Home

  • The Imaginary Land of American Foreign Policy

    The world’s largest democracy has swept Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) into power, and they’re trying to figure out what he’s going to do to change India:

    The new composition of parliament is significant, as are a number of other factoids about this election. The BJP has returned at least 279 seats in the partial count while its coalition, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), has comfortably secured leads in over 330 constituencies, giving it absolute control of the lower house (Lok Sabha), while the BJP itself has a majority in the house. This means stability – that one word missing from the dictionary of Indian politics for the past 25 years.

    Meanwhile back in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Braves, we’re fixated on his past and our own legal finickiness:

    India’s voters had brought to power a man who is not permitted to visit the United States, having been denied a U.S. visa in 2005 on account of a State Department determination that he had violated religious freedoms in the Indian state of Gujarat. (Some 2,000 Muslims had died in riots that scarred Gujarat in 2002. Modi was the state’s chief minister at the time, and his critics hold him responsible for the deaths.) The visa ban was still in place when Modi was nominated last September to lead the Bharatiya Janata [Indian People’s] Party into the elections; and most awkwardly for Obama, the ban was still technically in place on the day of his victory. American diplomacy has been decidedly maladroit.

    “Decidedly maladroit” is an understatement.  Given that nothing is ever really closed in our legal system, should Modi even risk coming to these shores? He may not have to:

    Modi’s keenest ally—potentially his BFF—is likely to be Japan’s Shinzo Abe, who was one of the first to send his congratulations to the Indian politician when it became apparent that he would be the next prime minister. Abe and Modi are, in many ways, made for each other: Ardent nationalists yearning to break free from their respective nations’ patterns of international passivity, they both face the terrifying challenge of a China that plays by its own unyielding rules, a maximalist hegemon which has the economic and military heft to dispense with diplomacy as the primary means of dispute resolution.

    The United States’ position wouldn’t be so hypocritical if, in its theoretical obsession with the rule of law, it wouldn’t be so busy trying to bury its own inconvenient scandals–Fast and Furious, the IRS/Tea Party business, Benghazi–which its chattering classes find so distasteful to discuss.

    A long time ago I wrote this; some of this stuff reminds me of what I put there as fantasy.  If we’re not really careful, we’ll end up with the same result, too.

  • The People Who Love Going to Church

    Are more and more non-white:

    “What I see among Millennials are African Americans, and Asians Americans, and Latinos who are vibrantly growing in faith and leading the future of what the church will become,” says Gray.

    About a third of young (18-29 year old) Americans — and more than half of younger Christians — are people of color, according to data from the Public Religion Research Institute. White Christians, on the other hand, make up only a quarter of younger Americans. In fact there are more Nones — those with no religion — than white Christians in this age group.

    But the switch from most Christians being white to the majority being non-white has largely gone unnoticed. Instead, most of the focus has been on the idea that “young people are leaving the church.” That idea is true among white evangelicals, who show a dramatic decline in PRRI’s polling. Among Americans 65 and older, nearly 3 in 10 (29 percent) are evangelicals. That number drops to 1 in 10 for younger Americans.

    That makes me think of something that happened to my wife and I last fall when we went to South Florida for my high school reunion.  She wanted to go to the Swap Shop, the big indoor (mostly) flea market in Ft. Lauderdale.  She also wanted a screen protector for her new iPhone.  So we went from one booth to another until we found one at the price we liked, and not only that the nice young lady at the counter agreed to put it on.  While she was doing this my wife asked her whether she went to church anywhere (a common question in the South, a whole different matter in South Florida).  She, who looked like her family came from Mexico or Central America, told us the name of an independent Hispanic full-gospel church, and then added “I love going to church”.  At that point I noted the “Jesus te ama” bracelet on her arm.

    One of the pleasures of working for the Church of God–which I did for 13 1/2 years–was ministering to and interacting with non-white churches and people,–Hispanic, Caribbean, Indian, Roma, you name it.  Combined with my years of international business and the engineering profession, I find that life is better when you can share it with people from so many different backgrounds.

    I also think that people like this young lady make South Florida a sweeter place, something the region needs badly.  And the same effect is in store for Evangelical Christianity in this country, too.

  • Scientific Authority and Logical Fallacies

    In response to one of my pieces related to climate change, my persistent commenter had this to say:

    My impression is that “you people think science is a religion” is an accusation made against the secular by a small segment of the religious, that tiny sub-group who think of themselves as “the religious.” I’d think your own post, in the part I quote here, is a good example of the troll at work.

    The secular, by contrast, spend a great deal of time thinking about and debating what are legitimate methods, conclusions, degrees of sureness, and so forth of science. There is a good deal of criticism of “scientism” by the secular, but this vile illness is, imho, generally thought to be part and partial of dogmatic politics.

    Which secularists do you have in mind?

    Thanks to James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, he’s about to find out.  While discussing Sen. Marco Rubio’s denial of human activity in climate change, he notes the following:

    Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency.

