While preaching to American soldiers in Bataan during World War II, U. S. Army chaplain W. T. Cummings said, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” His point to those young soldiers was that when we are faced with the certainty of dying, then the certainty of God becomes more real.

We are a nation at war. We have enemies in the world that seek our destruction. Also, America is a nation at war with itself. The most basic institutions of our society are being challenged. The scriptures teach us that civil government is ordained of God and its purpose is to establish justice and righteousness within society (Romans 13). However, many believe that our government fails miserably in upholding justice and the concept of righteousness completely eludes our leaders. There is brewing in our nation today much discontent among law abiding citizens. The popular sport of the day is the character assignation of our political leaders. There is a spirit of rebellion in the land.

I am convinced that neither political party is concerned with justice and righteousness in our society, but only with power. When we are faced with the decay of our society, then the certainty of our need for God becomes more real.

The Scriptures teach us that the family is ordained by God and its purpose is to train our children to love God, to honor elders, to work hard and to respect one’s neighbors. Be we are no longer committed as a society to the concept of the family. Young men and young women do not take seriously their marriage vows, especially the words “for better or worse.” Divorce is the rule of the day. Children are no longer reared in secure family environments, but they are reared in an environment of warfare – a warfare in which their mothers and fathers are the combatants. Further, many mothers and fathers no longer view their role as the teacher of their children as significant. We send our children off to be trained by strangers while we pursue our own interests. We have turned our children loose in the streets without moral guidance. So we have children with no conscience, who cheat, lie, steal, commit sexual immorality and even kill, with no sense of remorse. When we are faced with these troubling developments in family life the certainty of our need for God becomes more real.

Like soldiers in foxholes, faced with their own mortality, we have become a nation facing its own moral decline. Like the atheist who becomes a believer in the foxhole, it is time that we as a nation of cynics become a nation seeking God’s help. I am reminded of the words of scripture: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

During this Lenten season, let us join together in a time of repentance and intercession so that God may indeed bless America. Christians throughout the land must heed this call to repentance and prayer. We must not join in the sport of political character assassination, but heed the words of the apostles to honor our leaders and to pray for them. We must do more that point a finger of judgment at the failures of our society; we must sincerely pray for our families. Christians must not be prophets of doom, but we must become heralds of the good news of Jesus Christ. We must do more than criticize the ills of society; we must become the bearers of hope for our society.

Last week as I learned of the death of Whitney Houston, again I found myself grieving the untimely death of a very gifted person who had apparently succumbed to her demons. I didn’t watch her funeral, but I have read many Facebook posts and blog entries trying to reconcile her tragic death with her Christian faith.

Before I go further, please allow me to declare my belief in the grace of God and I am a grateful beneficiary of God’s unmerited divine favor. As a Christian of more than 35 years, and a pastor for more than 30 years, I am very aware of the temptations and trials with which believers struggle. I have no desire to make judgments about the ultimate destiny of Whitney or Elvis (or anyone else).

But… I find myself wondering, “It this all there is to the Christian faith?” I am grateful that Jesus embraces our brokenness, but can’t he also heal us? I glory that I am justified – forgiven and declared righteous – through faith in Christ. But maybe I need more than forgiveness, maybe I also need to be made whole. To use the traditional language of my Pentecostal faith, I also need to be sanctified.

As I read the Gospels, I find that Jesus forgives sinners, cleanses lepers, delivers from demons, opens blind eyes, and even raises the dead. When the adulterous woman was condemned to death, Jesus offered forgiveness and life with the words, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more” (John 8:11). When Jesus delivered the demonized man of the Gerasenes, the once demonized man was found to be “clothed and in his right mind” (Mark 5:15). Yes, Jesus forgives the sinner. But He does more; He offers abundant life and wholeness. Paul often spoke of “grace and peace” in Christ; in other words in Christ we are justified and receive the shalom of God. The Hebrew word shalom speaks to the general well-being of life.

Often I hear Christians testify, “I’m just a sinner saved by grace.” Well yes, but being saved by grace means that the sinner has been transformed into a saint – a sanctified one. Being sanctified suggests that salvation is more than the imputed righteousness of God, but also the imparted righteousness of God. In other words, faith in Christ affects a profound change in the believer. We become “partakers in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and we are empowered to pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14). Some will offer the retort, “Well, no body’s perfect.” But shouldn’t we pursue perfection? (Matthew 5:48).

I am grateful for the grace of God that embraces broken humans struggling with their sinfulness. But let’s not forget that in Christ we can be made whole. In Christ there is deliverance from our demons. In Christ, Saul the persecutor is transformed into the Apostle Paul. In Christ, the slave trader John Newton is transformed into an abolitionist. In Christ, Agnes Bojaxhiu, a small Albanian woman, became a spiritual giant – Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

The gospel according to Elvis and Whitney implies that Christ is powerless to deliver us from the demons that seek to destroy us. I am hopeful that Elvis and Whitney are at rest in Christ. My understanding of grace certainly embraces their struggles. However, my understanding of grace goes much further. Grace is the power and presence of the Holy Spirit that enables the believer to present themselves as an instrument of righteousness (Romans 6:13). Amazing grace means that sin shall not be master (Romans 6:14).

