solely because of your commitment to Christ is no cause for shame. In fact, it serves to glorify God. Thus, shame is not determined based on how we are regarded in the minds of people but rather based on whether or not our actions bring honor and glory to God.

“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor [shame] for the name” (Acts 5:41).

To be arrested and stripped and beaten and exposed to public ridicule is a shameful experience. But the apostles did not retaliate. The willingly embraced the feeling of shame because it ultimately honored God.

(5) Often the Bible speaks of behaviors or beliefs that ought to induce shame in a person’s heart.

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

In other words, when we refuse to obey the exhortation of Jesus to be humble and meek because we fear that people will laugh at us for it, we should feel ashamed. When we fail to strive to live a life free of sexual immorality and the world congratulates us for not yielding to an “outdated” view on morality, we should feel shame.

“I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?” (1 Cor. 6:5-6).

“Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1 Cor. 15:34).

In both cases their behavior is bringing disrepute on God. They have dishonored him and thus should justifiably feel shame. Two other texts that speak of well-placed shame are:

“But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed?” (Rom. 6:21).

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14).

(6) We wage war against the lies that bring shame by fighting for faith in the forgiveness of God. In other words, belief in the truth of the gospel is the power to overcome shame.

The prostitute who anointed the feet of Jesus with ointment and wet them with her tears had much of which to be ashamed. She was a “sinner” and an outcast. But Jesus pronounced that her sins were forgiven and told her to “go in peace” (Luke 7:36-50). Jesus overcame her shame by promising that her sins were forgiven and that she could now live “in peace.” She could have chosen to believe the condemnation and judgment of the other guests, and remain mired in shame. Or she could choose to believe that Jesus had truly forgiven all her sins. The way to wage war against the unbelief that we are not truly forgiven is to trust the promise of Christ.

The solution to sin in our culture is to celebrate it, brag about it, join in a public parade to declare your pride in it. Thus, people tend to cope with the pain and weight of guilt by simply declaring that the behavior in question isn’t bad after all. It’s actually quite good and will contribute to my sense of identity and flourishing in life. As someone said, “By denying sin, they attempt to take away its sting.”

But the solution for shame isn’t celebration or denial but forgiveness. The message of Scripture is that you are probably far worse than even you can imagine, but that you are far more loved than you could ever possibly conceive. You can’t solve your struggle with shame. Only Jesus can. And God’s immeasurable and inconceivable love for you was demonstrated and put on display by his sending of his Son Jesus to endure the judgment you deserved.

Some of you think that the solution to your shame is to try harder, do more, obey with greater intensity. Sometimes you are tempted to create even more rules and commands than are found in the Bible and by legalistically abiding by them all you hope to suppress or diminish or perhaps even destroy your feelings of inadequacy and shame and worthlessness. No! The solution is found in only one place: the cross of Christ, where Jesus took your shame upon himself and endured the judgment of God that you and I deserved.

(7) We overcome the crippling power of shame when the Holy Spirit strengthens us to trust and experience the reality of God’s immeasurable love for us in Christ.

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:14-21).

The Holy Spirit is directly responsible for making possible our experience of feeling and rejoicing in the love God has for us in Christ.

(8) We break free from shame when the Holy Spirit awakens us to the glorious and majestic truth that we are truly the children of God.

“For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15-16).

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal. 4:4-7).

Notice that in both texts the experiential, felt assurance of our adoption as the children of God is the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

(9) We win in the war against shame when, by the power of the Spirit, we turn our hearts to the unbreakable promise of Christ that nothing can separate us from his love.

“But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:12b-14).

Here we see that Paul overcomes the tendency to be ashamed by trusting the truth of God’s promise that he will guard him. It is “by the Holy Spirit” that we find the strength to guard the good deposit of the gospel. “The battle against misplaced shame,” says Piper, “is the battle against unbelief in the promises of God.” As Paul elsewhere says, “everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11).

(10) When we are made to feel shame for something that we didn’t do, we conquer its power by entrusting our souls and eternal welfare to the truth and justice of God.

“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God” (1 Cor. 4:3-5).

In other words, explains Piper, “for all the evil and deceitful judgment and criticism that others may use to heap on us a shame that is not ours to bear, and for all the distress and spiritual warfare it brings, the promise stands sure that they will not succeed in the end. All the children of God will be vindicated. The truth will be known. And no one who banks his hope on the promises of God will be put to shame.”

 

]]>
Lady Gaga, Christian Theologian https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/lady-gaga-christian-theologian https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/lady-gaga-christian-theologian#comments Sun, 23 Aug 2020 11:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/lady-gaga-christian-theologian [You may have read about Lady Gaga’s comments regarding Vice-President Mike Pence’s wife. If not, brace yourself. Michael Kruger has written a perceptive analysis of her absurd perspective. It was published on January 22 at Michael’s blog, https://www.michaeljkruger.com.]

Michael Kruger

By now, plenty has been written on the issue of Mike Pence’s wife teaching at a Christian school that supposedly “bans” (the preferred word of the major news outlets, but not really accurate) LGBTQ students.

For those on the cultural left, this is a monumental and stunning discovery. Indeed, we are told (ironically, by the Huffington Post) that the Huffington Post “broke” the story—implying that a remarkable scandal has been uncovered.

Thankfully, many have pointed out that this whole “scandal” is much ado about nothing. There are thousands of Christian schools around the country just like the one that Karen Pence teaches at. And they are all doing something rather unremarkable: they are merely teaching the historical Christian position about sexuality.

But what is remarkable about such public discussions, is that everyone suddenly becomes a Christian theologian. Even people who typically have no association with Christianity are quick to don the theologian’s hat and give a lecture on what Christians really believe.

Enter Lady Gaga, Christian theologian.

In a recent concert in Las Vegas, Gaga stopped the show to offer a rebuttal to Mike Pence’s defense of his wife. Here are her theological thoughts:

“You [Mike Pence] are wrong. . .You are the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian. I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome. So you can take all that disgrace Mr. Pence and you can look yourself in the mirror and you’ll find it right there.”

Since Gaga has jumped into the theological fray, let’s do a little analysis of her thinking. Does her theological worldview make sense? Does it fit together coherently? A few quick thoughts:

1. Lady Gaga believes in moral absolutes

Gaga says to Pence, “You are wrong.” Gaga is not merely saying she doesn’t personally prefer Pence’s behavior. Rather she is saying that it is really wrong. It is morally deficient, even to the degree that is worthy of public rebuke.

Now, that’s a big claim. One wonders, then, what standard of morality Gaga is using. How does she know certain behaviors are morally wrong? Certainly it couldn’t be the Christian faith that shows her this, because Christianity, for thousands of years, has been remarkably consistent on its view of sexuality.

So, we are left to presume that Lady Gaga’s moral standards come from herself. She creates her own morality. But if everyone can create their own morality, then why not Mike Pence?

2. Lady Gaga claims to be a Christian woman

After declaring Pence is the “worst representation of what it means to be a Christian” she then offers herself as (presumably) a better example: “I am a Christian woman.”

For someone who claims not to be judgmental, this is a harsh way to speak of another professing Christian (more on this below). But there are other issues. To make such a claim, Gaga must have a full-proof way to spot false believers like Pence. But, again, what is this mysterious way?

Presumably, she is making her judgment on Pence’s behavior. Fair enough. But, what if someone did the same back to Gaga? What if someone judged her on her behavior?

For instance, what if people judged Gaga’s profession on the basis of her language just 30 seconds earlier when she lambasts the “[expletive] President of the United States.” Is such language “Christian”?

3. Lady Gaga says everybody is welcome in true Christianity

The fundamental tenet of Gaga’s theology is “we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome.” Ok, fine. Then is Mike Pence welcome? Mike Pence is a person who surely counts under “everybody.” Will Gaga accept him and his views?

Based on the harsh language of Gaga, it is clear Pence and his views are not welcome. Indeed his view are condemned with a heavy-handed, moralistic superiority.

So, apparently Gaga is not living up to her own version of Christianity. Indeed, it turns out Gaga is as intolerant as those she is condemning.

In the end, Gaga’s theology doesn’t quite hold together. There’s a pious, moralistic feel about it, but it is neither consistent nor Christian.

But she is at least partially right.

She’s right that there are moral absolutes. It’s just that they are not created by us (how could they be since we are not absolute!). Instead, they reflect the character of God and are revealed in his Word.

She’s also right that in Christianity “everybody is welcome.” But, that doesn’t mean that God endorses every behavior. Instead it means that forgiveness is offered to everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

No matter what sins we’ve committed, no matter our ethnicity or gender, the good news about Jesus is genuinely for all people.

“The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

In this way, Christianity is truly inclusive.

 

]]>
[You may have read about Lady Gaga’s comments regarding Vice-President Mike Pence’s wife. If not, brace yourself. Michael Kruger has written a perceptive analysis of her absurd perspective. It was published on January 22 at Michael’s blog, https://www.michaeljkruger.com.]

Michael Kruger

By now, plenty has been written on the issue of Mike Pence’s wife teaching at a Christian school that supposedly “bans” (the preferred word of the major news outlets, but not really accurate) LGBTQ students.

For those on the cultural left, this is a monumental and stunning discovery. Indeed, we are told (ironically, by the Huffington Post) that the Huffington Post “broke” the story—implying that a remarkable scandal has been uncovered.

Thankfully, many have pointed out that this whole “scandal” is much ado about nothing. There are thousands of Christian schools around the country just like the one that Karen Pence teaches at. And they are all doing something rather unremarkable: they are merely teaching the historical Christian position about sexuality.

But what is remarkable about such public discussions, is that everyone suddenly becomes a Christian theologian. Even people who typically have no association with Christianity are quick to don the theologian’s hat and give a lecture on what Christians really believe.

Enter Lady Gaga, Christian theologian.

In a recent concert in Las Vegas, Gaga stopped the show to offer a rebuttal to Mike Pence’s defense of his wife. Here are her theological thoughts:

“You [Mike Pence] are wrong. . .You are the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian. I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome. So you can take all that disgrace Mr. Pence and you can look yourself in the mirror and you’ll find it right there.”

Since Gaga has jumped into the theological fray, let’s do a little analysis of her thinking. Does her theological worldview make sense? Does it fit together coherently? A few quick thoughts:

1. Lady Gaga believes in moral absolutes

Gaga says to Pence, “You are wrong.” Gaga is not merely saying she doesn’t personally prefer Pence’s behavior. Rather she is saying that it is really wrong. It is morally deficient, even to the degree that is worthy of public rebuke.

Now, that’s a big claim. One wonders, then, what standard of morality Gaga is using. How does she know certain behaviors are morally wrong? Certainly it couldn’t be the Christian faith that shows her this, because Christianity, for thousands of years, has been remarkably consistent on its view of sexuality.

So, we are left to presume that Lady Gaga’s moral standards come from herself. She creates her own morality. But if everyone can create their own morality, then why not Mike Pence?

2. Lady Gaga claims to be a Christian woman

After declaring Pence is the “worst representation of what it means to be a Christian” she then offers herself as (presumably) a better example: “I am a Christian woman.”

For someone who claims not to be judgmental, this is a harsh way to speak of another professing Christian (more on this below). But there are other issues. To make such a claim, Gaga must have a full-proof way to spot false believers like Pence. But, again, what is this mysterious way?

Presumably, she is making her judgment on Pence’s behavior. Fair enough. But, what if someone did the same back to Gaga? What if someone judged her on her behavior?

For instance, what if people judged Gaga’s profession on the basis of her language just 30 seconds earlier when she lambasts the “[expletive] President of the United States.” Is such language “Christian”?

3. Lady Gaga says everybody is welcome in true Christianity

The fundamental tenet of Gaga’s theology is “we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome.” Ok, fine. Then is Mike Pence welcome? Mike Pence is a person who surely counts under “everybody.” Will Gaga accept him and his views?

Based on the harsh language of Gaga, it is clear Pence and his views are not welcome. Indeed his view are condemned with a heavy-handed, moralistic superiority.

So, apparently Gaga is not living up to her own version of Christianity. Indeed, it turns out Gaga is as intolerant as those she is condemning.

In the end, Gaga’s theology doesn’t quite hold together. There’s a pious, moralistic feel about it, but it is neither consistent nor Christian.

But she is at least partially right.

She’s right that there are moral absolutes. It’s just that they are not created by us (how could they be since we are not absolute!). Instead, they reflect the character of God and are revealed in his Word.

She’s also right that in Christianity “everybody is welcome.” But, that doesn’t mean that God endorses every behavior. Instead it means that forgiveness is offered to everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

No matter what sins we’ve committed, no matter our ethnicity or gender, the good news about Jesus is genuinely for all people.

“The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

In this way, Christianity is truly inclusive.