    Stuff like this is why my commenter’s idealised concept that secularists “spend a great deal of time thinking about and debating what are legitimate methods, conclusions, degrees of sureness, and so forth of science” is wide of the mark.  Far from that, what we usually get are two logical fallacies beaten to death: appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks.

    Taranto, for his part, is ready to allow that appeals to authority are not fallacious except in a narrow sense.  I don’t: appeals to authority ultimately don’t prove anything.  They may give greater weight to what you are arguing, but ultimately they don’t really prove what you’re trying to show.

    But, as I noted here, “greater weight” isn’t the end game in the climate change debate: absolute certainty is.  With relation to that there are two things to be noted here.

    The first is that one of secularists’ criticism of religion is that it is based solely on faith (the greatest appeal to authority) and not on reason.  But if they considered things carefully they would see their own fallacy.  What secularists are really trying to do is to replace the authority of God with their own, which may make their victorious in some cases but which shows them to be intellectually dishonest.  That’s a big part of what I mean when I say that people make science into a religion.

    The second is that, when convinced that they are right and their opponents wrong, they try ad hominem attacks, almost always morally loaded.  These too are fallacious and don’t prove anything.

    It would be nice if public debate proceeded along the lines my commenter thinks it does.  But it doesn’t.  As I noted, the freaks get all the publicity; it’s time to live in reality.

    Note: I realise that I, in the preceding, equate the secularists with climate change advocates.  That’s not entirely correct; there are certainly secularists who oppose climate change advocacy, and there are religious people who support it.  (And the latter are usually as scientifically uninformed as their secular counterparts).  I think it’s fair to say, however, that most people in the upper reaches of our society are secular to a high degree, as are their sycophants down the line.  It’s a lot easier to have control over things and people when you don’t have God to compete with, isn’t it?

  • Born to be Alive: The Spirit Poured Out

    For the entire work and an interactive table of contents, click here.

    “`No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

    In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

    Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

    Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

    I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.

    The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

    And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’”[1]

    Peter’s Sermon

    This begins the main body of Peter’s sermon to the Jews and the other believers present.  His discourse is divided into three parts.  First, he explains what has just happened.  Second, he presents the basic plan of salvation, usually in terms of Jesus’s own life, death, and resurrection.  Third, he makes a call for repentance, salvation, and baptism.  This is a very typical sermon structure in the New Testament Peter and Paul used it again in their ministries.  From the standpoint of typical modern preaching, though, there are a couple of curiosities here.

    Peter starts by explaining a preceding event, in this case the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.  In most modern evangelical churches, the preaching is the event the preacher has the burden of making the service an event to which a reaction takes place.  This should tell us something about the nature of our worship services.  The way of Pentecost was and is for God to move first, then the preacher explains and the listeners respond.  We must always be ready for the Spirit to freely move in our services and communicate to us the message that he has.

    Also since the Reformation many Protestant preachers have been content to set the salvation message in Pauline terms, which has the effect of placing man’s redemption in strictly theological language.  While this has its place, Paul’s outline is meaningless without the original salvation history worked out by God, first in the Jews and finally in Jesus Christ.  Jesus’ winning our salvation on the cross is a historical event, both for him and for us, and we never remember this too often.

    The Old Time Religion

    Peter’s sermon actually started with the denial of the believers’ drunkenness this has already been dealt with.  From here he launches into the heart of the matter at hand.  To do this, he starts by quoting Joel 2:28-32.  In its original setting, the passage is part of a prophesy occasioned by a locust plague, which for the Israelites is a disaster comparable with a lack of rain.  Joel foretells of deliverance and restoration from this plague, and goes on to prophesy about the last days, the judgment of the nations, and the restoration of Israel.  In interpreting the portion of Joel’s prophesy in the way he did, Peter enlightens the interpretation of the prophet by placing Pentecost between Joel’s Old Testament Judaism and the final winding up of history, where it belongs.

    In response to the locusts, Joel first advises the Israelites to do penance for their sins.  The only specific sin he mentions is that of drunkenness the locusts had deprived them of their wine by eating the grapes!  But before that Joel asks a hard question: “Hear this, you elders listen, all who live in the land.  Has anything like this ever happened in your days, or in the days of your forefathers?”[2]  He is trying to make the old timers break down and admit that this present locust plague was the worst that they had ever seen.

    That’s not easy, because the old timers, then and now, frequently love to play one-upsmanship with the rest of the church.  These are not only equated with the senior citizens in the church these include anyone who puts the perpetuation of a tradition in front of the movement of the Holy Spirit, something that can take place at any age.  If there is a great revival or move of the spirit going on today, they can remember a far better one back in the old days.  The past is always better than the present, and the present and future have no hope of catching up with these great moves of God.  This can be discouraging for those who follow after, who begin to think that they can never have great moves of God as was done in the past.

    This may be overgeneralizing a bit however, much of the church world is caught up in spending a large part of its energy recreating the “old time religion” in the hope that these great revivals of the past might somehow come again in the same form as they did before.  Too much preaching in Pentecostal churches today is an appeal to tradition, a statement that, if we could have the same kind of moves of God that we had before and if the people would do the same kinds of things that they did before, everything would be all right.