In the 1980’s I attended a small Southern Baptist College. This was during the conflict between the conservatives and moderates (liberals?) about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. In our “Gospels” class, I remember telling a small group that the future debate would not be about verbal inspiration or inerrancy, but about hermeneutics. Thirty years later, that statement has proved to have been prophetic.

I often tell ministerial candidates that we must know what the Bible says and what it means. Each year in our Ministerial Internship Program I require our candidates to read a Civil War era pro-slavery article written by a southern Presbyterian minister. Then I ask, “Is slavery sinful?” and “Why?” This leads to a prolonged discussion about how to understand the Bible. Last year, during the discussion I polled the candidates by asking, “How many of you believe the Bible justifies slavery?” To my surprise, the majority agreed. They believed that the Bible justifies slavery because they hold to a simplistic literalist hermeneutic: “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!” I have many objections with this way of reading the Bible, not the least of which is that it means that we don’t have to think.

I recently received a call from a very sincere believer. She explained that her husband had a child out of wedlock several years ago and they recently reconciled. During their first meeting, matters of faith were discussed. The young man said he believed in God, but was troubled about going to church. He then quoted Scripture: “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2). My caller asked, “What does this mean?” I could imagine their questions. Does this mean that illegitimate children can’t be saved? That their grandchildren can’t be saved? Does this mean that single mothers with their children should not be allowed in worship services?

This is just one of hundreds of difficult sayings and verses about which we must think carefully. Should I rejoice when my enemies’ baby is killed? (Psalm 137:9). Am I sinning if I eat my steak rare? (Acts 15:20). Should women wear hats in church? (1 Corinthians 11:5-6). I could go on ad infinitum but it would be an exercise in futility.

The preacher of Hebrews declared, “…the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12) and Paul said that the “sword of the Spirit” is the “word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). All weapons are very dangerous and require proper training and careful use. That’s why Paul encouraged Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). If the Bible is not “accurately handled” it can become a very dangerous weapon that can justify genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, and many other evils. So, how can we approach the Bible with care? There are hundreds of books on biblical hermeneutics. I can’t begin to scratch the surface, but I want to offer a few principles of hermeneutics that have guided my study.

“In the beginning was the Word…” (John 1:1). As John penned the opening words of his gospel, he insisted that Jesus Christ is the beginning and source of everything. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and only through Him can we properly understand the sacred text. His words and works offer the standard by which all others are to be judged. The Old Testament must be understood through Christ. When the Mosaic law demands death, Christ offers life (John 8:1-11). When Joshua or Samuel seem to justify genocide, Jesus reminds us that God loves the world (John 3:16). Whereas a Psalmist might rejoice over the death of his enemies, Jesus challenges us to love or enemies (Matthew 5:44). Although the Old Testament justifies polygamy, Jesus insisted that proper marriage is one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:3-9). Just as the Law and the Prophets must be interpreted through Jesus, so must the Apostles. The words of Paul regarding the role of women in the church must be judged by the actions of Jesus in bringing women into his inner circle. Jesus is the divine Word through whom the written word must be discerned.

The meta-narrative of the Bible is life and redemption; creation and new creation. The purpose of the Incarnation of the Word is new creation, new life, abundant life, and eternal life. The Bible reveals as much about the nature of humanity as it does about the purpose of God. As we read through the Bible we become aware of the darkness of the human mind and the hardness of the human heart. In the midst of the hate, violence, and death the narrative of redemption breaks forth and offers hope. Whereas the Law prohibited an illegitimate child from entering the assembly, the redemptive narrative of Scripture offers grace and new creation so that all may be invited to participate. A hermeneutic of redemptive life in Christ will never allow for abortion or slavery. The redemptive narrative includes sanctification and glorification. Just as Christ has priority over Moses, new creation has priority over original creation. This means that a proper hermeneutic does not begin with Genesis, but with Revelation. A redemptive narrative favors the goal of redemption over the origin of the fall. A redemptive narrative, that embraces sanctification and glorification, frees the slaves and lifts women from subjugation. Paul, who often struggled with these issues, understood that being in Christ affects an ontological transformation: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28). In Christ and through the Spirit male and female participate fully, equally, and together in the life of the redeemed community (Joel 2:28-29).

Some of my friends and colleagues have challenged me: “Dan, the same hermeneutic that ordains women also legitimizes homosexuality.” My response is NO it doesn’t! Remember, the hermeneutic of redemption includes sanctification and glorification. It means that Christ affects an ontological transformation. Paul declared, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). In Christ, the power of sin and death are broken. A hermeneutic of redemption means that homosexuals (like adulterers) may be forgiven and sanctified (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Sanctification does not mean that sinful behavior is affirmed by grace; but that through the grace of God we offer ourselves to God as “instruments of righteousness” (Romans 6:8-14). The same redemptive power that frees the slaves and releases women, also delivers men and women from the sinful bondage of all types of sexual immorality. Therefore, the ordination of women is affirmed; but homosexuality (or any type of sexual immorality) is not.

Finally, the interpretation of Scripture cannot be done alone. It is not a matter of my individual conscience. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). To assume that I can do this alone is nothing less than arrogance and too often leads to “destructive heresies” (1 Peter 2:1). There is a “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1) and I need to hear their voices. We must understand that to properly negotiate the various tensions within the Scriptures we must study together, listen to the voices of the faithful, and discern the mind of the Spirit.

