Bad Thinking Insults Our Creator Too

In last post I wrote about human artistic endeavors as a reflection of the “Image of God” resident in humankind.  In this post I would like to address another manifestation of the “image of God”, the intellect or reason.  Again, I see this as something that sets humanity apart from the rest of creation.  It is true that there are some animals who demonstrate substantial skills in some kinds of problem solving, but what I am discussing here is something more substantial and moves on to include the abstract as well as the concrete.  What I said about art, that to intentionally do art in a sloppy or poor manner is an insult to the Creator, is also true of the intellectual realm.  The problem is that in both realms there is a tremendous cultural and sub-cultural inclination toward the anti-intellectual. 

In our U.S. culture at large there has been a steady decline in the respect for and commitment to the intellectual that seems to have taken hold in the 1960’s.  I would point to the attack of Spiro Agnew on “effete intellectual snobs” as a focal point when anti-intellectualism took hold and became respectable.  At that time the finest universities in the country were seen as the source for much of the unrest of the counter-culture and the anti-war movement.  Thinking, especially critical thinking, came to be seen  as dangerous and subversive.  Public schools and universities have been pushed in the direction of the practical and concrete and away from theoretical content.  It is what I refer to as a trend to training and away from education.  Today many major universities are little more than sophisticated trade schools.  Granted the trades for which they train people are very complex and difficult but schools for engineers, physicians, or teachers are about training people to do specific jobs.  Very little time is allocated for considering the philosophical underpinnings.  An engineer may learn to build a rocket that can travel into space, but never consider whether he ethically should do what he can do.

Anti-intellectualism also shows itself in our political arena.  There is great appeal in the “common man” candidates.  It is seen as a liability in being too academic or too smart.  How many times have you heard voters say that they want a candidate with whom they can identify?  There have been a number of candidates who I am convinced have intentionally dumbed down the way that they present themselves just to appeal to anti-intellectual voters.  Other candidates don’t have to go to that much trouble.

Learning how to think, substantively, critically, and with a solid background of basic knowledge is what education should be about.  In raising our own children, we need to supplement what they get from schools to make sure that they are adequately prepared intellectually.  In some ways that makes parenting more difficult, because when you teach your child to think they may sometimes come to different conclusions than you have.  It is easier to tell them answers to life’s big questions that to help them to learn to discover them for themselves.  But, you won’t always be there.

So far, I have discussed this issue from the standpoint of all of culture.  Now I would like to get into the issue from the perspective of those who claim to be followers of Jesus.  Several years ago Mark Noll, a historian who is a Christian, wrote a book called the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”.  It is an excellent treatment of the dominant anti-intellectualism in “evangelical” Christianity.  Mark takes this way back historically.  My one criticism of the book is that he tends to deal with intellectualism only from the perspective of academia.  This is understandable because he is an academic and that is the world in which he functions.  I don’t believe that you have to be an academic to be intellectual, nor do I think that it is legitimate to expect less intellectually of people who are non-academics.  Incidentally, I did have an opportunity to speak with Mark about his book a few years ago and after telling him how much I appreciated it, raised my one criticism.  He agreed.

Without going into nearly as much substantive history as Mark did.  There was an upsurge in anti-intellectualism among theologically conservative Christians in the early 20^th century in the U.S.  When liberal theology was exerting great influence in major universities and seminaries conservatives bailed out.  They were far too quick to blame the intellectualism for the rejection of core truths.  Instead of taking on the new ideas head on, they quit the debate.  They blamed the process for the bad conclusions.  They abandoned the major institutions like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale and replaced them instead with Bible institutes and Bible colleges where truth was dispensed and questions were discouraged.  In much of “evangelical” Christianity serious scholarship and substantive evaluation of theological issues was discouraged. 

As I said at the outset, I believe that when we consciously and intentionally refuse to use the minds that God gave us, we insult Him.  If we really believe that God is the source of all that is true and good.  Then we need have no fear of digging deep into any of the issues that face us.  When followers of Christ avoid difficult subjects, issues, or fields we abandon them to the other side.  Whether the question is origin of the species, or authorship of the Penteteuch we need to be involved.  And, these questions are important for believers beyond just academia.  A number of years ago,  I was a part of a congregation that was looking for a new pastor.  A sizable portion of the congregation let their opinion be known that they did not want a new pastor who was so far over their heads as the last pastor.  I do not believe that the last pastor was an intellectual giant, but he did challenge people’s minds from time to time.  The leadership gave in to the wishes of that portion of the congregation.  How much better off would that congregation have been and how much better off would we all be, if we would seek out leaders who would challenge our minds and force us to think more? 