 

]]>
Are You Open to Spiritual Gifts? Exposing the Least Biblical Position https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/are-you-open-to-spiritual-gifts-exposing-the-least-biblical-position https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/are-you-open-to-spiritual-gifts-exposing-the-least-biblical-position#comments Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/are-you-open-to-spiritual-gifts-exposing-the-least-biblical-position [This article by Andrew Wilson was first posted at the Desiring God website (www.desiringgod.ord] last week, on June 17.]

Andrew Wilson
Pastor, King's Church, London
January 17, 2019

It is a strange quirk of the contemporary church that arguably the most common way of handling the charismatic gifts, at least in the West, is the only one that simply cannot be defended from Scripture.

For now, I will leave aside the question of whether the distinction between “miraculous” and “other” gifts would have occurred to Paul. On a number of occasions, however, Paul tells his converts to pursue, use, or eagerly desire the so-called “miraculous” gifts, and prophecy in particular:

Earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor. 12:31)
Earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1)
Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:39)
Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith. (Rom. 12:6)
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:19-21)

Notice that Paul’s exhortation is not a one-off but a repeated instruction to his churches that they should use their gifts (including the “miraculous” ones) to serve one another as the body of Christ.

Three Possible Responses

The contemporary church responds to those instructions in one of three ways:

The Charismatic response is to take these imperatives at face value, and thus to pursue all the spiritual gifts of which Scripture speaks.

The Cessationist response is to argue that these imperatives do not apply to the post-apostolic church, and therefore we should not seek to observe them today. Charismatics believe the gifts are for today, and pursue them; cessationists believe they aren’t, and don’t. So far, so good.

The Cautious response, on the other hand, is to affirm that the charismatic gifts are for today, but that because they are so often misused or divisive, we should not especially pursue them. We should be “open” to God speaking prophetically, or healing through us, but we should not actively seek them (let alone “eagerly desire” them) in our churches or personal lives, because to do so might open us up to error, imbalance, or silliness. This, from my (admittedly limited and UK-based) experience, is the most commonly practiced position of the three in the Western church today. It is also by far the least defensible.

The Contradiction of Caution

Cessationism, though it is not my position, is a consistent position. If we believe that certain spiritual gifts — prophecy, languages, interpretation, and usually miracles and healings as well — died out with the apostles, then we should make that argument, and treat all claims to them with suspicion.

Continuationism is consistent, too. If we believe that such gifts have been given to equip, serve, strengthen, and encourage the church, we should delight in them and pursue them.

Open-But-Cautious Continuationism, however, is almost always neither one nor the other. It involves the strange affirmation that Paul told his converts to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and that his instructions still apply today, but that we are not especially going to follow them! This, for anyone with a high view of biblical authority, surely cannot be right. Paul’s exhortation in Romans, as we have already seen, is that “having gifts that differ, . . . let us use them” (Rom. 12:6).

It is important to recognize why. Spiritual gifts, for Paul, are a major way in which the body of Christ can express its unity and diversity. Each member brings a gift, and each member requires others to bring their gifts. This cultivates humility in the church, so that no one thinks more highly of himself than he ought (Rom. 12:3-8). Nobody can do without the rest of the body, or look down on the gifts that others have, for we have all been baptized in one Spirit into one body, and all have been given one Spirit to drink (1 Cor. 12:12-31).

Not only so, but the one who prophesies brings comfort, edification, encouragement, and strength to believers, and makes unbelievers aware that God is really present (1 Cor. 14:1-25). The gifts have been given to strengthen the church and challenge the world. To acknowledge that God has given a particular gift, while simultaneously deciding not to use it, bears more than a passing resemblance to one or two of Jesus’s gift-parables, and not in a good way.

How (Not) to Practice Spiritual Gifts

For those who are persuaded that the gifts continue, as I am, the question then becomes: How do we pursue these gifts without being distracted, dominated, or divided by them? The answer, without wanting to be flippant, is simply: by doing what Paul says, especially in 1 Corinthians 12–14. There are all sorts of constraints in there that will help us, whether as pastors or church members, to handle the gifts with wisdom, love, and an unwavering focus on Jesus. Boundaries are blessings. Guardrails are gifts.

We could state this negatively: If you want to put people off of spiritual gifts, practice them unbiblically. Put contemporary prophecy on a par with Scripture. Teach that tongues are the primary measurement of spirituality, and that they should be used in public meetings whether or not they are interpreted, preferably all at once. Emphasize the signs more than the Person they are pointing to, your spiritual experiences more than the love of your neighbor, and spiritual fireworks more than whether enquirers can understand what’s going on. Connect spiritual blessings to financial gifts wherever possible. Promise people that they will always be healed or see the miracle they need, if they have enough faith. Ensure that no tongue-speakers ever interpret their own language. Test nothing. Make it clear that healings and miracles validate a person’s interpretation of Scripture, so if you want to know whether someone is theologically correct, just look at whether they have the gift of healing. Build the church or ministry around a personality, with minimal accountability. If anyone challenges you on any of this, wave them away as carnal or legalistic or both.

Or we can work through what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, consider how to apply it in our context, and ask advice from those who have done it well. We can read widely, teach faithfully, and pray fervently. We can wait patiently, desire earnestly, and love deeply. It may feel, at times, like a high-wire act, but that’s okay. The God who lovingly gives us the gifts, and the guardrails, and the messiness of church life is not a God of disorder, but of peace.

Andrew Wilson (@AJWTheology) is the Teaching Pastor at King’s Church London, UK, and the author of several books, including Spirit and Sacrament: An Invitation to Eucharismatic Worship. He is married to Rachel, and they have three children, Zeke, Anna, and Samuel.

]]>
[This article by Andrew Wilson was first posted at the Desiring God website (www.desiringgod.ord] last week, on June 17.]

Andrew Wilson
Pastor, King's Church, London
January 17, 2019

It is a strange quirk of the contemporary church that arguably the most common way of handling the charismatic gifts, at least in the West, is the only one that simply cannot be defended from Scripture.

For now, I will leave aside the question of whether the distinction between “miraculous” and “other” gifts would have occurred to Paul. On a number of occasions, however, Paul tells his converts to pursue, use, or eagerly desire the so-called “miraculous” gifts, and prophecy in particular:

Earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor. 12:31)
Earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1)
Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:39)
Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith. (Rom. 12:6)
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:19-21)

Notice that Paul’s exhortation is not a one-off but a repeated instruction to his churches that they should use their gifts (including the “miraculous” ones) to serve one another as the body of Christ.

Three Possible Responses

The contemporary church responds to those instructions in one of three ways:

The Charismatic response is to take these imperatives at face value, and thus to pursue all the spiritual gifts of which Scripture speaks.

The Cessationist response is to argue that these imperatives do not apply to the post-apostolic church, and therefore we should not seek to observe them today. Charismatics believe the gifts are for today, and pursue them; cessationists believe they aren’t, and don’t. So far, so good.

The Cautious response, on the other hand, is to affirm that the charismatic gifts are for today, but that because they are so often misused or divisive, we should not especially pursue them. We should be “open” to God speaking prophetically, or healing through us, but we should not actively seek them (let alone “eagerly desire” them) in our churches or personal lives, because to do so might open us up to error, imbalance, or silliness. This, from my (admittedly limited and UK-based) experience, is the most commonly practiced position of the three in the Western church today. It is also by far the least defensible.

The Contradiction of Caution

Cessationism, though it is not my position, is a consistent position. If we believe that certain spiritual gifts — prophecy, languages, interpretation, and usually miracles and healings as well — died out with the apostles, then we should make that argument, and treat all claims to them with suspicion.

Continuationism is consistent, too. If we believe that such gifts have been given to equip, serve, strengthen, and encourage the church, we should delight in them and pursue them.

Open-But-Cautious Continuationism, however, is almost always neither one nor the other. It involves the strange affirmation that Paul told his converts to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, and that his instructions still apply today, but that we are not especially going to follow them! This, for anyone with a high view of biblical authority, surely cannot be right. Paul’s exhortation in Romans, as we have already seen, is that “having gifts that differ, . . . let us use them” (Rom. 12:6).

It is important to recognize why. Spiritual gifts, for Paul, are a major way in which the body of Christ can express its unity and diversity. Each member brings a gift, and each member requires others to bring their gifts. This cultivates humility in the church, so that no one thinks more highly of himself than he ought (Rom. 12:3-8). Nobody can do without the rest of the body, or look down on the gifts that others have, for we have all been baptized in one Spirit into one body, and all have been given one Spirit to drink (1 Cor. 12:12-31).

Not only so, but the one who prophesies brings comfort, edification, encouragement, and strength to believers, and makes unbelievers aware that God is really present (1 Cor. 14:1-25). The gifts have been given to strengthen the church and challenge the world. To acknowledge that God has given a particular gift, while simultaneously deciding not to use it, bears more than a passing resemblance to one or two of Jesus’s gift-parables, and not in a good way.

How (Not) to Practice Spiritual Gifts

For those who are persuaded that the gifts continue, as I am, the question then becomes: How do we pursue these gifts without being distracted, dominated, or divided by them? The answer, without wanting to be flippant, is simply: by doing what Paul says, especially in 1 Corinthians 12–14. There are all sorts of constraints in there that will help us, whether as pastors or church members, to handle the gifts with wisdom, love, and an unwavering focus on Jesus. Boundaries are blessings. Guardrails are gifts.

We could state this negatively: If you want to put people off of spiritual gifts, practice them unbiblically. Put contemporary prophecy on a par with Scripture. Teach that tongues are the primary measurement of spirituality, and that they should be used in public meetings whether or not they are interpreted, preferably all at once. Emphasize the signs more than the Person they are pointing to, your spiritual experiences more than the love of your neighbor, and spiritual fireworks more than whether enquirers can understand what’s going on. Connect spiritual blessings to financial gifts wherever possible. Promise people that they will always be healed or see the miracle they need, if they have enough faith. Ensure that no tongue-speakers ever interpret their own language. Test nothing. Make it clear that healings and miracles validate a person’s interpretation of Scripture, so if you want to know whether someone is theologically correct, just look at whether they have the gift of healing. Build the church or ministry around a personality, with minimal accountability. If anyone challenges you on any of this, wave them away as carnal or legalistic or both.

Or we can work through what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, consider how to apply it in our context, and ask advice from those who have done it well. We can read widely, teach faithfully, and pray fervently. We can wait patiently, desire earnestly, and love deeply. It may feel, at times, like a high-wire act, but that’s okay. The God who lovingly gives us the gifts, and the guardrails, and the messiness of church life is not a God of disorder, but of peace.

Andrew Wilson (@AJWTheology) is the Teaching Pastor at King’s Church London, UK, and the author of several books, including Spirit and Sacrament: An Invitation to Eucharismatic Worship. He is married to Rachel, and they have three children, Zeke, Anna, and Samuel.

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the First Great Awakening / Second Phase (1740-42) https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42- https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42-#comments Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---second-phase--1740-42- In a previous article I spoke of the first wave of the First Great Awakening, a revival that fell upon New England in 1734-36. Today we turn our attention to the second wave of the Spirit’s work and the events that can generally be dated 1740-42.

(1) Historians have typically traced the revival’s beginning to the visit to America of George Whitefield (1714-71), known as “The Grand Itinerant.” Whitefield arrived in the fall of 1740 and “set all New England aflame with a revival compared to which the Valley awakening of 1734-35 was but a brush fire” (C. C. Goen, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 48).

After preaching to thousands all along the Atlantic coast, Whitefield arrived in Edwards' Northampton in mid-October. After one Sunday morning sermon in Edwards' church, Whitefield wrote in his diary that “Good Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercise. The people were equally affected; and, in the afternoon, the power increased yet more” (Ibid., 49). Sarah Edwards was equally impressed. In a letter to her brother, the Rev. James Pierrepont of New Haven, she said:

“It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over an audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible. I have seen upward of a thousand people hang on his words with breathless silence, broken only by an occasional half-suppressed sob. He impresses the ignorant, and not less the educated and refined . . . our mechanics shut up their shops, and the day-labourers throw down their tools to go and hear him preach, and few return unaffected. . . . Many, very many persons in Northampton date the beginning of new thoughts, new desires, new purposes and a new life, from the day they heard him preach of Christ” (Cited in Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century [Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990], 89-90).

Benjamin Franklin, although an unbeliever, regarded Whitefield to be his friend, and said this of his oratorical gift:

“He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words so perfectly that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories observed the most perfect silence. . . . By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between sermons newly composed and those which he had often preached in the course of his travels. His delivery of the latter was so improved by frequent repetition, that every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of the voice, was so perfectly well turned and well placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse” (Gaustad, 29).