]]> http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/the-bible-a-dangerous-weapon/feed 1 http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/gods-mission-to-the-nations http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/gods-mission-to-the-nations#comments Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:59:37 +0000 Daniel Tomberlin http://www.danieltomberlin.net/?p=1263 Read more »

The lawyer’s question is very straightforward – it’s about salvation.

Jesus and the lawyer are in agreement about the requirement to inherit eternal life: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). Let’s stop here for a moment, because this is more controversial that we may wish to admit. Today, if someone were to ask an evangelical Protestant this same question the most likely response would be, “…confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). That’s because the most basic Protestant creed is “faith alone.” For Protestants, salvation is about faith, and faith is a rational decision about what we believe about Jesus. I certainly do not wish to challenge the requirement of faith in salvation; however in this dialogue between Jesus and the lawyer about inheriting eternal life, the word faith does not occur.

Before you start gathering wood for the fire in which to burn the heretic, consider the words of Jesus: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). I find it striking that the traditional “marks of the church” – one, holy, apostolic, and catholic – does not include love. Nor does the Protestant “marks of the church” – right preaching, proper administration of sacraments, and church discipline – include love. Even the way we talk about soteriology – predestination or prevenient grace – seems to ignore the priority of love. Maybe we should reconsider how we talk about these matters. Instead of insisting that the initial salvific act of God is predestination and election (Reformed), or prevenient grace (Wesleyan), we should insist that God’s initial salvific act is love (John 3:16). Notice the priority of love in Paul’s words: “In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved ” (Ephesians 1:4-6). Likewise, the proper human response to God’s salvific call is love and we are capable of reciprocal love because of God’s prevenient love. John wrote: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins… We love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:10, 19).

Before we continue, we must define love. The primary words that designated love in the ancient Greek language are agápē, philéō, and érōs. Our modern notions of love are not far removed from the ancient Greek notions of love. For many of us, love is something we experience and feel. This romantic and emotional notion of love is designated by the words philéō and érōs. Philéō can be understood as “a warmed heart” and érōs speaks to “passionate or sensual longing.” Both words tend to speak of love in terms of pleasure. Only agápē and philéō are used in the New Testament. In fact, agápē is rarely used in ancient Greek literature, but it is the most common word for love in the New Testament. Why? Jesus Christ redefined the notion of love. The pagan notions of love emphasize pleasure. Ancient Christians were not opposed to pleasure associated with love, but they were opposed to the notion of love solely for the sake of pleasure. For the early disciples of Jesus, love could never be defined as erotic. Instead, agápē denotes the self-sacrifical, self-giving nature of love. Agápē transcends the selfish notions of érōs, and even the sentimental notions of philéō. Agápē is not the popular notion of “unconditional love,” but love that is conditioned by the redemptive purpose of God. Agápē is the choice to give of oneself, to deny oneself, even to empty oneself for the sake of the beloved. Agápē is the essence of God (1 John 4:8) and the action of God (John 3:16). Agápē is also the proper human response to God (Luke 10:27). To “love the Lord your God with all your” heart, life, strength, and mind suggest that the “Who” and “how” of the loving response are significant. The “Who” is revealed to us through the Incarnation and Pentecost, both of which are self-giving acts of God. The “how” of our loving response to God suggests that we offer our lives (body, heart, and head) as a “living and holy sacrifice” (Romans 12:1).

So, what about faith? Certainly, faith has a proper place in human response to God. After all, “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is…” (Hebrews 11:6). Protestants have tended to emphasize the priority of faith. But, I would ask, “What is the source of faith?” Paul wrote, “The fruit of the Spirit is love…” (Galatians 5:22). He also said, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13). Love is the self-giving action of God. Faith and hope spring from love. Love precedes faith and has priority over faith. Again, let’s refer to Paul: “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2). With this in mind, maybe we should protest the Protestant notion of “faith alone.”

Let’s return to the confrontation between the lawyer and Jesus. The lawyer responded correctly, but insincerely. Luke tells us that he was “wishing to justify himself.” This is a temptation with which saint and sinner struggle. We know it by the term “self-righteousness.” Unbelievers seek to justify themselves by insisting they don’t need God, or the church. Those within the church seek to justify themselves when, confronted with the radical demands of Christ, they resist. Self-righteousness is the effort to deny, or justify, sinfulness. The lawyer sought to deny his sinfulness by asking, “Who is my neighbor?” He was looking for a legal “loop-hole” to resist the proper expression of agápē. Agápē requires more than self-giving towards God; it also requires self-giving and self-sacrifice towards strangers (Leviticus 19:33-34). The lawyer knew the Law, but was resisting its implications.

Jesus demonstrates the radical nature of Christian love in the story of the “good Samaritan.” The priest and Levite saw the wounded traveler, but passed by. Before we criticize them, let’s put this in context. If you’re traveling down a lonely stretch of I-95 after midnight and see someone in distress on the side of the road, will you stop to aid them? The priest and Levite didn’t pass by because they hated the wounded traveler, but because they were afraid. Helping the wounded traveler meant putting themselves at risk. The Samaritan, moved by compassion, expressed Christian love by overcoming his fears, caring for the man’s wounds, and giving much of his personal treasure.