Parting thought:  some years ago I had a friend come to me and tell me that they heard someone refer to me as an intellectual.  My immediate response was to take that as a great compliment, as that is something that I aspire to.  But, knowing the congregation that the source was a part of, I had to ask if that comment had been intended as a compliment or a slam.  There is something very wrong when being intellectual is viewed as a negative thing.

Bad Art Insults our Creator

Theology of Art

In considering the idea of a Theology of Art, I believe that we need to begin with the source of artistic impulse and ability.  Since we are calling this a “theology” it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to look to God as that source.  God or Creator is the ultimate artist.  Consider the universe in which we live.  God could have created a world in monochrome with all straight lines.  Why would we “need” so many different kinds of plants and animals?  And, why so many stars?  God created a universe of beauty and diversity.  And, we are told that when He finished, He saw that it was good.  If He had created a simple world, we obviously would never have known the difference.  But, He would have known and it was important to Him.

Humankind is a part of that creation and we are told in Scripture that God chose to create us in “His Image”.  We are not told exactly what that means.  Rather obviously it does not involve our physical appearance, because God is a spirit without a physical reality to image.  So what then is the “Image of God”?   For purposes of this exploration, I would suggest that one aspect of the image is creativity.  Humankind seems unique in that we have the capacity to act creatively.    I certainly believe that there is more to the image than this but further exploration of that is for another time.  We only have the ability to rather poorly to reflect the Creator in our creative endeavors but we do have some capacity.  That capacity was also likely corrupted by the Fall as were other of our capacities, but I believe that there remains in all of humankind some core of that creative image.

It is my belief that anytime that any human being acts creatively he/she is reflecting the innate image of the Creator.  While human creativity reflects God, it also reflects the imperfections and limitations brought on by sin.  Even the most vile and wicked human, who does not acknowledge the Creator at all, can in spite of themselves reflect God.  The creative activity of a person who is a follower of Christ has the possibility of reflecting, in addition to the general image of God, grace.  The perspective of creative activity in a connected relationship to the Creator represents an additional dimension.

While all humans have to some degree the creative aspects of the image of God within them, like all talents the distribution is not equal.  Some of us have special capacity to be creative far above the norm.  When these people develop and use these talents we call them “artists”.  I love music.  I have always had many friends who are excellent musical artists.  I would love to be able to create and perform music.  But, if I tried, you would not want to hear it.  I simply do not have the talent.  Within the Body, members who are artists should be recognized and encouraged to maximize their abilities.  Their creative work should be appreciated and excellence should always be the goal.  Where there is talent and ability, there is also responsibility.

It is time for a quick side note.  Although I have often heard it referred to as such, I do not believe that artistic ability is a “spiritual gift”.  It does not appear in any of the lists in the New Testament.  I believe instead that it is a talent that can be used in conjunction with “spiritual gifts” like teaching, evangelism, helping, etc.  Interestingly, one of the very first examples in the Bible of the Spirit of God being given to individuals for a specific purpose is the “artists” who were assigned the task of creating objects for the Tabernacle to direct the worship of the people of Israel.

What about a sound perspective on appreciation of art for followers of Jesus?  We should have the capacity to appreciate and learn from all quality art because all of it reflects the image of God in the artist.  Believers who prefer the comfortable and bland to truly creative expressions in their corporate live actually insult the creative God that they claim to worship and serve.  Take the realm of music for example.  Much music that is part of the “worship” in most congregations, regardless of what century it derives from, is predictable and boring.  The industry that is called “CCM” is primarily formula driven, imitation of “secular” pop music.  There is very little room for those true artists who are really creative to break in.  In visual arts, again the gravitation is toward the safe.  Thomas Kincade is tremendously popular and has made millions by mass producing schlock non-art paintings.  At the same time truly creative painters can rarely make a living.  Believers, individually and corporately, should encourage and support talented and creative artists both for the internal benefits to the Body and for the benefit of the world in which we live.  Admittedly, there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to judging the quality of art.  What I am suggesting is that we need not be as concerned about what we “like” as we are with the attitude that goes into the process.  When the controlling interest behind a painting, or a piece of music, or a photograph is commercial viability rather than quality,  that is bad art.  And, when those who claim to follow Christ intentionally opt for mass appeal over being a quality reflection of their Creator, they do the Creator a disservice.