According to Goen, “by the time he passed from Connecticut into New York, his journal showed that he had spent 45 days, visited 40 towns, and delivered 97 sermons and exhortations” (49). Whitefield set sail for England on January 16, 1741, after 14 1/2 months of preaching in America. He returned for a brief visit in the fall of 1744.

(2) Whitefield was far from the only participant in this awakening. One must also mention Gilbert Tennent (1703-64), leader of the Presbyterian revival in the middle Colonies. Goen reports that “after Tennent passed through eastern Connecticut, emotional outbursts in time of worship became common. Preachers sometimes had to stop in mid-sermon, as 'weeping, sighs and sobs' mingled with cries of distress: 'Alas! I'm undone; I'm undone! O, my sins! How they prey upon my vitals! What will become of me? How shall I escape the damnation of hell, who have spent away a golden opportunity under Gospel light, in vanity?’” (51). Visions and trances, evidently, were commonplace. Chief among Tennent's messages was his belief that most ministers of the day were unconverted. Needless to say, this didn't fare well with the established clergy of New England!

(3) Yet another preacher, of a decidedly different disposition, was James Davenport (1716-57). Davenport was labeled an “enthusiast” and was in many ways responsible for those excesses that Edwards believed led to the end of the revival. The word “enthusiasm”, as Goen defines it, “is belief in God's immediate inspiration or possession, leading often to claims of divine authority” (62).

Davenport was at one point banned from speaking in Boston pulpits. In a printed declaration, fourteen Boston pastors censured him for leaning too much on “sudden Impulses,” rashly judging other ministers as unconverted, “going with his Friends singing thro’ the Streets and High-Ways,” and encouraging “private Brethren to pray and exhort.” They pronounced him “deeply tinctur’d with a Spirit of Enthusiasm” (cited by Thomas Kidd, The Great Awakening, 144).

Davenport was temporarily incarcerated by leading opponents of the revival on the assumption that he was mentally unstable. Although Edwards denounced his extremes, they became somewhat friendly following Davenport’s repentance and restoration to ministry. In late summer of 1744 Davenport issued his Confession and Retractions in which he acknowledged the fanaticism that had brought reproach on the revival. “On the whole,” notes Kidd, “it was a sincere but limited confession” (165).

(4) Opposition to the awakening was fierce and persistent. It was led by Charles Chauncy (1705-87), pastor of Boston's most influential church. Chauncy was the acknowledged leader of the "Old Lights", those who “vilified the whole revival as 'the effect of enthusiastic heat’” (63). Chauncy and his supporters typically preferred the time-honored traditions of the established order of religion in New England and opposed the new measures introduced by the revivalists. For them, conversion was principally a transformation in one’s intellectual convictions. The Christian life, therefore, together with any alleged encounter with the Spirit, must be reasonable, courteous, and not given to visible or vocal displays of emotion.

(5) Chauncy’s principal objections to the revival were published in September, 1743, in a work entitled, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, 1743). Among other concerns, he cited the ill effects of itinerant ministry, especially among those not ordained to the task of preaching: “Besides creating jealousies and threatening prerogatives,” said Chauncy, “itineracy flaunted the Congregational theory of the ministerial office” (Gaustad, 70).

Chauncy was especially offended by what he perceived to be fanatical excess in the behavior of those who participated in the revival. True religion, said Chauncy, was primarily a matter of the mind, not the affections, and was characterized by self-control, cultural sophistication, and strict moral propriety. “The plain truth is [that] an enlightened mind, and not raised affections, ought always to be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this, in the affairs of religion, as well as other things” (cited by George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 281). One should not conclude from this that Edwards denigrated the mind, as is evident from a close analysis of Religious Affections. Marsden is also quick to point out that “as any perusal of Edwards’ sermons will confirm, Edwards’ exaltation of the affections was never at the expense of reason” (282).

(6) By the end of 1743, observes Gaustad, “all the principles, even most of the details, of criticism of the revival had been established. The Great Awakening was dead, although many were trying to force air into its lungs while others were still hacking at the corpse whenever possible” (79).

Numerous explanations for the diminishing influence of the revival have been suggested and Edwards had his own opinion. But Gaustad looks at what happened with the common sense of an historian:

“From our vantage point, no special perspicacity is required to conclude that the religious intensity of 1741 could not long be maintained. The dreadful concerns, the traumatic awakenings, the accelerated devotion -- these by their nature are of limited duration. The fever pitch must soon pass, else the patient dies . . . The ebb of this flood of revivalism would seem then to require no elaborate explanation: it declined simply because it had to, because society could not maintain itself in so great a disequilibrium” (61-62).

In his book, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale, 2007), Thomas Kidd points out that

“the controversy generated by the revivals was not just a disagreement over tactics and emotions, but over social order. To understand the deep anxieties generated by revivalism, it is important to remember how profoundly stratified eighteenth-century American society was. Land-owning white men ruled over their families, social inferiors, servants, and slaves. The elites integrated all these people into a vast system of dependencies. Authorities tried to suppress irregularities that might challenge their hegemony.

One can appreciate, then, why many might have viewed radical evangelicals as a threat to a well-ordered society. Radical evangelicals ordained untutored, and occasionally nonwhite, men as pastors. They sometimes allowed women and nonwhites to serve as deacons or even as elders. They led crowds of the poor, children, and nonwhites singing through the streets. They permitted Native Americans, African Americans, and women to exhort in mixed congregations, and they commended their words as worthy of white male attention. They endorsed the visionary, ecstatic experiences of the disenfranchised. They believed that individuals could have immediate assurance of salvation by the indwelling witness of the Spirit. They affirmed laypeople’s right to critique their pastors and founded new churches fully committed to radical revival. While to modern eyes, the radicals’ innovations may seem modest, they were for their time well-nigh revolutionary. In the revivals, the world seemed to turn upside down as those with the very least agency in eighteenth-century American felt the power of God surge in their bodies” (xv).

(7) Throughout the revivals and well into their aftermath Edwards consistently defended the work as being, in general, of divine origin. He disapproved of “enthusiasm”, subjectivism, and those excesses which Davenport insisted were sure signs of the Spirit’s work, but did not believe these peripheral problems invalidated the legitimacy of what God was doing.

In hopes of putting an end to what they deemed extravagant and “enthusiastic” behavior on the part of a number of students, the administration at Yale invited Edwards to deliver the commencement speech on September 10, 1741. What they heard was, instead, a spirited defense, in general, of the spiritual authenticity of the revival. Edwards later expanded on the work and published it that same year with a preface by the Rev. William Cooper of Boston. The abbreviated title of the work is: The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.

Edwards' design was “to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may safely proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see in others” (87).

His approach was two-fold. He began with what we might call “Negative Signs,” or events, experiences, and religious phenomena from which we may conclude nothing. One is not free to deduce from the presence of these occurrences either that the Holy Spirit produced them or that he did not. They may well be the fruit of the Spirit’s activity, but then again may just as easily be the result of human weakness or emotional instability or the product of a manipulative evangelist. Scripture simply doesn’t provide explicit guidelines by which we may know.

Edwards then turned to those signs which are sure and certain evidence of the Spirit's work. He proceeds “to show positively what are the sure, distinguishing Scripture evidences and marks of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see among a people without danger of being misled” (109). Here Edwards bases his argument on principles gleaned from 1 John 4:1-6.

(8) Some, such as Davenport and his followers, claimed that they were recipients of the Spirit’s grace because they experienced a wide range of physical phenomena, whether shaking or shouting, laughing or weeping, or other overt displays of what they considered genuine religious zeal. Edwards himself was witness to folk who “lost their bodily strength” (i.e., fell to the ground), included among whom was his own wife, Sarah. Others testified to seeing visions, hearing voices, or otherwise feeling “impressions” on the “imagination”. At times, some would fall into a trance-like state and would remain therein for twenty-four hours or longer.

Were such physical manifestations and convulsions a sure sign of the Spirit’s work? Or were they in every instance the product of manipulative ministers who excelled in unleashing the emotions of unsuspecting sheep? Neither, said Edwards. Such physical phenomena may be the result of the Spirit’s encounter with the frailty of human nature. But maybe not. In any case they are insufficient grounds on which to base one’s assurance of salvation and by no means constitute the essence of the religious life.

(9) In his treatise, Religious Affections, Edwards argues, against Chauncy, that true religion consists not merely of a “notional” understanding and cognitive acquiescence to truth, but of a “sense of the heart” in which lively and vigorous affections of love and delight and joy and peace and yearning are in evidence. Such affections, said Edwards, may be accompanied by physiological phenomena, but the presence of the latter was no sure proof of the reality of the former. We must also remember that Edwards will argue, against Davenport, that physiological phenomena, in and of themselves, prove nothing about the reality of spiritual experience. We should not be surprised, said Edwards, if the body reacts in strange and manifest ways to what the mind perceives, but bodily actions can as easily be the result of any number of purely natural (not to mention demonic), physiological, and psychological factors that have nothing to do with the special saving grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, in spite of the undeniable excesses and emotional extremes to which Davenport and others took the revival, Edward saw in the midst of it a genuine work of God. He was not in the least inclined to throw out what he regarded as a live baby simply because some had dirtied the water with the soil of their religious delusions.

(10) With hindsight Edwards’ acknowledged that he had been somewhat naïve in his belief that as many had been saved as claimed to be. In the aftermath of revival, he had witnessed and worked with far too many people who quickly fell away from their initial zeal and profession of faith. Without dismissing the revival altogether, he became ever more convinced that the subjective experiences and physical manifestations on which many based their assurance of salvation were a poor and misleading foundation on which to build.

As Michael Haykin has pointed out, “much of the problem lay in the fact that many of the congregation had wrong notions about the way of ascertaining a genuine conversion. Too much weight was placed upon ‘impressions on the imagination’ and specific experiences, and not enough consideration given to what Edwards calls ‘the abiding sense and temper of their hearts’ and ‘fruits of grace’” (Michael A. G. Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005], 48).

 

]]>
In a previous article I spoke of the first wave of the First Great Awakening, a revival that fell upon New England in 1734-36. Today we turn our attention to the second wave of the Spirit’s work and the events that can generally be dated 1740-42.

(1) Historians have typically traced the revival’s beginning to the visit to America of George Whitefield (1714-71), known as “The Grand Itinerant.” Whitefield arrived in the fall of 1740 and “set all New England aflame with a revival compared to which the Valley awakening of 1734-35 was but a brush fire” (C. C. Goen, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 48).

After preaching to thousands all along the Atlantic coast, Whitefield arrived in Edwards' Northampton in mid-October. After one Sunday morning sermon in Edwards' church, Whitefield wrote in his diary that “Good Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercise. The people were equally affected; and, in the afternoon, the power increased yet more” (Ibid., 49). Sarah Edwards was equally impressed. In a letter to her brother, the Rev. James Pierrepont of New Haven, she said:

“It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over an audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible. I have seen upward of a thousand people hang on his words with breathless silence, broken only by an occasional half-suppressed sob. He impresses the ignorant, and not less the educated and refined . . . our mechanics shut up their shops, and the day-labourers throw down their tools to go and hear him preach, and few return unaffected. . . . Many, very many persons in Northampton date the beginning of new thoughts, new desires, new purposes and a new life, from the day they heard him preach of Christ” (Cited in Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century [Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990], 89-90).

Benjamin Franklin, although an unbeliever, regarded Whitefield to be his friend, and said this of his oratorical gift:

“He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words so perfectly that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories observed the most perfect silence. . . . By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between sermons newly composed and those which he had often preached in the course of his travels. His delivery of the latter was so improved by frequent repetition, that every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of the voice, was so perfectly well turned and well placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse” (Gaustad, 29).

According to Goen, “by the time he passed from Connecticut into New York, his journal showed that he had spent 45 days, visited 40 towns, and delivered 97 sermons and exhortations” (49). Whitefield set sail for England on January 16, 1741, after 14 1/2 months of preaching in America. He returned for a brief visit in the fall of 1744.

(2) Whitefield was far from the only participant in this awakening. One must also mention Gilbert Tennent (1703-64), leader of the Presbyterian revival in the middle Colonies. Goen reports that “after Tennent passed through eastern Connecticut, emotional outbursts in time of worship became common. Preachers sometimes had to stop in mid-sermon, as 'weeping, sighs and sobs' mingled with cries of distress: 'Alas! I'm undone; I'm undone! O, my sins! How they prey upon my vitals! What will become of me? How shall I escape the damnation of hell, who have spent away a golden opportunity under Gospel light, in vanity?’” (51). Visions and trances, evidently, were commonplace. Chief among Tennent's messages was his belief that most ministers of the day were unconverted. Needless to say, this didn't fare well with the established clergy of New England!