We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:16-18).

The priest, Levite, and Samaritan shared a common devotion to the Torah, even if their interpretations differed. Only the Samaritan properly expressed the self-giving love of God. Paul exhorted Timothy, “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Timothy 1:6-7 ESV). Christians should “fan into flame the gift of God,” overcome fear, and exercise the love of God toward friend and stranger alike. When believers (aka, brothers and sisters) gather to discuss important issues of theology and polity, may we be bold in our love for one another and tolerant in our disagreements. As we enter into dialogue with heterodox Christians, or adherents of other religions, should not that dialogue be informed and guided by the love of Christ? As we engage in the politics of this world, we should ask how our political views are formed by the self-giving and self-denying essence of agápē. In the midst of provocative discussions about religion and politics, how can the love of God help us guard our speech, and even embrace our opponent? The anger that is often expressed in public discourse is an expression of fear. John tells us that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear… and whoever fears has not been perfected in love” (1 John 4:18).

At the last General Assembly of the Church of God we endured a heated debate about the ordination of women. I favored the motion, but most of my friends and colleagues opposed it. After the motion was defeated a young minister (who opposed the motion) approached me and asked, “How can I remain in this church if it adopts a position that I disagree with?” As I was about to offer an answer, another dear friend (also opposed to my position) interrupted with is own question: “Dan, are we still on for dinner tonight?” I turned to my young friend and replied, “That’s how we keep the fellowship – we love each other!”

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity (Colossians 3:12-14).

The lawyer sought to put Jesus to the test, but Jesus turned the test toward him. That’s what Jesus does. I wonder if we can pass the test?

During the Q&A someone asked, “How can I vote for Mitt Romney if he doesn’t believe like I do?” Let me state that this blog is not about presidential politics. I responded, “Whoever you vote for, you’re not going to vote for pastor of the USA, but for president.” I explained that I don’t want a president to do theology because one thing we learned from the Nicene controversy is that the emperor doesn’t normally make a good theologian. I’m uncomfortable with applying a religious test to politicians because when this happens politicians usually are very adept in using religious faith to promote their political ends.

A recent post in the opinion pages of the New York Times said that evangelical Christians don’t like Mormons because of “Mormonism’s remarkable success and rapid expansion.” I don’t think so. It goes much deeper. As I was preparing for the presentation entitled “Athanasius vs. Arius” I began to realize that there are similarities between then and now – popular theological movements, politicians, angry preachers, and serious discussions about the identity of Jesus Christ. Many have suggested that the only difference between Arius and Athanasius was a single iota – the difference between homoousios and homoiousios.* Those familiar with the controversy know that the single iota makes all the difference in what and who is Jesus Christ.

During the Nicene controversy the Emperor Constantine was somewhat ambivalent. Even though, by some accounts, the word homoousios was suggested by Constantine, subsequent history demonstrates that he was never really committed to the creed. He disliked Athanasius and probably died favoring the Arian understanding of Jesus Christ. Constantine wanted peace in his empire and had no patience with the likes of Athanasius who risked the stability of the world over a single iota.

Likewise, many contemporary political observers don’t understand the uneasiness that many Protestants and Catholics have about the possibility of a Mormon president. It’s not about politics. It’s about theology. It’s about who is Jesus Christ. The Mormon understanding of Jesus Christ may not be identical to that of Arius, but homoiousios could indeed be used to explain the Mormon Christ, a Christ who is of similar substance of the Father, but not of the same substance of the Father. The fact remains that Mormons do not embrace the Nicene understanding of Holy Trinity or the Chalcedon definition of Jesus Christ.

Athanasius won the day at Nicaea, and homoousios eventually prevailed. But, the Arian understanding of Jesus had the support of the emperors and the majority of Christians throughout the empire for decades. My point is that ancient Nicene Christians were accustomed to being the “underdog.” That’s something that makes us nervous. That’s why the possibility of a Mormon president makes many evangelicals nervous – we don’t want to give Mormons the upper hand or legitimize a heretical Christology.

So, how should Nicene Christians respond if a Mormon becomes president of the United States? What if an avowed atheist becomes president? What if a Muslim is elected president? The answer is simple – we engage the public square with the gospel, not for the sake of politics, but for the sake of the Truth! Christians throughout the world do this every day. I recently received an email from a friend who pastors in Yangon, Myanmar. He was requesting my help in sending his children to a private school. If they attend the public school, then they must pray to Buddha and be indoctrinated in Buddhism. I must admit that this email caused me to seriously rethink the notion of state sponsored prayer in public schools in the United States. I don’t want the emperor doing theology, and I don’t want the state enforcing a civil religion that promotes a generic deity. I do want the state to protect religious freedom for all, and to promote the freedom of conscience.

Engaging the public square with the gospel “must be done properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Corinthians 14:40). During the Nicene controversy angry mobs of Arians and Nicenes rioted in the streets. One legend says that Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, accosted and slapped Arius during the council. Some Arians started a rumor that Athanasius had a rival bishop tortured and assassinated – a rumor that was later proved untrue. It’s likely that Arius was poisoned and murdered by one of his Nicene enemies. Athanasius was exiled five times because of his defense of homoousios. There is little wonder that Constantine despaired for the peace of his empire.