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen People?

In the theological circles where I grew up a great deal of importance was placed on the nation of Israel.  That perspective still has great dominance today in many places.  “Evangelical” Christians in the U.S. are some of the strongest and least critical supporters of the Zionist cause in the world and they exert great political influence in that direction.  But, the question deserves a hearing as to whether or not Israel today deserves that kind of blind support.  My own position on this question, which I will try to explain and support, has been evolving for a long time and has only really started to solidify fairly recently. 

First, I think that we must define just exactly what we mean when we are talking about Israel.  Rather quickly I came up with six different understandings of Israel.  There was the individual in the Old Testament who had his name changed from Jacob to Israel.  Then there is the genetic people of Israel, who are the biological descendants of Jacob.  Next, there is the Old Testament nation of Israel that exited Egypt under Moses leadership and established their Kingdom in Canaan.  That nation existed from around the 12^th century B.C. until it divided after King Solomon in the 10^th century B.C.  Around 721 B.C. the northern kingdom was conquered and around 521 B.C. the southern kingdom was conquered.  Under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah there was a return to the land that lasted until about 71 A.D. though most of that time was spent under the control of larger powers.  Then there is the land of Israel.  It has come and gone and the boundaries have changed from time to time, but there in the middle east there is a geographical area that has been sometimes called Israel.  Then there is the modern political entity known as the modern nation of Israel.

It is very clear in the Old Testament that God established a very special relationship with Israel known as a covenant.  That special relationship began with Abraham and was reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob.  It was also reaffirmed with Moses.  That covenant relationship between God and Israel forms the basis for the support of many Christians for the modern political nation of Israel.  Along with that covenant God made many promises to Israel.  Those promises included the land and a promise of continuity and national prosperity.  Those Christians who most stridently support modern political Israel, see the establishment of the modern state as fulfillment of that promise and prophecy.  Along with that they will cite also God’s promise to “bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel”.  Their eschatology demands that there be a political Israel to play a role in the “last days”.  The commitment to modern political Israel is absolute and unquestioning.  This Israel can do no wrong in dealing with neighboring nations or with those who were displaced by the creation of their state.

The ultimate theological questions that must be considered surround whether or not modern political Israel is God’s people in the world today.  Was the establishment of the Jewish state a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and a confirmation of God’s will?  Do Christians have a responsibility to support and endorse everything that Israel does?  I have come to the conclusion that the answer to both of those question is no.  Let me try to explain why I have come to believe this.  Start by understanding that God’s covenant with Israel was always stated with two sides usually stated something like, “If you follow Me and do my will then I will bless you…, BUT if you turn away from Me and become like the other nations I will curse you…”  The turning away and disobedience brought about the destructions in 721 B.C. and 586 B.C.  This is clear from the Old Testament prophets.  The return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah was brought about by repentance of those in captivity and reestablishment of a right relationship with God went hand in hand with the physical return to the land.  IF the return to the land had been in response to divine intervention one would have expected the foundation to have been set in repentance, contrition, and prayer instead of terrorism and guerilla warfare.  IF, the return to the land after World War II had been under the covenant it should have produced a nation that was preeminently concerned with living as God’s people under His Law.  In brief, I believe it would be a nation that looks far different from what exists.

If you counted you would have noticed that I said that there were six Israels and then I only named five.  That is because I believe that the sixth Israel is the Church.  As the apostle Paul put it, the Gentile believers have been grafted in.  It seems very reasonable that this new Israel, the spiritual Israel, has now assumed the role of God’s representative people on earth.  We now are a part of the New Covenant that Jesus spoke of at the Last Supper.