(3) Yet another preacher, of a decidedly different disposition, was James Davenport (1716-57). Davenport was labeled an “enthusiast” and was in many ways responsible for those excesses that Edwards believed led to the end of the revival. The word “enthusiasm”, as Goen defines it, “is belief in God's immediate inspiration or possession, leading often to claims of divine authority” (62).

Davenport was at one point banned from speaking in Boston pulpits. In a printed declaration, fourteen Boston pastors censured him for leaning too much on “sudden Impulses,” rashly judging other ministers as unconverted, “going with his Friends singing thro’ the Streets and High-Ways,” and encouraging “private Brethren to pray and exhort.” They pronounced him “deeply tinctur’d with a Spirit of Enthusiasm” (cited by Thomas Kidd, The Great Awakening, 144).

Davenport was temporarily incarcerated by leading opponents of the revival on the assumption that he was mentally unstable. Although Edwards denounced his extremes, they became somewhat friendly following Davenport’s repentance and restoration to ministry. In late summer of 1744 Davenport issued his Confession and Retractions in which he acknowledged the fanaticism that had brought reproach on the revival. “On the whole,” notes Kidd, “it was a sincere but limited confession” (165).

(4) Opposition to the awakening was fierce and persistent. It was led by Charles Chauncy (1705-87), pastor of Boston's most influential church. Chauncy was the acknowledged leader of the "Old Lights", those who “vilified the whole revival as 'the effect of enthusiastic heat’” (63). Chauncy and his supporters typically preferred the time-honored traditions of the established order of religion in New England and opposed the new measures introduced by the revivalists. For them, conversion was principally a transformation in one’s intellectual convictions. The Christian life, therefore, together with any alleged encounter with the Spirit, must be reasonable, courteous, and not given to visible or vocal displays of emotion.

(5) Chauncy’s principal objections to the revival were published in September, 1743, in a work entitled, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, 1743). Among other concerns, he cited the ill effects of itinerant ministry, especially among those not ordained to the task of preaching: “Besides creating jealousies and threatening prerogatives,” said Chauncy, “itineracy flaunted the Congregational theory of the ministerial office” (Gaustad, 70).

Chauncy was especially offended by what he perceived to be fanatical excess in the behavior of those who participated in the revival. True religion, said Chauncy, was primarily a matter of the mind, not the affections, and was characterized by self-control, cultural sophistication, and strict moral propriety. “The plain truth is [that] an enlightened mind, and not raised affections, ought always to be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this, in the affairs of religion, as well as other things” (cited by George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 281). One should not conclude from this that Edwards denigrated the mind, as is evident from a close analysis of Religious Affections. Marsden is also quick to point out that “as any perusal of Edwards’ sermons will confirm, Edwards’ exaltation of the affections was never at the expense of reason” (282).

(6) By the end of 1743, observes Gaustad, “all the principles, even most of the details, of criticism of the revival had been established. The Great Awakening was dead, although many were trying to force air into its lungs while others were still hacking at the corpse whenever possible” (79).

Numerous explanations for the diminishing influence of the revival have been suggested and Edwards had his own opinion. But Gaustad looks at what happened with the common sense of an historian:

“From our vantage point, no special perspicacity is required to conclude that the religious intensity of 1741 could not long be maintained. The dreadful concerns, the traumatic awakenings, the accelerated devotion -- these by their nature are of limited duration. The fever pitch must soon pass, else the patient dies . . . The ebb of this flood of revivalism would seem then to require no elaborate explanation: it declined simply because it had to, because society could not maintain itself in so great a disequilibrium” (61-62).

In his book, The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale, 2007), Thomas Kidd points out that

“the controversy generated by the revivals was not just a disagreement over tactics and emotions, but over social order. To understand the deep anxieties generated by revivalism, it is important to remember how profoundly stratified eighteenth-century American society was. Land-owning white men ruled over their families, social inferiors, servants, and slaves. The elites integrated all these people into a vast system of dependencies. Authorities tried to suppress irregularities that might challenge their hegemony.

One can appreciate, then, why many might have viewed radical evangelicals as a threat to a well-ordered society. Radical evangelicals ordained untutored, and occasionally nonwhite, men as pastors. They sometimes allowed women and nonwhites to serve as deacons or even as elders. They led crowds of the poor, children, and nonwhites singing through the streets. They permitted Native Americans, African Americans, and women to exhort in mixed congregations, and they commended their words as worthy of white male attention. They endorsed the visionary, ecstatic experiences of the disenfranchised. They believed that individuals could have immediate assurance of salvation by the indwelling witness of the Spirit. They affirmed laypeople’s right to critique their pastors and founded new churches fully committed to radical revival. While to modern eyes, the radicals’ innovations may seem modest, they were for their time well-nigh revolutionary. In the revivals, the world seemed to turn upside down as those with the very least agency in eighteenth-century American felt the power of God surge in their bodies” (xv).

(7) Throughout the revivals and well into their aftermath Edwards consistently defended the work as being, in general, of divine origin. He disapproved of “enthusiasm”, subjectivism, and those excesses which Davenport insisted were sure signs of the Spirit’s work, but did not believe these peripheral problems invalidated the legitimacy of what God was doing.

In hopes of putting an end to what they deemed extravagant and “enthusiastic” behavior on the part of a number of students, the administration at Yale invited Edwards to deliver the commencement speech on September 10, 1741. What they heard was, instead, a spirited defense, in general, of the spiritual authenticity of the revival. Edwards later expanded on the work and published it that same year with a preface by the Rev. William Cooper of Boston. The abbreviated title of the work is: The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.

Edwards' design was “to show what are the true, certain, and distinguishing evidences of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may safely proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see in others” (87).

His approach was two-fold. He began with what we might call “Negative Signs,” or events, experiences, and religious phenomena from which we may conclude nothing. One is not free to deduce from the presence of these occurrences either that the Holy Spirit produced them or that he did not. They may well be the fruit of the Spirit’s activity, but then again may just as easily be the result of human weakness or emotional instability or the product of a manipulative evangelist. Scripture simply doesn’t provide explicit guidelines by which we may know.

Edwards then turned to those signs which are sure and certain evidence of the Spirit's work. He proceeds “to show positively what are the sure, distinguishing Scripture evidences and marks of a work of the Spirit of God, by which we may proceed in judging of any operation we find in ourselves, or see among a people without danger of being misled” (109). Here Edwards bases his argument on principles gleaned from 1 John 4:1-6.

(8) Some, such as Davenport and his followers, claimed that they were recipients of the Spirit’s grace because they experienced a wide range of physical phenomena, whether shaking or shouting, laughing or weeping, or other overt displays of what they considered genuine religious zeal. Edwards himself was witness to folk who “lost their bodily strength” (i.e., fell to the ground), included among whom was his own wife, Sarah. Others testified to seeing visions, hearing voices, or otherwise feeling “impressions” on the “imagination”. At times, some would fall into a trance-like state and would remain therein for twenty-four hours or longer.

Were such physical manifestations and convulsions a sure sign of the Spirit’s work? Or were they in every instance the product of manipulative ministers who excelled in unleashing the emotions of unsuspecting sheep? Neither, said Edwards. Such physical phenomena may be the result of the Spirit’s encounter with the frailty of human nature. But maybe not. In any case they are insufficient grounds on which to base one’s assurance of salvation and by no means constitute the essence of the religious life.

(9) In his treatise, Religious Affections, Edwards argues, against Chauncy, that true religion consists not merely of a “notional” understanding and cognitive acquiescence to truth, but of a “sense of the heart” in which lively and vigorous affections of love and delight and joy and peace and yearning are in evidence. Such affections, said Edwards, may be accompanied by physiological phenomena, but the presence of the latter was no sure proof of the reality of the former. We must also remember that Edwards will argue, against Davenport, that physiological phenomena, in and of themselves, prove nothing about the reality of spiritual experience. We should not be surprised, said Edwards, if the body reacts in strange and manifest ways to what the mind perceives, but bodily actions can as easily be the result of any number of purely natural (not to mention demonic), physiological, and psychological factors that have nothing to do with the special saving grace of the Holy Spirit.

Yet, in spite of the undeniable excesses and emotional extremes to which Davenport and others took the revival, Edward saw in the midst of it a genuine work of God. He was not in the least inclined to throw out what he regarded as a live baby simply because some had dirtied the water with the soil of their religious delusions.

(10) With hindsight Edwards’ acknowledged that he had been somewhat naïve in his belief that as many had been saved as claimed to be. In the aftermath of revival, he had witnessed and worked with far too many people who quickly fell away from their initial zeal and profession of faith. Without dismissing the revival altogether, he became ever more convinced that the subjective experiences and physical manifestations on which many based their assurance of salvation were a poor and misleading foundation on which to build.

As Michael Haykin has pointed out, “much of the problem lay in the fact that many of the congregation had wrong notions about the way of ascertaining a genuine conversion. Too much weight was placed upon ‘impressions on the imagination’ and specific experiences, and not enough consideration given to what Edwards calls ‘the abiding sense and temper of their hearts’ and ‘fruits of grace’” (Michael A. G. Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005], 48).

 

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the First Great Awakening / First Phase (1734-36) https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---first-phase--1734-36- https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---first-phase--1734-36-#comments Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-first-great-awakening---first-phase--1734-36- On May 30, 1735, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) wrote a letter of eight pages to Dr. Benjamin Colman (1673-1747), pastor of Brattle Street Church in Boston, in which he described the nature of the revival he was seeing. Colman forwarded a substantial portion of the letter to a friend in London where news quickly spread about religious events in the Colonies. Edwards was in turn asked to write a more detailed account of what he had witnessed, the result of which was titled: A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of many hundred souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of the County of Hampshire, in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New England.

Edwards completed work on the document on November 6, 1736. What he describes in this short book is the first wave of revival (1734-36) that was to be followed by what has come to be known as the Great Awakening (1740-42).

(1) It’s important to remember that revival was nothing new to the people of Massachusetts. Edwards was able to identify five so-called harvests under his predecessor and grandfather, Solomon Stoddard (who served as pastor in Northampton for 60 years), in each of which Edwards heard Stoddard say that "the greater part of the young people in the town, seemed to be mainly concerned for their eternal salvation” (9). The first wave of the Spirit’s movement during Edwards’ pastoral charge in Northampton may have initially been stirred by the unexpected deaths of two young people in a neighboring town, which “seemed to contribute to render solemn the spirits of many young persons; and there began evidently to appear more of a religious concern on people's minds” (11).

(2) Some scholars are inclined to dismiss any supernatural or divine cause for the revival and insist that it can be traced to the fearful reaction of the community to some natural calamity. Whereas it is true that a diphtheria epidemic struck New England from 1735 to 1740, Edwin Gaustad points out that

"the epidemic appeared in New Jersey in 1735, long after the revival movement had been under way there; in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the severity of the epidemic in any given area bears no observable relation to the intensity of the revival in that area, either before or after Whitefield; in New Hampshire the epidemic was all over by 1736, making difficult an explanation of the five-year lapse between its terminus and the beginning of the Great Awakening in the Kingston-Hampton Falls area; and finally, while the epidemic was from four to five times as severe in New Hampshire and Maine as in Connecticut and Massachusetts, it was in the latter area that the revival was most pervasive" (The Great Awakening in New England [Peter Smith Publishers, 1965]).

Edwards himself connected the outbreak of spiritual renewal to a series of sermons he preached on justification by faith, and the unusual conversion of an immoral young lady in the Northampton community (he discretely referred to her as “one of the greatest company-keepers in the whole town” (FN, 12).

(3) Edwards couldn’t help but notice that the revival was, quite literally, the talk of the town: "Other discourse than of the things of religion,” he noted, “would scarcely be tolerated in any company. The minds of people were wonderfully taken off from the world, it was treated amongst us as a thing of very little consequence” (13).

People were inclined to neglect their daily affairs, or at least subordinate them to the higher interest of the state of their souls. “They seemed to follow their worldly business, more as a part of their duty, than from any disposition they had to it; the temptation now seemed to lie on that hand, to neglect worldly affairs too much, and to spend too much time in the immediate exercise of religion” (13). Their primary concern “was to get the kingdom of heaven, and every one appeared pressing into it. The engagedness of their hearts in this great concern could not be hid, it appeared in their very countenances” (13).

(4) Edwards was especially impressed by the widespread impact of the awakening, citing more than thirty other communities where signs of renewal occurred. As for Northampton, “there was scarcely a single person in the town, old or young, left unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world” (13). There was also a remarkable transformation in the worship of God. “Our public praises,” he observed, “were then greatly enlivened. . . . [People] were evidently wont [inclined] to sing with unusual elevation of heart and voice, which made the duty pleasant indeed” (14). Above all else, the person of Jesus Christ became central in the thoughts and concerns of those involved.