Christians are called to proclaim the gospel of Christ to the world. That means we engage in conversation with adherents of other religions, and we must do so with love. We must put away the sword of persecution and the fiery tongue of confrontation. We must be willing to turn the other cheek and suffer for the sake of Christ. Like Paul on Mars Hill, we must then humbly, boldly, and joyfully defend the Faith. Above all, we must not allow our defense of the Faith to become a tool of national politics.

*Athanasius and the Nicene bishops affirmed Jesus Christ is homoousios, that is, of one substance with the Father. This means that Christ is uncreated and eternally begotten of the Father. Arius and his followers insisted that Christ is homoiousios, that is, of similar substance of the Father. This means that Christ is not eternal, but created and therefore not fully God. The iota between homo and ousios means that Christ is not “very God of very God.”

]]> http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/athanasius-vs-arius-and-a-mormon-in-the-whitehouse/feed 2 http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/pentecostal-sacraments-a-paradigm http://www.danieltomberlin.net/2012/pentecostal-sacraments-a-paradigm#comments Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:37:10 +0000 Daniel Tomberlin http://www.danieltomberlin.net/?p=938 Read more »

Pentecostalism and sacramentalism are not mutually exclusive. By its very nature Pentecostalism is sacramental. Sacramentalism suggests that God mediates salvific grace through material means. The Pentecostal doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial physical evidence of speaking in other tongues provides the paradigm for Pentecostal sacramentalism. The material/physical aspect of Pentecostal spirituality is evident throughout the Jerusalem Pentecost event (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit descended “from heaven” into this physical world. Believers heard “a noise like a violent rushing wind;” they saw “tongues as of fire.” The Divine Pneuma (wind/Spirit) “filled the whole house;” tongues of fire rested upon the believers and they were “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Believers “began to speak with other tongues” and the crowd heard “them speak . . . in our own language.” Peter explained the advent of the Holy Spirit as the gift of Father and Son “which you both see and hear.” Luke tells us that “those who had received his word were baptized” and that believers devoted themselves to “the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread (taste, nourishment) and to prayer.” The pathos of the Pentecost event was “feeling a sense of awe.” Pentecostal spirituality is not simply spiritual; it is encountering the Holy Spirit with our human senses as the Spirit moves and interacts in our physical world. Pentecostal spirituality is a material/physical spirituality. So, how is this material spirituality reflected in Pentecostal worship?

First, we dedicate, or consecrate, a sacred space. Church is sacred people (saints) and sacred space. Cheryl Johns refers to the sacred space as an “enchanted space,” a space with a “charged atmosphere, created by the Holy Spirit, where the communion of saints, transcending time and space” gather with us. These sacred places “offer a therapeutic vision of salvation that connects the material world to the spiritual world” (Youth and Christian Education Leadership, Fall 2010, 14-18). Therefore, these sacred places are sacramental places, places where God is encountered, spaces of grace. Pentecostal worship spaces are simple, but worshipers who have encountered God will testify to “standing on holy ground.” Pentecostal worship is a Spirit-movement towards the altar – the place of encounter with God. The people of God assemble together at the altar to pray for each other and offer praises to God. At the altar the penitent is justified, sanctified, and baptized in the Holy Spirit. At the altar those who are sick are encouraged, comforted, strengthened, and sometimes healed. As believers gather at the altar to worship and pray, the heavens are opened and the Spirit falls. The altar is the place of continuous outpouring – the worshiper pours oneself out to God and God pours Godsself upon the worshiper. The Spirit that is poured out lifts the worshiper into the presence of God. The altar is a “heavenly place” (Ephesians 2:6). The altar is a sacred place of transformation because it is at the altar that the believer comes to know God. This salvific knowing of God is not limited to the recitation of a sinner’s prayer or the responsive reading of a creed. For the Pentecostal believer, faith is not born through a rational process, but through encounter with God. The encounter with God informs the Faith and forms the believer. The walk of faith is to live in an ongoing response to the presence of God. The altar is the sacred place where the walk of faith begins, and the place where the believer should frequently return.

Pentecostals have never considered themselves to be committed to a form of worship (liturgy), but there are certain sacred rites that Pentecostals have practiced because they reflect the Biblical tradition. The sacramental rites of water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Footwashing, and anointing with oil with laying on of hands (hereafter referred to as the Anointed Touch) have been common in Pentecostal worship. Jerome Boone has written that sacramental rites are the “hidden curriculum” of the worshiping community. As sacred rites, sacraments have the capability “to order reality, to communicate reality, and to transform reality” (Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, 1996, 129-142). They are formative in that the sacred rites serve to shape spiritual identity.

The most common of the Pentecostal sacraments is the Anointed Touch. Since it is a prevalent sacramental rite among Pentecostals, we will consider it as a paradigm for understanding other Pentecostal sacraments. The Anointed Touch is an excellent example of the material/physical nature of Pentecostal spirituality. The practice of praying for the sick by anointing with oil and laying on hands has been central to Pentecostal faith and practice. Early Pentecostals believed that Spirit-baptized believers are a means through which the Spirit may operate to do the works of Jesus Christ. This expresses the sacramental nature which is essential to Pentecostal spirituality. The church is a visible and physical expression of the extended hands of Jesus Christ to those who are suffering. The material means of grace in this sacramental rite are the touch of the Spirit-filled believer and the anointing oil. Pentecostals believe that divine healing is the salvific work of Christ and Spirit; but it also involves the “prayer of faith” and the anointed touch. For Pentecostals, sacraments require a material means and are efficacious when they are observed in faithful obedience to the Scriptures by the sanctified church where Christ and the Spirit are present.