This is what I have come to believe after many years of study and consideration.  I fully acknowledge that the whole realm of eschatology is a somewhat sketchy business.  I know that there are many who believe that they have it all down pat in neat charts and graphs.  I don’t think much of the rest of their theology either.  There are a number of matters of doctrine on which I am quite confident of my position.  Eschatology is far less certain.  This is what I have come to believe at this point in time.  I remain open to being convinced that I am wrong tomorrow.

God Judges Nations – All Nations

Numerous times when I have tried to raise the issue of God’s revealed will for the behavior of nations, it has been pointed out to me that the United States is not Israel and that the Laws that God established for that unique nation do not apply to the U.S..  Actually, I am in complete agreement that that assertion.  The Old Testament nation of Israel existed in a peculiar relationship with God.  Interestingly, it has been suggested more often by apologists for U.S. supremacy that the U.S. shares a similar relationship with God.  This was claimed with Manifest Destiny and at other times when it proved to be politically expedient.  But, I don’t believe it and I have never advocated that position.

However, a substantial exploration of Scripture will make it quite clear that God judges all nations and not only that one nation that He revealed Himself to in a special way.  Consider Ezekiel 16: 49-50, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, abundant food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”  Sodom was definitely NOT Israel.  Yet, God says that he destroyed them for their sin.  Interestingly it is their sexual sin that most today associate with the judgment on Sodom, and that may be alluded to in these verses, but only after their neglect of the poor and their pride.  So would it not be fair to assume that if God so judged Sodom, He has seen fit to inform us of the basis for that judgment, He might also judge nations today on that same basis?  Additionally consider, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of coming judgment, He sent Obadiah to Edom, and Amos spends the first two chapters of his book warning nations around Israel of God impending judgments.  Amos 3:2 does indicate that there is a higher standard of expectation for Israel than other nations because of their additional knowledge.  But those who violate basic codes of civility that should be clear to all can expect divine retribution.

If God will judge nations, then what should be the role of His People the Church in our world and political structure today?  I believe that our role is to be salt and light in a tasteless and dark world.  I don’t believe that we need to, or even should, demand that specific aspects of Old Testament Law be implemented as national policy.  But, we should present reasoned arguments for policies that reflect values consistent with those taught in Scripture.  If God is the creator of the physical universe in which we exist, He is also the creator of all human relationships and the guidance that He provides on functioning as a society is not intended to force conformity against our best interests but to allow us to function optimally.  But, the problem is that too often those who claim to represent a “Christian” perspective on political issues do so arrogantly and frequently incorrectly.  What are Biblical values and how do we get to know them?

We must get to know the Book and seek to understand the Truths that it contains.  I will offer only a couple of specific examples.  It is absolutely clear that God is concerned with the value of Justice.  I know few people today who would say that they are opposed to justice.  But, how do we determine what is just?  For far too many in the U.S. today justice is defined intuitively.  They just have a sense of what seems fair to them.  And, no one had better challenge their sense of what is just.  Example: I saw Newt on TV just this week again raising a mantra of the “right”, that we must abolish the “death tax” more correctly called the inheritance tax.  The argument is that this tax is unjust because according to their sense of justice a person should be free to pass what they, or their parents or grandparents, have earned on to their children.  It doesn’t conform to their sense of “justice”.  But, according to God’s revealed Law to Israel, The Year of Jubilee was established to assure that neither wealth nor poverty were hereditary.  This is a demonstration of God’s sense of justice and it is not the same as that of the “right” in the U.S.  Here again, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is to establish the Year of Jubilee as national economic policy.  What I am saying is that what we may think is justice may not be what God thinks is justice at all. 

What about the value advocated by many “Christians” in the U.S. today of patriotism.  Patriotism is categorically NOT a Biblical value.  We are told to be submissive to the government where we live.  I believe that we should be responsible and active citizens.  But, we are not told to “love” our country.  And, in fact “love” of country can frequently lead to behavior that clearly violates what are clearly Biblical values.  When we place more value on the life of a person who is from our own country than one from another country, we fail to appreciate that God so loved the world.  When we exploit the resources of poor nations so that we can support extravagant lifestyles, we violate our role as stewards.  When we advocate foreign policy base on our own economic or strategic interests, instead of the interests of the nations impacted by it we fail to act in love.