(5) The reaction of outside observers was mixed. “Many scoffed at and ridiculed it; and some compared what we called conversion, to certain distempers” (15). Others were so impressed that they spread word “that the state of the town could not be conceived of by those who had not seen it” (15). There were a number of instances, said Edwards, “of persons who came from abroad on visits, or on business, who had not been long here, before, to all appearances, they were savingly wrought upon, and partook of that shower of divine blessing which God rained down here, and went home rejoicing; till at length the same work began evidently to appear and prevail in several other towns in the country” (15).

(6) Not only were the backslidden convicted and returned to the fold, many were saved. Edwards was confident “that more than 300 souls were savingly brought home to Christ, in this town [Northampton], in the space of half a year, and about the same number of males as females” (19).

(7) One of the more distinguishing features of the awakening was the acceleration or intensification of God’s activity. Edwards described it this way: “God has also seemed to have gone out of his usual way, in the quickness of his work, and the swift progress his Spirit has made in his operations on the hearts of many. It is wonderful that persons should be so suddenly and yet so greatly changed” (21). Again, “when God in so remarkable a manner took the work into his own hands, there was as much done in a day or two, as at ordinary times, with all endeavours that men can use, and with such a blessing as we commonly have, is done in a year” (21).

(8) Edwards was reluctant to suggest that true conversions followed some strict pattern or structure. Still, there appeared to be a consistency in that conversion generally entailed two stages.

First, there was typically a deep and penetrating conviction of sin. With some this occurred suddenly, whereas others experienced it gradually. The result was that they “quit their sinful practices; and the looser sort have been brought to forsake and dread their former vices and extravagances” (23). This was followed by their seeking the “means of salvation, reading, prayer, meditation, [and] the ordinances of God's house” (24). The “place of resort,” writes Edwards, “was now altered, it was no longer the tavern, but the minister's house that was thronged far more than ever the tavern had been wont to be” (24).

There was also variation in both the degree of fear experienced and the duration of it. There were a few instances in which individuals “had such a sense of God's wrath for sin . . . that they have been overborne; and made to cry out under an astonishing sense of their guilt, wondering that God suffers such guilty wretches to live upon earth, and that he doth not immediately send them to hell” (25-26).

The second dimension in the conversion experience was a sense of God's love, mercy, and saving grace in Christ. Again, Edwards explains:

“It was very wonderful to see how person's affections were sometimes moved – when God did as it were suddenly open their eyes, and let into their minds a sense of the greatness of his grace, the fullness of Christ, and his readiness to save . . . Their joyful surprise has caused their hearts as it were to leap, so that they have been ready to break forth into laughter, tears often at the same time issuing like a flood, and intermingling a loud weeping. Sometimes they have not been able to forbear crying out with a loud voice, expressing their great admiration” (37-38).

This overwhelming assurance of saving love had varied effects on the people:

“Some persons having had such longing desires after Christ, or which have risen to such degree, as to take away their natural strength. Some have been so overcome with a sense of the dying love of Christ to such poor, wretched, and unworthy creatures, as to weaken the body. Several persons have had so great a sense of the glory of God, and excellency of Christ, that nature and life seemed almost to sink under it; and in all probability, if God had showed them a little more of himself, it would have dissolved their frame. . . . And they have talked, when able to speak, of the glory of God's perfections . . .” (45).

“Many, while their minds have been filled with spiritual delights, have as it were forgot their food; their bodily appetite has failed, while their minds have been entertained with meat to eat that others knew not of” (46).

(9) Edwards was duly impressed with the unparalleled joy of many, which often expressed itself in “earnest longings of soul to praise God” (47). Others expressed a new love for the Bible: “Some, by reason of their love to God's word, at times have been wonderfully delighted and affected at the sight of a Bible; and then, also, there was no time so prized as the Lord's day, and no place in this world so desired as God's house” (47).

Again, observed Edwards, “never, I believe, was so much done in confessing injuries, and making up differences, as the last year. Persons, after their own conversion, have commonly expressed an exceeding great desire for the conversion of others” (47). There was also a noticeable improvement in the physical condition of the community during the revival: "it was the most remarkable time of health that ever I knew since I have been in the town,” observed Edwards. “We ordinarily have several bills put up, every sabbath, for sick persons; but now we had not so much as one for many sabbaths together. But after this [i.e., after the revival lifted] it seemed to be otherwise” (69).

(10) Although the history of revival reveals that no two outpourings were precisely the same, they do share one thing in common: they all came to an end. Edwards noted that “in the latter part of May, it began to be very sensible that the Spirit of God was gradually withdrawing from us, and after this time Satan seemed to be more let loose, and raged in a dreadful manner” (69). One event seemed to Edwards to hasten the demise of religion: a man, from a family prone to depression (what Edwards called “melancholy”), committed suicide by cutting his throat. “The devil took the advantage, and drove him into despairing thoughts” (70). [The man was in fact Joseph Hawley, Edwards' uncle.] The impact of this on the community was devastating:

“After this, multitudes in this and other towns seemed to have it strongly suggested to them, and pressed upon them, to do as this person had done. And many who seemed to be under no melancholy, some pious persons who had no special darkness or doubts about the goodness of their state . . . had it urged upon them as if somebody had spoke to them, Cut your throat, now is a good opportunity. Now! Now!” (70).

The Spirit of God, “not long after this time, appeared very sensibly withdrawing from all parts of the country” (71). Nevertheless, Edwards was convinced that the vast majority of those who professed to having been saved in the revival “seem to have had an abiding change wrought on them; . . . they generally appear to be persons who have a new sense of things, new apprehensions and views of God, of the divine attributes of Jesus Christ, and the great things of the gospel” (71). Following the revival of 1740-42, with the benefit of hindsight, Edwards appeared less confident.

]]>
On May 30, 1735, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) wrote a letter of eight pages to Dr. Benjamin Colman (1673-1747), pastor of Brattle Street Church in Boston, in which he described the nature of the revival he was seeing. Colman forwarded a substantial portion of the letter to a friend in London where news quickly spread about religious events in the Colonies. Edwards was in turn asked to write a more detailed account of what he had witnessed, the result of which was titled: A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of many hundred souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of the County of Hampshire, in the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New England.

Edwards completed work on the document on November 6, 1736. What he describes in this short book is the first wave of revival (1734-36) that was to be followed by what has come to be known as the Great Awakening (1740-42).

(1) It’s important to remember that revival was nothing new to the people of Massachusetts. Edwards was able to identify five so-called harvests under his predecessor and grandfather, Solomon Stoddard (who served as pastor in Northampton for 60 years), in each of which Edwards heard Stoddard say that "the greater part of the young people in the town, seemed to be mainly concerned for their eternal salvation” (9). The first wave of the Spirit’s movement during Edwards’ pastoral charge in Northampton may have initially been stirred by the unexpected deaths of two young people in a neighboring town, which “seemed to contribute to render solemn the spirits of many young persons; and there began evidently to appear more of a religious concern on people's minds” (11).

(2) Some scholars are inclined to dismiss any supernatural or divine cause for the revival and insist that it can be traced to the fearful reaction of the community to some natural calamity. Whereas it is true that a diphtheria epidemic struck New England from 1735 to 1740, Edwin Gaustad points out that

"the epidemic appeared in New Jersey in 1735, long after the revival movement had been under way there; in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the severity of the epidemic in any given area bears no observable relation to the intensity of the revival in that area, either before or after Whitefield; in New Hampshire the epidemic was all over by 1736, making difficult an explanation of the five-year lapse between its terminus and the beginning of the Great Awakening in the Kingston-Hampton Falls area; and finally, while the epidemic was from four to five times as severe in New Hampshire and Maine as in Connecticut and Massachusetts, it was in the latter area that the revival was most pervasive" (The Great Awakening in New England [Peter Smith Publishers, 1965]).

Edwards himself connected the outbreak of spiritual renewal to a series of sermons he preached on justification by faith, and the unusual conversion of an immoral young lady in the Northampton community (he discretely referred to her as “one of the greatest company-keepers in the whole town” (FN, 12).

(3) Edwards couldn’t help but notice that the revival was, quite literally, the talk of the town: "Other discourse than of the things of religion,” he noted, “would scarcely be tolerated in any company. The minds of people were wonderfully taken off from the world, it was treated amongst us as a thing of very little consequence” (13).

People were inclined to neglect their daily affairs, or at least subordinate them to the higher interest of the state of their souls. “They seemed to follow their worldly business, more as a part of their duty, than from any disposition they had to it; the temptation now seemed to lie on that hand, to neglect worldly affairs too much, and to spend too much time in the immediate exercise of religion” (13). Their primary concern “was to get the kingdom of heaven, and every one appeared pressing into it. The engagedness of their hearts in this great concern could not be hid, it appeared in their very countenances” (13).

(4) Edwards was especially impressed by the widespread impact of the awakening, citing more than thirty other communities where signs of renewal occurred. As for Northampton, “there was scarcely a single person in the town, old or young, left unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world” (13). There was also a remarkable transformation in the worship of God. “Our public praises,” he observed, “were then greatly enlivened. . . . [People] were evidently wont [inclined] to sing with unusual elevation of heart and voice, which made the duty pleasant indeed” (14). Above all else, the person of Jesus Christ became central in the thoughts and concerns of those involved.

(5) The reaction of outside observers was mixed. “Many scoffed at and ridiculed it; and some compared what we called conversion, to certain distempers” (15). Others were so impressed that they spread word “that the state of the town could not be conceived of by those who had not seen it” (15). There were a number of instances, said Edwards, “of persons who came from abroad on visits, or on business, who had not been long here, before, to all appearances, they were savingly wrought upon, and partook of that shower of divine blessing which God rained down here, and went home rejoicing; till at length the same work began evidently to appear and prevail in several other towns in the country” (15).

(6) Not only were the backslidden convicted and returned to the fold, many were saved. Edwards was confident “that more than 300 souls were savingly brought home to Christ, in this town [Northampton], in the space of half a year, and about the same number of males as females” (19).

(7) One of the more distinguishing features of the awakening was the acceleration or intensification of God’s activity. Edwards described it this way: “God has also seemed to have gone out of his usual way, in the quickness of his work, and the swift progress his Spirit has made in his operations on the hearts of many. It is wonderful that persons should be so suddenly and yet so greatly changed” (21). Again, “when God in so remarkable a manner took the work into his own hands, there was as much done in a day or two, as at ordinary times, with all endeavours that men can use, and with such a blessing as we commonly have, is done in a year” (21).

(8) Edwards was reluctant to suggest that true conversions followed some strict pattern or structure. Still, there appeared to be a consistency in that conversion generally entailed two stages.

First, there was typically a deep and penetrating conviction of sin. With some this occurred suddenly, whereas others experienced it gradually. The result was that they “quit their sinful practices; and the looser sort have been brought to forsake and dread their former vices and extravagances” (23). This was followed by their seeking the “means of salvation, reading, prayer, meditation, [and] the ordinances of God's house” (24). The “place of resort,” writes Edwards, “was now altered, it was no longer the tavern, but the minister's house that was thronged far more than ever the tavern had been wont to be” (24).

There was also variation in both the degree of fear experienced and the duration of it. There were a few instances in which individuals “had such a sense of God's wrath for sin . . . that they have been overborne; and made to cry out under an astonishing sense of their guilt, wondering that God suffers such guilty wretches to live upon earth, and that he doth not immediately send them to hell” (25-26).

The second dimension in the conversion experience was a sense of God's love, mercy, and saving grace in Christ. Again, Edwards explains:

“It was very wonderful to see how person's affections were sometimes moved – when God did as it were suddenly open their eyes, and let into their minds a sense of the greatness of his grace, the fullness of Christ, and his readiness to save . . . Their joyful surprise has caused their hearts as it were to leap, so that they have been ready to break forth into laughter, tears often at the same time issuing like a flood, and intermingling a loud weeping. Sometimes they have not been able to forbear crying out with a loud voice, expressing their great admiration” (37-38).

This overwhelming assurance of saving love had varied effects on the people:

“Some persons having had such longing desires after Christ, or which have risen to such degree, as to take away their natural strength. Some have been so overcome with a sense of the dying love of Christ to such poor, wretched, and unworthy creatures, as to weaken the body. Several persons have had so great a sense of the glory of God, and excellency of Christ, that nature and life seemed almost to sink under it; and in all probability, if God had showed them a little more of himself, it would have dissolved their frame. . . . And they have talked, when able to speak, of the glory of God's perfections . . .” (45).

“Many, while their minds have been filled with spiritual delights, have as it were forgot their food; their bodily appetite has failed, while their minds have been entertained with meat to eat that others knew not of” (46).