Pentecostals have long affirmed that God can effect miraculous healing through the sacramental rite of the Anointed Touch. It is simply a matter of faith. Is it not also a matter of faith that through the words of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, the elements of holy sacraments can be permeated by God’s presence? Therefore, due to the animating presence of the Spirit, the “bread and wine” are consecrated so that by partaking of this meal, believers partake of the body and blood of the Savior. Sacraments are spiritual graces and those who participate in faith encounter the “real presence” of Christ through the Holy Spirit. The elements of the sacraments are material substances which the Spirit touches. In the observance of the sacraments, believers touch the elements and are touched by the Spirit. The elements of the sacraments are mediating gifts of grace because of the presence of the Spirit. As we approach the altar to participate in sacramental worship, we do so in the Spirit.

The celebration of the sacraments in Pentecostal worship should be understood as an opportunity to invite the saints once again to the altar to encounter the Holy Spirit. Just as the Spirit animates Pentecostal worship in inspired preaching, anointed singing, joyful shouts of praise, and dancing, the Spirit also animates the sacraments. Through the Holy Spirit, worshipers transcend time and space as they share sacramental experiences with Christ and the redeemed community. Through Christ the High Priest and the Spirit of grace, sacraments are more than mere reenactments or memorials to God’s redemptive acts; the baptismal water, the towel and basin, the bread and wine, and the anointing oil become mediatory gifts. In Christ and the Spirit, celebration of the sacraments becomes participation in God’s redemptive acts. Worship becomes an expression of ongoing saving faith. The Spirit’s movement in and through the sacraments is the agent of spiritual formation in the worshiping community. The effective call of the Holy Spirit is a call to life together. The Holy Spirit calls us to eternal life in fellowship with the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit. The Spirit calls us that we may share eternal life in the fellowship of the redeemed.

 

 

]]>

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance (Acts 2:1-4).

Sacred sounds are formative because “faith comes by hearing” (Romans 10:17). Sacred sounds transcend the bones of the inner ear and penetrate the soul of the worshiper. My earliest memories of church are sitting in the pews enjoying the songs, listening to an enthusiastic sermon, and watching the altar service with eyes wide open. As a child, I did not understand everything, but church was never boring. The elements of a typical Pentecostal worship service were present. The enthusiasm of worship was expressed in joyful singing, hands raised or being clapped, tongues speech, shouting, and occasionally someone would dance in the Spirit, or be slain in the Spirit. Also, as the saints prayed we could hear groans and weeping – lament – as they expressed the burdens of their souls. Occasionally, we would visit other churches in town for a special event and it was always evident to me that our church was different. Compared to the other (non-Pentecostal) churches our church was noisier, happier, and more animated. Our church sounded different.

Tongues-speech as the language of worship is a sacramental sign of the Spirit because it is a physical expression of mediated grace. Tongues-speech is a sacramental sign of the unity of the Christian community. It was the presence of the Spirit, evidenced by tongues-speech, that convinced the early church that salvation was to include Gentiles (Acts 10:45-47). The eschatological church is comprised of people “from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9). Therefore, tongues-speech encourages the “unity in diversity” of the Christian community. As a mystical form of worship tongues-speech edifies believers. The Spirit prays in and for the believer with “inarticulate groans” which are vocalized and audible (Romans 8:26). In Pentecostal worship “praying in the Spirit” is private prayer that is expressed in the context of the worshiping community – praying in concert. The liturgy of traditional churches provides uniform responses that are vocalized in unison by the community, which is a wonderful expression of unity and worship. In contrast, Pentecostal worship provides the worshiping community with an opportunity to respond in the Spirit with diverse utterances that are vocalized simultaneously and transcend this present age. The eschatological community of God is not a community of one tongue, but many tongues. The “inarticulate groans” of the Spirit give voice to the “anxious longing” of the soul, provoked by the “sufferings of this present time” (Romans 8:18-25). Spirit baptism anticipates glorification. Often, during Pentecostal funeral services, the saints can be heard offering prayer and praise in tongues, giving expression to the “anxious longing” for comfort and hope as we journey through the valley of the shadow of death (Psalm 23:4).

Lament is a sacred sound that expresses “anxious longing.” As I reflect upon the Pentecostalism I experienced as a child, it is the prayers of lament that I heard being offered at the altar that had a most profound formative affect upon me. As I observe the worship of contemporary Pentecostal churches it is the absence of lament that I find most striking, and troubling. Lament vocalizes the eschatological pathos of Pentecostal spirituality. Pentecostal lament is often offered as prayers of intercession. Pentecostals believe in the second coming of Jesus and in final judgment. The thought that a loved one might face eternal damnation provokes lament in behalf of the lost. Also, lament is an expression of faith and hope that sustains the believer as we face the “sufferings of this present time.” In the Scriptures, when faithful people were distressed, they tore their clothes, put ash on their heads, and cried out to God. These prayers of lament are not faithless acts; they are cries of faith. In their distress, they did not turn their faces from God, but toward God. They insisted that God turn God’s face toward them. This is passionate, meaningful prayer. Pentecostals envision a community where “there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain” (Revelation 21:4). The church exists in this present age as a sojourning community seeking the kingdom of God (Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16). The church is a waiting community. Often this waiting is expressed in the lament “How long, O Lord?” How long will the righteous suffer at the hands of the wicked? How long must we live in this corrupt age? How long will God be patient with injustice? This lament expresses the church’s certain hope that God will act to install His righteous reign. The church’s journey is a tearful pilgrimage of faith and hope.