As I have written before, there is and will be plenty of room to discuss and disagree on some of the applications of trying to exert Godly influence in our world.  But, there can only be real, meaningful and constructive debate if it is based on knowledge and appreciation for the fact that God has spoken to these issues.

However, a substantial exploration of Scripture will make it quite clear that God judges all nations and not only that one nation that He revealed Himself to in a special way.  Consider Ezekiel 16: 49-50, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, abundant food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”  Sodom was definitely NOT Israel.  Yet, God says that he destroyed them for their sin.  Interestingly it is their sexual sin that most today associate with the judgment on Sodom, and that may be alluded to in these verses, but only after their neglect of the poor and their pride.  So would it not be fair to assume that if God so judged Sodom, He has seen fit to inform us of the basis for that judgment, He might also judge nations today on that same basis?  Additionally consider, God sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of coming judgment, He sent Obadiah to Edom, and Amos spends the first two chapters of his book warning nations around Israel of God impending judgments.  Amos 3:2 does indicate that there is a higher standard of expectation for Israel than other nations because of their additional knowledge.  But those who violate basic codes of civility that should be clear to all can expect divine retribution.

If God will judge nations, then what should be the role of His People the Church in our world and political structure today?  I believe that our role is to be salt and light in a tasteless and dark world.  I don’t believe that we need to, or even should, demand that specific aspects of Old Testament Law be implemented as national policy.  But, we should present reasoned arguments for policies that reflect values consistent with those taught in Scripture.  If God is the creator of the physical universe in which we exist, He is also the creator of all human relationships and the guidance that He provides on functioning as a society is not intended to force conformity against our best interests but to allow us to function optimally.  But, the problem is that too often those who claim to represent a “Christian” perspective on political issues do so arrogantly and frequently incorrectly.  What are Biblical values and how do we get to know them?

We must get to know the Book and seek to understand the Truths that it contains.  I will offer only a couple of specific examples.  It is absolutely clear that God is concerned with the value of Justice.  I know few people today who would say that they are opposed to justice.  But, how do we determine what is just?  For far too many in the U.S. today justice is defined intuitively.  They just have a sense of what seems fair to them.  And, no one had better challenge their sense of what is just.  Example: I saw Newt on TV just this week again raising a mantra of the “right”, that we must abolish the “death tax” more correctly called the inheritance tax.  The argument is that this tax is unjust because according to their sense of justice a person should be free to pass what they, or their parents or grandparents, have earned on to their children.  It doesn’t conform to their sense of “justice”.  But, according to God’s revealed Law to Israel, The Year of Jubilee was established to assure that neither wealth nor poverty were hereditary.  This is a demonstration of God’s sense of justice and it is not the same as that of the “right” in the U.S.  Here again, I am not suggesting that what we need to do is to establish the Year of Jubilee as national economic policy.  What I am saying is that what we may think is justice may not be what God thinks is justice at all. 

What about the value advocated by many “Christians” in the U.S. today of patriotism.  Patriotism is categorically NOT a Biblical value.  We are told to be submissive to the government where we live.  I believe that we should be responsible and active citizens.  But, we are not told to “love” our country.  And, in fact “love” of country can frequently lead to behavior that clearly violates what are clearly Biblical values.  When we place more value on the life of a person who is from our own country than one from another country, we fail to appreciate that God so loved the world.  When we exploit the resources of poor nations so that we can support extravagant lifestyles, we violate our role as stewards.  When we advocate foreign policy base on our own economic or strategic interests, instead of the interests of the nations impacted by it we fail to act in love.

As I have written before, there is and will be plenty of room to discuss and disagree on some of the applications of trying to exert Godly influence in our world.  But, there can only be real, meaningful and constructive debate if it is based on knowledge and appreciation for the fact that God has spoken to these issues.

Numerous times when I have tried to raise the issue of God’s revealed will for the behavior of nations, it has been pointed out to me that the United States is not Israel and that the Laws that God established for that unique nation do not apply to the U.S..  Actually, I am in complete agreement that that assertion.  The Old Testament nation of Israel existed in a peculiar relationship with God.  Interestingly, it has been suggested more often by apologists for U.S. supremacy that the U.S. shares a similar relationship with God.  This was claimed with Manifest Destiny and at other times when it proved to be politically expedient.  But, I don’t believe it and I have never advocated that position.