(9) Edwards was duly impressed with the unparalleled joy of many, which often expressed itself in “earnest longings of soul to praise God” (47). Others expressed a new love for the Bible: “Some, by reason of their love to God's word, at times have been wonderfully delighted and affected at the sight of a Bible; and then, also, there was no time so prized as the Lord's day, and no place in this world so desired as God's house” (47).

Again, observed Edwards, “never, I believe, was so much done in confessing injuries, and making up differences, as the last year. Persons, after their own conversion, have commonly expressed an exceeding great desire for the conversion of others” (47). There was also a noticeable improvement in the physical condition of the community during the revival: "it was the most remarkable time of health that ever I knew since I have been in the town,” observed Edwards. “We ordinarily have several bills put up, every sabbath, for sick persons; but now we had not so much as one for many sabbaths together. But after this [i.e., after the revival lifted] it seemed to be otherwise” (69).

(10) Although the history of revival reveals that no two outpourings were precisely the same, they do share one thing in common: they all came to an end. Edwards noted that “in the latter part of May, it began to be very sensible that the Spirit of God was gradually withdrawing from us, and after this time Satan seemed to be more let loose, and raged in a dreadful manner” (69). One event seemed to Edwards to hasten the demise of religion: a man, from a family prone to depression (what Edwards called “melancholy”), committed suicide by cutting his throat. “The devil took the advantage, and drove him into despairing thoughts” (70). [The man was in fact Joseph Hawley, Edwards' uncle.] The impact of this on the community was devastating:

“After this, multitudes in this and other towns seemed to have it strongly suggested to them, and pressed upon them, to do as this person had done. And many who seemed to be under no melancholy, some pious persons who had no special darkness or doubts about the goodness of their state . . . had it urged upon them as if somebody had spoke to them, Cut your throat, now is a good opportunity. Now! Now!” (70).

The Spirit of God, “not long after this time, appeared very sensibly withdrawing from all parts of the country” (71). Nevertheless, Edwards was convinced that the vast majority of those who professed to having been saved in the revival “seem to have had an abiding change wrought on them; . . . they generally appear to be persons who have a new sense of things, new apprehensions and views of God, of the divine attributes of Jesus Christ, and the great things of the gospel” (71). Following the revival of 1740-42, with the benefit of hindsight, Edwards appeared less confident.

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the “Jezebel Spirit” https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the--jezebel-spirit- https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the--jezebel-spirit-#comments Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the--jezebel-spirit- Is there any such thing as the “Jezebel spirit”? If so, what is it, or who is it? And what relationship does it sustain to the spiritual gift of prophecy? To answer this we must turn our attention to the letter of Jesus to the church in Thyatira.

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve” (Rev. 2:20-23).

Here are ten things we should all be aware of with regard to the so-called “Jezebel spirit.”

(1) Jezebel was a female member of the church at Thyatira who was promoting destructive heresies and leading many into moral compromise. She was a real person, but the name “Jezebel” is probably symbolic (it’s hard to imagine anyone deliberately naming their daughter “Jezebel”!). The name “Jezebel” had, in fact, become proverbial for wickedness. Thus, what is meant is that this disreputable, so-called “prophetess” was as wicked and dangerous an influence in Thyatira as ‘Jezebel’ had been to Israel in the OT.

(2) According to 1 Kings 16:31, Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians, who married Ahab, king of Israel. Largely because of her influence in seeking to combine the worship of Yahweh with the worship of Baal, it is said of her husband that he “did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him” (1 Kings 16:33).

Jezebel was responsible for the killing of Naboth and confiscation of his vineyard for her husband (1 Kings 21:1-6). She sought the death of all the prophets of Israel (1 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 9) and even came close to killing Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-3). Her death came as a result of being thrown from a window where she was then trampled by a horse. When an attempt was made to recover her body for burial, it was discovered that the only thing left was her skull, her feet, and the palms of her hands. According to 2 Kings 9:36-37, dogs had eaten her flesh, in fulfillment of a prophetic word from Elijah:

“When they came back and told him, he said, ‘This is the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, “In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel, and the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jezebel.”’”

(3) Note also that she “calls herself a prophetess” (v. 20). I can’t imagine Jesus using this language if her prophetic gift was of the Holy Spirit. Some contend she was a born-again believer who had simply gone astray, but I suggest that her behavior and beliefs are an indication that whatever claims she made to being saved and prophetically gifted were spurious. This isn’t to say she didn’t have a supernatural power, but the latter need not always be from God (see Matt. 7:21-23; Acts 16:16-18; 2 Thess. 2:9-10).

(4) Although the first Jezebel had been dead for over 1,000 years, her spirit had, as it were, found new life in this woman of Thyatira. She may even have been the leader or hostess of a house-church in the city. But what did she advocate that led to her being labeled with this horrid name? It’s likely she had exploited the commercial prosperity of Thyatira to justify and subsidize her immorality and that of her followers.

The complaint of the Lord lies in the unhealthy degree of toleration granted this woman. When it is said, “you tolerate that woman Jezebel,” the implication is that the church in general did not accept her teaching nor adopt her lifestyle. But the subsequent mention of her “lovers” and children in v. 22 indicates that a number in the community did so. These would have formed a distinct group within the church, and the church as a whole was content for them to remain.

(5) Jezebel obviously presumed on God’s grace and interpreted his longsuffering as approval or endorsement of her sinful ways, or at least his indifference toward her chosen paths. There may have been a definite time in the past when through some means, whether a prophetic word or direct encounter or perhaps through John, he issued this woman a warning, no doubt repeatedly. Whatever the case, the culpability of the false prophetess is evident. She “refuses” to repent. She clearly knew what was at issue and chose voluntarily to remain in her sin.

(6) Was Jezebel a Christian? Her judgment is said to come in the form of personal sickness, disease, or physical affliction of some sort. Jesus says, “I will throw her onto a sickbed,” language that is reminiscent of the discipline imposed on the Christians at Corinth who had persistently abused the Eucharist (see 1 Cor. 11:30-32). And before we too quickly conclude that someone born again could not commit such sins as are described in this passage, we should note that she is specifically charged with “teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). Note well: those whom Jesus calls “my servants” are guilty of “sexual immorality” and eating “food sacrificed to idols.”

The fact that they are called her “children” does not mean they are the actual physical progeny of her many sexual infidelities. They are, rather, “those who have so unreservedly embraced the antinomian doctrines of their spiritual mother that they are best described as younger members of her family” (Mounce, 104). In other words, “those who commit adultery with her” (v. 22) and her “children” (v. 23) are the same people.

This also raises, yet again, the question of whether or not the “sexual immorality” in view is literal/physical or a metaphor of spiritual unfaithfulness and idolatry, perhaps especially manifest in unhealthy and illicit compromise with pagan culture. The evidence is mixed. On the one hand, I can’t dismiss the possibility that literal sexual promiscuity is involved. After all, it is rare for one to embrace idolatry without yielding to sexual temptation. See especially Romans 1:18ff. So perhaps, in the final analysis, it is a false dichotomy to insist that she be guilty of either sexual immorality or religious idolatry. They seem so often (always?) to go hand in hand.

On the other hand, since there were surely at least some female followers of Jezebel, the “adultery” they are said to have committed “with her” would likely, at least in their case, be metaphorical for spiritual infidelity.

Jesus says they must repent of “her” works, i.e., since they have joined “with her” in this sin, to repent of what she did is to repent of what they, too, did. If they do not, Jesus will “throw” them “into great tribulation.” The precise nature of this “tribulation” is not specified, but it would surely involve, at minimum, physical illness that in the absence of repentance would culminate in physical death.

So, although I can’t be dogmatic about it, I’m inclined to think that “Jezebel” was an unbeliever. The fact that she is designated by a name that is linked historically to a woman of almost unimaginable wickedness and perversity suggests that she, too, is utterly unregenerate and devoid of spiritual life.

(7) So how did this woman called “Jezebel” come to exert such incredible power over the lives of Christians in Thyatira? What accounts for the authority she possessed to convince the followers of Jesus to abandon their commitment to ethical purity and engage in sexual immorality and other forms of compromise with the surrounding culture?

There’s no indication that she held an ecclesiastical office. She wasn’t an Elder or Pastor or Apostle. But she did claim to possess the gift of prophecy. Jesus said she “calls herself a prophetess” (v. 20). Is Jesus suggesting she only claimed to have this gift but in fact did not? Or did she have a genuine spiritual gift but abused it in ways inconsistent with NT guidelines on how it was to be exercised? If Jezebel was not a Christian, as I have argued, it is most likely that she exercised a supernatural “prophetic-like” ability that was energized by demonic power rather than the Spirit of God. That this was (and is) distinctly possible is evident from Matthew 7:21-23 and Acts 16:16-18 (and perhaps 2 Thess. 2:9-10).

I want to suggest that it was possibly (probably?) through this alleged “prophetic” ability that Jezebel gained power and authority in the church at Thyatira and adversely influenced a number of Christians there. It’s not difficult to see how this could (and does) occur. [By the way, a man can display the characteristics of “Jezebel” no less than a woman. This is one sin that is by no means gender specific.]

(8) So, we’ve finally come to the phrase, “spirit” of Jezebel or “Jezebel spirit,” language that, although not strictly biblical, has been bandied about in charismatic circles for generations, but perhaps is not as familiar to those in mainstream evangelicalism.

The word “spirit” is used here in one of two ways: either (a) of the human spirit, perhaps an attitude, disposition, habit, mentality or set of characteristics displayed by a particular individual, or (b) of those whose supernatural “prophetic” ability is energized by a demonic spirit. In either case, regardless of the animating force, a person with a “Jezebel spirit” is one who displays the insidious, manipulative, and evil tendencies manifest in this woman of Thyatira.

So what kind of person do I have in mind, and what is it that they do? All too often we hear of individuals using their ecclesiastical authority or position as well as their supernatural gifting (whether it be of God or the enemy), to manipulate others into behavior they would not normally embrace. I’m burdened by the number of instances in which even Christians who are prophetically gifted use their endowment to expand their sphere of influence for personal profit or are afforded unwarranted privileges in the local church.

Virtually everyone is aware of some situation in which a Christian has used a spiritual gift, whether teaching, administration, pastoring or another of the charismata to gain illicit control and influence within the wider body of Christ. So it should come as no surprise that someone who legitimately possesses the gift of prophecy might abuse it to enhance their status or broaden their liberties or even seek monetary gain.

The most heinous abuse of a “prophetic” gift is when appeal is made to special “revelatory” insights in order to justify immorality (or, at minimum, to ignore it). Similarly, because of the “wonderful contribution” that a person has made to the kingdom, he/she is virtually untouchable and rarely held accountable to the normal rules of ethical behavior that govern all other Christians. Anyone who “hears” God with such regularity and alleged accuracy, so they contend, is unique, extraordinarily anointed, and therefore so highly favored of God that they needn’t worry about the temptations that average Christians face or the tendencies of the flesh against which we typically wage war on a daily basis.

On occasion, a person with a Jezebel spirit will claim to have “revelation” that trumps Scripture (although they would rarely, if ever, put it in such stark terms; a person with this “spirit” is subtle, if nothing). Because such “words” from God are direct and immediate and can’t be explained by appeal to what one knows by natural means, they are falsely perceived as carrying greater authority than the inspired text itself. Or it is “revelation” that allegedly provides a superior and formerly unknown interpretation of Scripture that makes it possible to circumvent (or at least treat with casual disdain) the Bible’s doctrinal precepts and ethical commands.

(9) A person with a “Jezebel spirit” is one who appeals to his/her “spirituality” to rationalize (or again, at minimum, to overlook) sensuality. Often they don’t even believe it to be sinful or illicit, but are so blinded by pride, the praise of men, and sensational supernatural experiences that what may well be inappropriate for mainstream believers is, in their case, permissible. It’s just one of the perks.

Religious prestige is thus employed to foster sexual liberty. Under the pretense of anointed “ministry” a person exploits his/her platform and power to gain sexual favors or to lead others into similar behavior. This person is generally unaccountable to the leadership of the church, believing that Pastors and Elders are “un-anointed” or insufficiently gifted to appreciate the level of supernatural spirituality at which he/she operates on a daily basis.

Eventually a double standard emerges: one set of strict, biblical guidelines to govern ordinary Christians and the exercise of their gifts within the body, and a lax, minimal, or more flexible list of expectations by which the “Man/Woman of God” is to live. Needless to say, it’s a prescription for moral disaster.

You may wonder why anyone would yield to such obvious unbiblical counsel, no matter how “gifted” the individual might be. It’s not that difficult to understand. Some of you may be unaware of how mesmerizing and enticing the prospect of supernatural activity can be. When one witnesses what one believes is a genuine supernatural or miraculous event, otherwise normal theological defense mechanisms often fail to operate. Discernment is cast aside, lest it be viewed as a critical spirit or the response of a cynic. No one wants to be perceived as stiff-necked and resistant to the voice of God or the manifestation of his power. So, it is hard for some to resist and challenge the “ministry” of a recognized (or “alleged”) prophet in the church.