Pentecostal song is a sacred sound that expresses and forms faith. Pentecostals have written spiritual songs and hymns that reflect the spirituality of sanctification, Spirit baptism and the second coming of Jesus. Many Pentecostal churches published annual song books for use at camp meetings, prayer conferences and in the local church. Many of the songs were written by Pentecostals for Pentecostals. As much as the weekly Sunday school lesson, or sermon from the pastor, these songs contributed to the spiritual formation of Pentecostal worshiper. In recent years, many local churches have ceased using the songs of Pentecostalism in favor of the more contemporary (and popular) songs written and produced for wider Christian audiences. The unintended consequence is that Pentecostals are no longer singing Pentecostal songs. The primary purpose of “songs, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 5:19) is to proclaim and teach the Christian message. In fact, many of the earliest Christian songs resemble early Christian creeds (Philippians 2:6-11). In Pentecostal churches, sounds can mediate, or signify, the presence of God. The renewal of Pentecostal worship will require new Pentecostal songs that express the theology and spirituality of Pentecostal encounter. Also, because tongues-speech reflects the “unity in diversity” of the people of God it offers a paradigm for tolerance in the worship wars. To negotiate a peace will not mean adopting a traditional worship style over a contemporary style. A church that can enthusiastically embrace diverse tongues should also be willing to embrace diverse voices and sounds as long as the voices are speaking (or singing) the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

This post is offered as an answer to many responses to my previous blog – Jesus vs. Religion. Many who are sympathetic to Jefferson Bethke’s poem suggested that his message was a reaction to “man-made” religion. Again, I am sympathetic to the poem, and my brother is undoubtedly a very talented and dedicated believer. But I remain troubled by the poem’s contradictions and naïve theological assumptions. So, let’s discuss the essential nature of the Christian faith.

The heart of the Christian faith is the Incarnation – in Jesus Christ God assumed human nature. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14). This means that Jesus Christ is the perfect and permanent union of divine essence and human essence. In Christ, God has taken upon Godself all that constitutes human nature – even our sinfulness! (2 Corinthians 5:21). It is the assumption of our sinfulness by Christ that is our salvation. Because he assumed our sinfulness, we may share His righteousness. Divine grace means that God has embraced our humanness. The divine movement towards humanity did not end with the Incarnation. On the day of Pentecost the same Holy Spirit who overshadowed the Virgin and effected the Incarnation, descended upon the disciples of Jesus in the Upper Room and “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4). My point here is that the Christian message is about God’s interaction with humans.

We often hear someone proclaim, “Let’s get back to the Bible!” Yes, let’s get back to the Bible. Even here we discover God’s interaction with humans. First, the Bible is divinely inspired. But to whom and through who is the Bible divinely inspired? “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21). Let’s take a look at these words. First, how is Scripture inspired? “…men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Notice the divine-human interaction. How is the Scripture to be understood? “…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…” This strongly implies that proper understanding of the Bible must occur in the context of human fellowship. Again, notice the divine-human interaction. Yes, the Scriptures are the Word of God – inspired, orally proclaimed, written down, and transmitted through humans and to humans.

Another proclamation I often hear is “Let’s be the church of the New Testament, free of all ‘man-made’ religion!” Alright, let’s take a brief look at the New Testament church. Ananias and Sapphria lied to the Holy Spirit for the sake of profit. Simon the magician sought to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit. There was considerable contention among the church about the inclusion of Gentiles. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for religious sectarianism, sexual immorality, disorderly worship, false doctrine, and many other sins. James accused the church of the diaspora of being spiritual adulteresses for loving the world, of ignoring the poor, of failing to understand the nature of “pure religion” and other sins. My point is that the church has never been without its problems. The church has many problems because it is filled with humans in need of forgiveness and grace, healing and wholeness. From the beginning, Jesus warned us about the nature of His church.

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?” And he said to them, “An enemy has done this!” The slaves said to him, “Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?” But he said, “No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn’” (Matthew 13:24-30).

God knows that divine interaction with humanity is a messy ordeal. Yes, Christians often misinterpret Scripture. Yes, we sometimes fall into legalism and hypocrisy. Yes, we can be bigoted and hateful. Yes, we can fall into self-righteousness. Let’s take a moment to remember the redemptive nature of the Incarnation: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ is our righteousness! (It seems that Jefferson is eager to make this declaration to individuals, but not to the corporate church!) The Church is the body of Christ, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In this present age, righteousness and sinfulness coexist. We must allow the Spirit to continually convict us of sin so that we can confess and be forgiven. We must come to the Table of the Lord and examine ourselves carefully so that we can be properly judged (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). We must daily pray “…forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors…” We must deny ourselves daily, walk in the Spirit, be accountable to each other, and be perfected in love.