A Lie from the Pit – Prosperity Theology

In my last post I mentioned, what I perceive to be, probably the most deceitful teaching at large in the Church today.  That is Prosperity Theology.  It goes by a number of different names and catch phrases, name it – claim it, seed giving, God wants you to be rich, etc.  They all boil down to basically the same thing.  It is taught by many of the TV preachers from Benny Hinn, to Kenneth Copeland, to Creflo Dollar, Richard Roberts, Paul Crouch, etc.   They all boil down to essentially, God wants all of His followers to be rich and the way that you can get yours from God is to give.  If you give then you will get.  Plant the seed.  If you want to harvest money, you have to plant money.  I mentioned before that I believe that there are striking parallels between this teaching today and the sale of indulgences in Europe prior to the Reformation.  I will elaborate.

First, the appeals of each are directed primarily to the poor and the Biblically ignorant.  Indulgences were not marketed to the wealthy but to those who had very little to begin with.  The prosperity teachers demonstrably derive the major portion of their income from the underclasses.  Think about it.  There is little appeal to gain wealth for those who already have what they need.  But, if you don’t know how you are going to pay the rent, the promise of abundance is great.  Second, both are based on nothing solid in Scripture and in fact ignore some very clear teaching in Scripture.  Third, the appeal is one based on emotional response rather than reason and the demand is generally made for an immediate response. 

In point of fact, I will assert that in at least two regards prosperity teaching is MORE evil than was the sale of indulgences.  At least the appeal of the sale of indulgences was to gain benefit for someone else.  Indulgences were marketed with the promise of freeing from the suffering of Purgatory the souls of deceased loved ones.  The appeal of prosperity teaching  is simply the personal acquisition of wealth.  And, at least the proceeds of the sale of indulgences were directed for the construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome.  Much of the gain from prosperity teaching buys mansions, fancy cars, and jet planes for the teachers themselves.  They callously justify their lavish lifestyles by saying that it is evidence of the “truth” that they teach and they are living the life that God desires for all.

If in fact, this were solid Biblical teaching one could expect that it would be taught at times other than when it accompanies an appeal for contributions to the one who is doing the teaching.  One would also expect that people would be encouraged to think about what has been said carefully, look into the Scripture and pray it through before making a decision to give.  I have never seen that done.

Please be aware of just how pervasive this teaching as become.  All that needs to be done is to watch Christian Broadcasting Network or Trinity Broadcasting Network.  A large percentage of the programming will include this teaching when they appeal for giving.  It is also seen on the smaller and local levels.  A few years ago a survey was done of those who consider themselves pentacostal/charismatic/full-gospel to determine what single belief was most common to those believers in those groups.  I would have expected to hear that it was speaking in tongues, Holy Spirit baptism, healing, or signs and wonders.  Ahead, of all of those was belief in prosperity teaching.  Something has gone very wrong in that part of the Body, but it is not only present there.  It is all over.  And to make matters worse we have been exporting this as well.  For obvious reasons, it has gained influence in the third world, among the poorest people. 

In the first half of the 16^th century the sale of indulgences in Europe was the single biggest factor leading to the Reformation.  Martin Luther confronted this abuse of the Catholic Church at the risk of his life.  He and others believed the issue was that important.  I believe that an equally strong response is appropriate to this evil that has gained such a deep foothold in the Church today.  But, few dare to speak out boldly.  Several years ago I was in a seminar lead by John Perkins.  He spoke to the evil of prosperity teaching.  When he allowed time for questions, I asked if it would be fair to declare this teaching a “lie straight from The Pit”.  John said he did not believe that was an overstatement.  I agree completely.

Economics in the Church

Contrary to what many might conclude based on the lack of intelligent discussion of the topic among Christians, the Bible has a great deal to say on the subject of economics.  The Old Testament Law is full of mandates on economic matters.  The Old Testament prophets pronounce strong condemnation of  the lack of economic justice.  And, the New Testament as well addresses economic practice in the Church.  For the context of this post, I am going to limit my comments to the issue of economics in the Church based on the New Testament practice and teaching.  More may follow later on the broader issues.