(10) The “spirit” of “Jezebel” was not unique to the church in Thyatira. It is alive and well in the body of Christ today. One need only read the latest headlines. It is an insidious, yet subtle, spirit. It is destructive, yet enticing. It typically gains momentum among those who are so fearful of quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19) that they fail to rein in the flesh.

The solution is not to repudiate the prophetic altogether, or any other spiritual gift for that matter. Rather, we must become good Bereans, “examining the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11) to see if these things are of God or not. In sum, we would do well to heed Paul’s counsel: “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22).

]]>
Is there any such thing as the “Jezebel spirit”? If so, what is it, or who is it? And what relationship does it sustain to the spiritual gift of prophecy? To answer this we must turn our attention to the letter of Jesus to the church in Thyatira.

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve” (Rev. 2:20-23).

Here are ten things we should all be aware of with regard to the so-called “Jezebel spirit.”

(1) Jezebel was a female member of the church at Thyatira who was promoting destructive heresies and leading many into moral compromise. She was a real person, but the name “Jezebel” is probably symbolic (it’s hard to imagine anyone deliberately naming their daughter “Jezebel”!). The name “Jezebel” had, in fact, become proverbial for wickedness. Thus, what is meant is that this disreputable, so-called “prophetess” was as wicked and dangerous an influence in Thyatira as ‘Jezebel’ had been to Israel in the OT.

(2) According to 1 Kings 16:31, Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians, who married Ahab, king of Israel. Largely because of her influence in seeking to combine the worship of Yahweh with the worship of Baal, it is said of her husband that he “did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him” (1 Kings 16:33).

Jezebel was responsible for the killing of Naboth and confiscation of his vineyard for her husband (1 Kings 21:1-6). She sought the death of all the prophets of Israel (1 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 9) and even came close to killing Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-3). Her death came as a result of being thrown from a window where she was then trampled by a horse. When an attempt was made to recover her body for burial, it was discovered that the only thing left was her skull, her feet, and the palms of her hands. According to 2 Kings 9:36-37, dogs had eaten her flesh, in fulfillment of a prophetic word from Elijah:

“When they came back and told him, he said, ‘This is the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, “In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel, and the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jezebel.”’”

(3) Note also that she “calls herself a prophetess” (v. 20). I can’t imagine Jesus using this language if her prophetic gift was of the Holy Spirit. Some contend she was a born-again believer who had simply gone astray, but I suggest that her behavior and beliefs are an indication that whatever claims she made to being saved and prophetically gifted were spurious. This isn’t to say she didn’t have a supernatural power, but the latter need not always be from God (see Matt. 7:21-23; Acts 16:16-18; 2 Thess. 2:9-10).

(4) Although the first Jezebel had been dead for over 1,000 years, her spirit had, as it were, found new life in this woman of Thyatira. She may even have been the leader or hostess of a house-church in the city. But what did she advocate that led to her being labeled with this horrid name? It’s likely she had exploited the commercial prosperity of Thyatira to justify and subsidize her immorality and that of her followers.

The complaint of the Lord lies in the unhealthy degree of toleration granted this woman. When it is said, “you tolerate that woman Jezebel,” the implication is that the church in general did not accept her teaching nor adopt her lifestyle. But the subsequent mention of her “lovers” and children in v. 22 indicates that a number in the community did so. These would have formed a distinct group within the church, and the church as a whole was content for them to remain.

(5) Jezebel obviously presumed on God’s grace and interpreted his longsuffering as approval or endorsement of her sinful ways, or at least his indifference toward her chosen paths. There may have been a definite time in the past when through some means, whether a prophetic word or direct encounter or perhaps through John, he issued this woman a warning, no doubt repeatedly. Whatever the case, the culpability of the false prophetess is evident. She “refuses” to repent. She clearly knew what was at issue and chose voluntarily to remain in her sin.

(6) Was Jezebel a Christian? Her judgment is said to come in the form of personal sickness, disease, or physical affliction of some sort. Jesus says, “I will throw her onto a sickbed,” language that is reminiscent of the discipline imposed on the Christians at Corinth who had persistently abused the Eucharist (see 1 Cor. 11:30-32). And before we too quickly conclude that someone born again could not commit such sins as are described in this passage, we should note that she is specifically charged with “teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). Note well: those whom Jesus calls “my servants” are guilty of “sexual immorality” and eating “food sacrificed to idols.”

The fact that they are called her “children” does not mean they are the actual physical progeny of her many sexual infidelities. They are, rather, “those who have so unreservedly embraced the antinomian doctrines of their spiritual mother that they are best described as younger members of her family” (Mounce, 104). In other words, “those who commit adultery with her” (v. 22) and her “children” (v. 23) are the same people.

This also raises, yet again, the question of whether or not the “sexual immorality” in view is literal/physical or a metaphor of spiritual unfaithfulness and idolatry, perhaps especially manifest in unhealthy and illicit compromise with pagan culture. The evidence is mixed. On the one hand, I can’t dismiss the possibility that literal sexual promiscuity is involved. After all, it is rare for one to embrace idolatry without yielding to sexual temptation. See especially Romans 1:18ff. So perhaps, in the final analysis, it is a false dichotomy to insist that she be guilty of either sexual immorality or religious idolatry. They seem so often (always?) to go hand in hand.

On the other hand, since there were surely at least some female followers of Jezebel, the “adultery” they are said to have committed “with her” would likely, at least in their case, be metaphorical for spiritual infidelity.

Jesus says they must repent of “her” works, i.e., since they have joined “with her” in this sin, to repent of what she did is to repent of what they, too, did. If they do not, Jesus will “throw” them “into great tribulation.” The precise nature of this “tribulation” is not specified, but it would surely involve, at minimum, physical illness that in the absence of repentance would culminate in physical death.

So, although I can’t be dogmatic about it, I’m inclined to think that “Jezebel” was an unbeliever. The fact that she is designated by a name that is linked historically to a woman of almost unimaginable wickedness and perversity suggests that she, too, is utterly unregenerate and devoid of spiritual life.

(7) So how did this woman called “Jezebel” come to exert such incredible power over the lives of Christians in Thyatira? What accounts for the authority she possessed to convince the followers of Jesus to abandon their commitment to ethical purity and engage in sexual immorality and other forms of compromise with the surrounding culture?

There’s no indication that she held an ecclesiastical office. She wasn’t an Elder or Pastor or Apostle. But she did claim to possess the gift of prophecy. Jesus said she “calls herself a prophetess” (v. 20). Is Jesus suggesting she only claimed to have this gift but in fact did not? Or did she have a genuine spiritual gift but abused it in ways inconsistent with NT guidelines on how it was to be exercised? If Jezebel was not a Christian, as I have argued, it is most likely that she exercised a supernatural “prophetic-like” ability that was energized by demonic power rather than the Spirit of God. That this was (and is) distinctly possible is evident from Matthew 7:21-23 and Acts 16:16-18 (and perhaps 2 Thess. 2:9-10).

I want to suggest that it was possibly (probably?) through this alleged “prophetic” ability that Jezebel gained power and authority in the church at Thyatira and adversely influenced a number of Christians there. It’s not difficult to see how this could (and does) occur. [By the way, a man can display the characteristics of “Jezebel” no less than a woman. This is one sin that is by no means gender specific.]

(8) So, we’ve finally come to the phrase, “spirit” of Jezebel or “Jezebel spirit,” language that, although not strictly biblical, has been bandied about in charismatic circles for generations, but perhaps is not as familiar to those in mainstream evangelicalism.

The word “spirit” is used here in one of two ways: either (a) of the human spirit, perhaps an attitude, disposition, habit, mentality or set of characteristics displayed by a particular individual, or (b) of those whose supernatural “prophetic” ability is energized by a demonic spirit. In either case, regardless of the animating force, a person with a “Jezebel spirit” is one who displays the insidious, manipulative, and evil tendencies manifest in this woman of Thyatira.

So what kind of person do I have in mind, and what is it that they do? All too often we hear of individuals using their ecclesiastical authority or position as well as their supernatural gifting (whether it be of God or the enemy), to manipulate others into behavior they would not normally embrace. I’m burdened by the number of instances in which even Christians who are prophetically gifted use their endowment to expand their sphere of influence for personal profit or are afforded unwarranted privileges in the local church.

Virtually everyone is aware of some situation in which a Christian has used a spiritual gift, whether teaching, administration, pastoring or another of the charismata to gain illicit control and influence within the wider body of Christ. So it should come as no surprise that someone who legitimately possesses the gift of prophecy might abuse it to enhance their status or broaden their liberties or even seek monetary gain.

The most heinous abuse of a “prophetic” gift is when appeal is made to special “revelatory” insights in order to justify immorality (or, at minimum, to ignore it). Similarly, because of the “wonderful contribution” that a person has made to the kingdom, he/she is virtually untouchable and rarely held accountable to the normal rules of ethical behavior that govern all other Christians. Anyone who “hears” God with such regularity and alleged accuracy, so they contend, is unique, extraordinarily anointed, and therefore so highly favored of God that they needn’t worry about the temptations that average Christians face or the tendencies of the flesh against which we typically wage war on a daily basis.

On occasion, a person with a Jezebel spirit will claim to have “revelation” that trumps Scripture (although they would rarely, if ever, put it in such stark terms; a person with this “spirit” is subtle, if nothing). Because such “words” from God are direct and immediate and can’t be explained by appeal to what one knows by natural means, they are falsely perceived as carrying greater authority than the inspired text itself. Or it is “revelation” that allegedly provides a superior and formerly unknown interpretation of Scripture that makes it possible to circumvent (or at least treat with casual disdain) the Bible’s doctrinal precepts and ethical commands.

(9) A person with a “Jezebel spirit” is one who appeals to his/her “spirituality” to rationalize (or again, at minimum, to overlook) sensuality. Often they don’t even believe it to be sinful or illicit, but are so blinded by pride, the praise of men, and sensational supernatural experiences that what may well be inappropriate for mainstream believers is, in their case, permissible. It’s just one of the perks.

Religious prestige is thus employed to foster sexual liberty. Under the pretense of anointed “ministry” a person exploits his/her platform and power to gain sexual favors or to lead others into similar behavior. This person is generally unaccountable to the leadership of the church, believing that Pastors and Elders are “un-anointed” or insufficiently gifted to appreciate the level of supernatural spirituality at which he/she operates on a daily basis.

Eventually a double standard emerges: one set of strict, biblical guidelines to govern ordinary Christians and the exercise of their gifts within the body, and a lax, minimal, or more flexible list of expectations by which the “Man/Woman of God” is to live. Needless to say, it’s a prescription for moral disaster.

You may wonder why anyone would yield to such obvious unbiblical counsel, no matter how “gifted” the individual might be. It’s not that difficult to understand. Some of you may be unaware of how mesmerizing and enticing the prospect of supernatural activity can be. When one witnesses what one believes is a genuine supernatural or miraculous event, otherwise normal theological defense mechanisms often fail to operate. Discernment is cast aside, lest it be viewed as a critical spirit or the response of a cynic. No one wants to be perceived as stiff-necked and resistant to the voice of God or the manifestation of his power. So, it is hard for some to resist and challenge the “ministry” of a recognized (or “alleged”) prophet in the church.

(10) The “spirit” of “Jezebel” was not unique to the church in Thyatira. It is alive and well in the body of Christ today. One need only read the latest headlines. It is an insidious, yet subtle, spirit. It is destructive, yet enticing. It typically gains momentum among those who are so fearful of quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19) that they fail to rein in the flesh.

The solution is not to repudiate the prophetic altogether, or any other spiritual gift for that matter. Rather, we must become good Bereans, “examining the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11) to see if these things are of God or not. In sum, we would do well to heed Paul’s counsel: “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22).

]]>
10 Things You Should Know about the Lifting of Hands in Worship https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-lifting-of-hands-in-worship https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-lifting-of-hands-in-worship#comments Wed, 08 Jul 2020 10:00:00 -0500 https://www.damascus-demo.website/pastors-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-lifting-of-hands-in-worship Worship involves our bodies as well as our hearts and minds. Our posture tells a story. It makes a statement to God and to others about the state of our souls and the affections and passions of our heart.

If you were to visit Bridgeway, you would immediately recognize that we freely and frequently lift our hands when we worship. Some people may be seen kneeling. Some sit throughout the course of a service, either by preference or due to some physical limitation. Some just stand. And yes, some even dance. But for the sake of time and space, I’ll forego talking of the other postures and restrict my comments to the lifting of hands and its significance for worship.