In seeking for “pure religion” or the “true church” we often fall into a heresy. Some early Greeks could not believe in the Incarnation because they could not accept the permanent union of humanity and divinity. So, they taught that Jesus only appeared to be flesh. This heresy was soundly rebuked by the apostles. Likewise, there are many who see the failures of the Church and seek to deny the Church as the body of Christ; or try to distinguish between “God-made” and “man-made” religion. The truth is that in this present age the church is comprised of saint and sinner (and even the saints often struggle with sin). Like it or not, the Church is “God-made” and “man-made.” The amazing thing is that we are justified in Christ and God has chosen to call us God’s own. Now, that’s a scandalous grace!

This video has become “viral” and speaks to the heart of many. While I am somewhat sympathetic to the message, I find it to be uninformed and naive. Before I offer some correction to the message, let me state that this is not an attack upon this young man (Jefferson Bethke), or even a rebuke. Instead, I simply seek to offer some “fatherly counsel.”

First, Jefferson seeks to make a distinction between Jesus and religion. So, let’s look at a definition of religion. According to Merriam Webster religion is  “the service and worship of God or the supernatural; or commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.” Well, I confess that Jesus is God. I serve and worship Him. So, I am religious!

Jefferson rapped “Jesus came to abolish religion.” Really? In fact, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Jesus does not abolish religion; Jesus gives true meaning to religion. The Apostle James wrote, “If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:26-27). James makes a necessary point. There is “worthless religion” and “pure religion.” Worthless religion fails to express the connection between what we believe and how we act. Pure religion happens when what we believe about Jesus provokes us to act faithfully in His name.

This brings me to another of Jefferson’s points: “Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?” I will admit that some churches have lost focus on the mission of Christ. But, Christian missions throughout the world have built schools, orphanages, hospitals, and church buildings. Churches have fed the poor, clothed the naked, and comforted the suffering. It is the church, organized and visible, that fulfills the mission of Christ. In fact, throughout the history of the Christian church, it has most often been the acts of charity and mercy that have convinced unbelievers to believe in Christ and unite with the fellowship of the Church. As James said, this is “pure religion.” And, yes, we erect buildings. Throughout the world church buildings are visible signs of the presence of Christ’s church in the world. For those of you who think that buildings are not important, I suggest you take a long drive through a non-Christian part of the world. The absence of Church buildings is telling. Even when the building is a humble straw hut, like the churches in Burma I have visited, the presence of that building with the cross on the door is a visible sign of God’s grace.

I am sympathetic to Jefferson’s critique of the relationship between the church and politics. Too often, when the Church and State are united, it’s an unholy union. Has religion started wars? Well, it would be better said that “worthless religion” (using James’ term) in collaboration with the state has indeed been guilty violence and war. Is “Christian” synonymous with “Republican?” Certainly not! But neither is “Christian” synonymous with “Democrat.” The church should never be a tool of the state, but the prophetic conscience of the state. Christians should be active in the politics of the state, but not be seduced by the power of politics.

Jefferson says, “God calls religious people whores.” Actually, God did accuse Israel of harlotry. However, it was not because they were practicing “pure religion;” but because of their idolatry and apostasy. James accused some in the church of being adulteresses because of their friendship with the world (James 4:4). But, Abraham was religious and was the “friend of God.” Nicodemus &  Joseph of Arimathea were Pharisees, but also friends and disciples of Jesus. Not all Pharisees were self-righteous, and not all Christians are self-righteous hypocrites.

Jefferson accuses the church of being judgmental, by telling “single moms that God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce.” It goes without saying the God loves everyone – sinner and saint. My brother is correct by suggesting that the church is a “hospital for the broken.” But is it also the school of discipleship. As the school of discipleship we often teach morals and virtues. This is not “behavior modification like a long list of chores,” but growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Jefferson has confused “legalism” with loving obedience.

Jefferson’s concept of grace is a popular notion, if incomplete. Yes, we are saved based on the unmerited favor of God and the redemptive work of Christ. But grace does much more than forgive sin. Grace is the presence of the Holy Spirit working in the lives of believers so that we may cooperate with God in our sanctification. If Jefferson’s concept of grace is correct, then feeding the poor or any other act of charity is unnecessary. Why, because the only thing that matters is that I believe. This is a very self-centered notion of salvation. It suggest that salvation is about me and Jesus. IT IS NOT! The call to salvation is a call to fellowship with believers – the Church. Like it or not, we are called to be together, to pray together, sing together, and to do mission together. Yes, Jesus said, “It is finished.” He also said that believers will do “greater works” as they are graced by the Spirit (John 14:12). I know that the popular Protestant notion is that we are saved by faith alone. But Jesus did not say that the world would recognize His disciples by their faith alone, but by their love! (John 13:35). Jefferson’s notion of grace contradicts his own notions of discipleship and service.

I guess that’s what bothers me most about this poem/rap. He so generalizes that he doesn’t recognize the contradictions. “I hate religion” but “I love the church.” Really? If reaching the world for Christ means making sense of our faith to unbelievers, then we cannot afford such contradictions.