If there is any teaching at all in Church congregations today on the topic of economics, or giving, it is generally limited to one of two perspectives.  The very most evil of these two is the horrendous heresy of “Prosperity Theology” under one of its various labels.  This is not only not Biblical, it is an error that has many parallels to the selling of indulgences at the time of Martin Luther.  In fact it can be argued rather convincingly that it is even a greater evil than the one that precipitated the Reformation.  The second perspective that is commonly taught is that the Biblical requisite for giving in the tithe.  It is my belief that the tithe is also NOT intended to be the pattern of giving intended for the Church today.  I believe this because: A) Giving a tithe was never taught by Jesus in the Gospels nor is it taught anywhere in the rest of the New Testament.  B)  What Jesus did teach about giving was quite different from tithing.  He taught stewardship of all that we have and He illustrated giving by holding up as an example the widow who gave all that she had.  C)  Implicit in the concept of giving a tithe, is the assumption that by giving 10% we have fulfilled our obligation and the remainder is ours to do with as we choose.  So a Mitt Romney, though he is a Mormon and that distinction for another discussion and he is just being used as an example of a mindset, can report income of $43 million and give $4.3 and be left with $38.7 million to do as he wishes with.  D)  In the New Testament there were no church building to be constructed or maintained so much of what tithe teaching suggests the tithe be used for didn’t even exist during that portion of Church history.  In the Old Testament, no tithe or portion of a tithe was ever to be used for buildings.  I am not suggesting that therefore buildings are bad or that congregations should not own buildings, only that they should not be used as justification for teaching tithing.  E)  There is other teaching in the New Testament which offers a very different perspective on giving from the tithe that is generally ignored and I believe it needs to be taught and heeded.

I need to emphasize again for purposes of this writing, I am speaking only to the issue of economics within the Church.  To start, as much as many would like to, we cannot ignore the practice of the Church at Jerusalem in the early chapters of the book of Acts.  We are told that the members of the congregation there sold their possessions and brought the proceeds to the apostles for distribution to those who had need.  It also states that they held all things in common.  The word for common is the base of the word fellowship in Greek.  Those who are uncomfortable with this kind of communalism like to suggest that Ananias and Sapphira demonstrated the fact that this kind of utopianism didn’t work, and imply that the practice went away after that failure.  I would point out that there is no reason behind the assumption that the communal practice ended in Jerusalem after Ananias and Saphira, and quite to the contrary it was still in practice after that as evidenced by the need to appoint deacons chapters later.  The deacons role was specifically to distribute resources according to need.  So there was giving in the Church at Jerusalem and it seems to have been for two purposes, to provide sustenance for the apostles and to provide for the physical needs of the poor among them.  It is also very clear that the expected giving was not a tithe from everyone, but much more than that from some and nothing at all from others.

Some years later, the Church at Jerusalem was going through some very difficult economic times.  As Paul travelled he gathered offering in other cities from the believers to be sent to Jerusalem to meet their needs.  In writing to the Corinthian Church in the eighth chapter of his second letter to them, Paul sets forth a principle.  “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.  As it is written,’He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack.’”  I am well aware that this is a very different perspective from the economic perspective of our culture at large.  This is very much why I wrote in my earlier blog about practicing different values from the culture in which we live.  Equality is Paul’s word and not mine.  It is Paul who is teaching redistribution of wealth.  It is Paul’s principle that economic resources should be flowing consistently from excess to need.  And Paul makes no provision for accumulation.  I have a good friend who put things very well when he said, “There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money.  The question is, are you a conduit or a reservoir?” 

I believe that the key principle for giving in the New Testament is – EXCESS SHOULD ALWAYS BE FLOWING TO NEED.  Now, I will admit that there is plenty of room for discussion as to how we should define excess and need.  I would welcome that discussion, but it hasn’t even started.  I can name examples in the very city where I live where resources taken from the neediest members of a congregation went toward buying extravagant homes for pastors.  Unfortunately sometimes the flow of resources goes in the wrong direction.  I believe that the resources possessed by the Church are sufficient to meet the needs of the Church.  But the problem is that the resources are often in the wrong places.  When Benny Hinn flies in his private jet and stays in hotel suites costing several thousand dollars a night, that takes resources from real needs.   I know well members of the Body who have lost homes because of outrageous medical bills.  Some members of the Body drive the latest BMW while others can’t afford a ten year old Toyota.  Something in this picture is very wrong.  What exactly would it look like if the Church practiced New Testament economics?  I am not completely certain.  But, it would be very different from the way it is today. 