(1) I raise my hands when I pray and praise because I have explicit biblical precedent for doing so. I don’t know if I’ve found all biblical instances of it, but consider this smattering of texts.

“So I will bless you as long as I live; in your name I will lift up my hands” (Psalm 63:4).

“To you, O LORD, I call; my rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if you be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit. Hear the voice of my pleas for mercy, when I cry to you for help, when I lift up my hands toward your most holy sanctuary” (Psalm 28:1).

“Every day I call upon you, O LORD; I spread out my hands to you” (Psalm 88:9).

“I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statutes” (Psalm 119:48).

“Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD!” (Psalm 134:2).

“O LORD, I call upon you; hasten to me! Give ear to my voice when I call to you! Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!” (Psalm 141:1-2).

“I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land” (Psalm 143:6).

“Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands. Solomon had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and had set it in the court, and he stood on it. Then he knelt on his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven” (2 Chronicles 6:12-13).

“And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garment and my cloak torn, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God” (Ezra 9:5).

“And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground” (Nehemiah 8:6).

“Let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven” (Lamentations 3:41).

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Timothy 2:8).

(2) If someone should object and say that few of these texts speak of worship (see Pss. 63:4; 134:2), but only of prayer (as if a rigid distinction can even be made between the two; indeed, I can’t recall ever worshiping God without praying to him; and prayer is itself a form of worship).

I also have a question: Why do you assume that the appropriate place for your hands is at your side and you need an explicit biblical warrant for raising them? Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to assume that the appropriate place for one’s hands is raised toward heaven, calling for an explicit biblical warrant (other than gravity or physical exhaustion) to keep them low?

(3) When I’m asked why I raise my hands in worship, I will often say: “Because I’m not a Gnostic!” Gnosticism, both in its ancient and modern forms, disparages the body. Among other things, it endorses a hyper-spirituality that minimizes the goodness of physical reality. Gnostics focus almost exclusively on the non-material or “spiritual” dimensions of human existence and experience. The body is evil and corrupt. The body must be controlled and suppressed and kept in check lest it defile the pure praise of one’s spirit. The body, they say, is little more than a temporary prison for the soul that longs to escape into a pure, ethereal, altogether spiritual mode of being. Nonsense!

In one particular wedding ceremony I performed, the woman was from England and asked that I include in the vows one particular part that goes as follows:

“With my body I thee honor.
My body will adore you,
and your body alone will I cherish.
I will with my body, declare your worth.”

Biblical Christianity celebrates God’s creation of physical reality (after all, he did pronounce it “good” in Genesis 1). We are more than immaterial creatures. We are embodied souls, and are to worship God with our whole being. We should “honor” God with our bodies. We “adore” God with our bodies. With our bodies we “declare” his worth. Paul couldn’t have been more to the point when he exhorted us to present our “bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” which is our “spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

By all means, we must worship with understanding. We must think rightly of God and love him with our heart and soul and mind (see Matt. 22:37). But we are not, for that reason, any less physical beings. We will have glorified bodies forever in which to honor and adore our great God. If we are commanded to dance, kneel, sing and speak when we worship, what possible reason could there be for not engaging our hands as well?

(4) The human hand gives visible expression to so many of our beliefs, feelings, and intentions. When I taught homiletics (how to preach), one of the most difficult tasks was getting young preachers to use their hands properly. Either from embarrassment or fear, they would keep them stuffed in their pockets, hidden from sight behind their backs, or nervously twiddle them in a variety of annoying ways.

Our hands speak loudly. When angry, we clinch our fists, threatening harm to others. When guilty, we hide our hands or hold incriminating evidence from view. When uneasy, we sit on them to obscure our inner selves. When worried, we wring them. When afraid, we use them to cover our face or hold tightly to someone for protection. When desperate or frustrated, we throw them wildly in the air, perhaps also in resignation or dismay. When confused, we extend them in bewilderment, as if asking for advice and direction. When hospitable, we use them to warmly receive those in our presence. When suspicious, we use them to keep someone at bay, or perhaps point an accusing finger in their direction.

(5) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who surrenders to a higher authority, I yield to God’s will and ways and submit to his guidance and power and purpose in my life. It is my way of saying, “God, I am yours to do with as you please.”

(6) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who expresses utter vulnerability, I say to the Lord: “I have nothing to hide. I come to you open handed, concealing nothing. My life is yours to search and sanctify. I’m holding nothing back. My heart, soul, spirit, body and will are an open book to you.”

(7) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who needs help, I confess my utter dependence on God for everything. I cry out: “O God, I entrust my life to you. If you don’t take hold and uplift me, I will surely sink into the abyss of sin and death. I rely on your strength alone. Preserve me. Sustain me. Deliver me.”

(8) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who happily and expectantly receives a gift from another, I declare to the Lord: “Father, I gratefully embrace all you want to give. I’m a spiritual beggar. I have nothing to offer other than my need of all that you are for me in Jesus. So glorify yourself by satisfying me wholly with you alone.”

(9) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who aspires to direct attention away from self to the Savior, I say: “O God, yours is the glory; yours is the power; yours is the majesty alone!”

(10) I life my hands when I worship because as the beloved of God, I say tenderly and intimately to the Lover of my soul: “Abba, hold me. Protect me. Reveal your heart to me. I am yours! You are mine! Draw near and enable me to know and feel the affection in your heart for this one sinful soul.”

For those many years when I kept my hands rigidly at my side or safely tucked away in the pockets of my pants, I knew that no one would take notice of my praise of God or my prayers of desperation. No one would dare mistake me for a fanatic! I felt in control, dignified, sophisticated, and above all else, safe. These matter no more to me.

Please understand: these are not words of condemnation but confession. I know no one’s heart but my own. I judge no one’s motives but mine. I’m not telling you how to worship, but simply sharing how I do and why. I’m at that point in life where I honestly couldn’t care less what the immovable evangelical is thinking or the crazy charismatic is feeling. What matters to me is that God have my all: my mind, will, feet, eyes, ears, tongue, heart, affections, and yes, my hands.

No, you need not raise your hands to worship God. But why wouldn’t you want to?

 

]]>
Worship involves our bodies as well as our hearts and minds. Our posture tells a story. It makes a statement to God and to others about the state of our souls and the affections and passions of our heart.

If you were to visit Bridgeway, you would immediately recognize that we freely and frequently lift our hands when we worship. Some people may be seen kneeling. Some sit throughout the course of a service, either by preference or due to some physical limitation. Some just stand. And yes, some even dance. But for the sake of time and space, I’ll forego talking of the other postures and restrict my comments to the lifting of hands and its significance for worship.

(1) I raise my hands when I pray and praise because I have explicit biblical precedent for doing so. I don’t know if I’ve found all biblical instances of it, but consider this smattering of texts.

“So I will bless you as long as I live; in your name I will lift up my hands” (Psalm 63:4).

“To you, O LORD, I call; my rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if you be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit. Hear the voice of my pleas for mercy, when I cry to you for help, when I lift up my hands toward your most holy sanctuary” (Psalm 28:1).

“Every day I call upon you, O LORD; I spread out my hands to you” (Psalm 88:9).

“I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statutes” (Psalm 119:48).

“Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD!” (Psalm 134:2).

“O LORD, I call upon you; hasten to me! Give ear to my voice when I call to you! Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!” (Psalm 141:1-2).

“I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land” (Psalm 143:6).

“Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands. Solomon had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and had set it in the court, and he stood on it. Then he knelt on his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands toward heaven” (2 Chronicles 6:12-13).

“And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garment and my cloak torn, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God” (Ezra 9:5).

“And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground” (Nehemiah 8:6).

“Let us lift up our hearts and hands to God in heaven” (Lamentations 3:41).

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Timothy 2:8).

(2) If someone should object and say that few of these texts speak of worship (see Pss. 63:4; 134:2), but only of prayer (as if a rigid distinction can even be made between the two; indeed, I can’t recall ever worshiping God without praying to him; and prayer is itself a form of worship).

I also have a question: Why do you assume that the appropriate place for your hands is at your side and you need an explicit biblical warrant for raising them? Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to assume that the appropriate place for one’s hands is raised toward heaven, calling for an explicit biblical warrant (other than gravity or physical exhaustion) to keep them low?

(3) When I’m asked why I raise my hands in worship, I will often say: “Because I’m not a Gnostic!” Gnosticism, both in its ancient and modern forms, disparages the body. Among other things, it endorses a hyper-spirituality that minimizes the goodness of physical reality. Gnostics focus almost exclusively on the non-material or “spiritual” dimensions of human existence and experience. The body is evil and corrupt. The body must be controlled and suppressed and kept in check lest it defile the pure praise of one’s spirit. The body, they say, is little more than a temporary prison for the soul that longs to escape into a pure, ethereal, altogether spiritual mode of being. Nonsense!

In one particular wedding ceremony I performed, the woman was from England and asked that I include in the vows one particular part that goes as follows:

“With my body I thee honor.
My body will adore you,
and your body alone will I cherish.
I will with my body, declare your worth.”

Biblical Christianity celebrates God’s creation of physical reality (after all, he did pronounce it “good” in Genesis 1). We are more than immaterial creatures. We are embodied souls, and are to worship God with our whole being. We should “honor” God with our bodies. We “adore” God with our bodies. With our bodies we “declare” his worth. Paul couldn’t have been more to the point when he exhorted us to present our “bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” which is our “spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

By all means, we must worship with understanding. We must think rightly of God and love him with our heart and soul and mind (see Matt. 22:37). But we are not, for that reason, any less physical beings. We will have glorified bodies forever in which to honor and adore our great God. If we are commanded to dance, kneel, sing and speak when we worship, what possible reason could there be for not engaging our hands as well?

(4) The human hand gives visible expression to so many of our beliefs, feelings, and intentions. When I taught homiletics (how to preach), one of the most difficult tasks was getting young preachers to use their hands properly. Either from embarrassment or fear, they would keep them stuffed in their pockets, hidden from sight behind their backs, or nervously twiddle them in a variety of annoying ways.

Our hands speak loudly. When angry, we clinch our fists, threatening harm to others. When guilty, we hide our hands or hold incriminating evidence from view. When uneasy, we sit on them to obscure our inner selves. When worried, we wring them. When afraid, we use them to cover our face or hold tightly to someone for protection. When desperate or frustrated, we throw them wildly in the air, perhaps also in resignation or dismay. When confused, we extend them in bewilderment, as if asking for advice and direction. When hospitable, we use them to warmly receive those in our presence. When suspicious, we use them to keep someone at bay, or perhaps point an accusing finger in their direction.

(5) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who surrenders to a higher authority, I yield to God’s will and ways and submit to his guidance and power and purpose in my life. It is my way of saying, “God, I am yours to do with as you please.”

(6) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who expresses utter vulnerability, I say to the Lord: “I have nothing to hide. I come to you open handed, concealing nothing. My life is yours to search and sanctify. I’m holding nothing back. My heart, soul, spirit, body and will are an open book to you.”

(7) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who needs help, I confess my utter dependence on God for everything. I cry out: “O God, I entrust my life to you. If you don’t take hold and uplift me, I will surely sink into the abyss of sin and death. I rely on your strength alone. Preserve me. Sustain me. Deliver me.”

(8) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who happily and expectantly receives a gift from another, I declare to the Lord: “Father, I gratefully embrace all you want to give. I’m a spiritual beggar. I have nothing to offer other than my need of all that you are for me in Jesus. So glorify yourself by satisfying me wholly with you alone.”

(9) I lift my hands when I worship because like one who aspires to direct attention away from self to the Savior, I say: “O God, yours is the glory; yours is the power; yours is the majesty alone!”

(10) I life my hands when I worship because as the beloved of God, I say tenderly and intimately to the Lover of my soul: “Abba, hold me. Protect me. Reveal your heart to me. I am yours! You are mine! Draw near and enable me to know and feel the affection in your heart for this one sinful soul.”

For those many years when I kept my hands rigidly at my side or safely tucked away in the pockets of my pants, I knew that no one would take notice of my praise of God or my prayers of desperation. No one would dare mistake me for a fanatic! I felt in control, dignified, sophisticated, and above all else, safe. These matter no more to me.

Please understand: these are not words of condemnation but confession. I know no one’s heart but my own. I judge no one’s motives but mine. I’m not telling you how to worship, but simply sharing how I do and why. I’m at that point in life where I honestly couldn’t care less what the immovable evangelical is thinking or the crazy charismatic is feeling. What matters to me is that God have my all: my mind, will, feet, eyes, ears, tongue, heart, affections, and yes, my hands.

No, you need not raise your hands to worship God. But why wouldn’t you want to?

 

]]>