Kingdom of God - Is It For Now or Later????

Kingdom of God – Is It For Now or Later?????

One of my favorite bits of wisdom from C.S. Lewis goes something like, “Satan sends us evil in pairs of opposites so that fleeing one we run eagerly into the arms of the other.”  Since I first read that, I have been amazed at just how often this profound truth applies.  Sometimes it is not a question of either alternative being evil in and of itself, but when one or the other is emphasized to the dismissal of the other it can become an evil.  I believe that this latter situation aptly describes the attitudes of too many people who consider themselves followers of Jesus in our world today.

Jesus spoke a great deal of the Kingdom of God.  There are some today who tend to resist even the idea of “kingdom” because it conflicts with their egalitarian democratic ideals.  To any who might hold that perspective, I simply say that when it comes to the rule of Almighty God, get over it.  But, then it still leaves a primary question that begs an answer that has caused and continues to cause substantial disagreement.  Is the Kingdom of God for now or for later?  Some have asserted that the Kingdom of God will only be experienced when Christ returns and establishes, depending upon their eschatology, His millennial reign on earth or we are taken off to heaven.  One the other extreme are those who have minimized the eschatological and argue that we are to experience the Kingdom of God during our lifetimes on this planet and to live out and experience the Kingdom here and now.  I argue that both are to be true and that when we emphasize one to the neglect of the other we create an evil from two goods.

It is my firm belief that we will only experience the Kingdom of God in all of its fullness after we complete our time on this planet.  Only then will all of the influence of sin be removed from the picture.  Only then will we be capable of seeing clearly instead of through a glass darkly.  So, I in no way want to diminish the importance of the future dimension of the Kingdom.  I look forward to it.  But, I believe that when we relegate our thinking about Kingdom to the future, we miss out on what is intended to be a big part of our life on this planet.  When people commit  themselves to be followers of Jesus they immediately become citizens of that Kingdom.  It is God’s intention that the Body of His followers, that is The Church, are to be the people of His Kingdom on this planet, here and now.  That People is made up of people with a multitude of different earthly citizenships, denominational ties, and races.  If the Church takes seriously the importance of Kingdom living it accomplishes two major functions.  It provides a context in which individual and corporate growth can take place.  See Ephesians 4.  And, it serves as a witness to those on the outside who need to see Jesus in the flesh in the world in which they live.

What does it mean to live as citizens of the Kingdom on planet earth?  It means that we adopt the values of the Kingdom rather than the values of the culture in which we find ourselves.  Values are what determine behavior.  There is no culture on earth that completely mirrors the values of the Kingdom, those some may come closer than others.  As an American living in the 21^st century, I would suggest that some of the values of our culture that may conflict with Kingdom values are materialism/laissez faire capitalism, strident individualism, and national chauvinism.  Others may disagree or add to that list.  The specifics are not as important as recognizing that conflicts do exist.  We can only know the values of the Kingdom by serious study of God’s special revelation in Scripture. 

We live the Kingdom when we really demonstrate agape love for our fellow Kingdom citizens.  Agape love is not an emotion.  It is a rational choice to do what is in the best interest of the other.  Agape love lives itself out in koinonia fellowship that is not simply the social getting together.  It is living the common life that addresses real needs that may be spiritual, emotional, or physical.  It is what is described in the Church life in the book of Acts.  Jesus said that all men would know that we are His disciples by the love that we have for one another.  For that to happen there must be something visible in the way that we relate to one another.

When we corporately live Kingdom, we provide an environment into which those who come into the Kingdom can be welcomed.  Within it that can be taught, encouraged, and ministered to.  In addition to the earlier referenced Ephesians 4, Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12 describe the Kingdom as a Body.  It is a Body in which all individuals contribute what are their gifts, abilities, and talents to the mutual well-being.  The Body/Kingdom will only operate as it is intended as all participate.  While we may come into the Kingdom as individuals, it has never been intended that we grow as individuals.

We should certainly look forward to that future eschatological perfect Kingdom, but to ignore the present Kingdom is to fail to live the life that is intended for us in the here and now.