    Many have overreacted to this type of thinking by throwing the baby out with the bath water and only going out for the newest teaching, the newest music, the newest anything.  This only makes matters worse because much of what is new has humanistic and occult influence behind it, and consequently is not fit to teach or practice.  We need to maintain strict continuity with the Scriptures in what we say and do we should also maintain some continuity with the experience of those who have gone before.

    We have already discussed the problem of making new converts — including those who are raised in church — conform to the past for its own sake.  There is one other problem related to blind adherence to the “old time religion” — it’s not that old.  In the U.S. at least, most Pentecostal churches were started by refugees (voluntary and otherwise) from evangelical denominations that were in existence at the time, and which had been largely built up in the country in the nineteenth century.  Pentecostal pioneers brought with them ideas about church polity and structure, the nature of such things and the Lord’s Supper and baptism, the general order of worship, church music, methods of bringing people to the Lord, and many other things.  Although some of these things had been going on somewhere since the Apostles’ day, many of these were relatively recent developments at the time Pentecostal churches were started.  Thus, if we look at the time framework of many Pentecostal church practices, we see that Pentecostals (and to some extent other evangelicals too) are really innovators in the field of church practice.

    This becomes more evident when we look at the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and to a lesser extent the Anglican and Lutheran churches, the so-called “liturgical” churches.  Allowing for the many developments and modifications that have taken place over the centuries, their structure or worship is descended from orders of worship that date back to at least the second century A.D.  Now that’s old time religion.  It would serve little purpose to force this kind of thing on Pentecostal churches today.  If, however, we want to have really worthwhile old time religion, the best place to find it is right from the start — here at Pentecost, where the church was born.

    In The Last Days, On All Flesh

    When I was in college, I spent a summer session sharing a house trailer with a dear Christian brother.  He was already living there when I moved in.  On the kitchen wall there was a small wooden plaque with the first part of Peter’s citation of Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”

    I have always had a weak spot for inscriptions on walls and buildings.  They’re put there to impress people because the letters are big and in most cases engraved into the building to inspire people with their permanence and authority.  Wooden plaques like this generally don’t have that kind of impact.  At the time this one didn’t either because I wasn’t baptized in the Spirit and really did not grasp the importance of the verses quoted.

    In looking back though that little plaque was prophetic, not only for Joel and Peter but for me as well.  I was wrestling with a lot of things in those days, not the least of which was all of the spiritual activity about me, the likes of which I had never seen before.  Before I graduated from college, the Holy Spirit taught me the real meaning of that plaque through his Baptism and I have never been the same person since.  In human terms, I was an unlikely candidate for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  The church I was in did not actively teach about this baptism, as was the case with its predecessor in which I was brought up.  My family was well off, and had been so for a good while.  I was not attending a Christian college, nor was I a major in Bible or theology.  Yet the Lord saw fit to arrange my life so that I would be drawn to people who had something I didn’t, and who made me come back for more without a lot of preaching, even when my background said no.  When I finally came to myself and gave up to the leading of the Lord, the Holy Spirit was able to do the work in me that has never departed nor disappointed since.

    Now we can get directly into Peter’s quotation from Joel.

    In the last days!  This is a tremendous thought, one that gets lost as Spirit filled people and churches get too used to what they have gotten from God.  This age we are in is man’s last chance to get it right.  He had covenant after covenant before the Cross and none of these were enough this age is the last time God will hold out his hand in mercy to man.  After this, there is only judgment for the scoffers, the judgment of the lake of fire.  And we, who all too often take what God has given us for granted, do not realize what a privilege we have to live when we do.  As far as the time when these last days will end, “`No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.’”[3]  “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, `Where is this `coming’ he promised?  Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens and the earth existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”[4]  So we must do what we have to do while there is time remaining.

    But in addition to these being the last days of the age of grace, these are the last days of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.  Peter’s quotation of Joel deals with both ends of the last days, both his time at the start and the great day of the Lord at the end.  The falling of the Spirit takes place on both ends.  In the Apostolic Age and for several centuries afterwards, there were people who had the fullness of the Spirit, and now as the age winds up we once again have this same fullness.  This is a tremendous privilege.  Century succeeded century without these gifts being poured out, and while many good things were done in the name of Jesus Christ, many generations did not experience the complete pouring out of the Spirit as they did in the Apostolic Age.  Many evangelical church members, manfully laboring to recreate the New Testament church in polity and doctrine, long to have lived in New Testament times.  But when the Holy Spirit comes as he has to us, he brings those times with him.  We live in as exciting a time as there has ever been in the history of Christianity, and we have what it takes from God to face it, if we will only claim it.

    The other part of the wonder of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit not only concerns when but on whom.  Joel and Peter tell us that it is “upon all people.”  This means you!  Men, women, young, old, everyone has a chance to have the same high level of spiritual enablement and operation.  These days, many speak of the lay movement in the church well, it started right here at Pentecost.  Later we discover that certain people have certain ministry gifts which are well distributed throughout the Body of Christ and everyone has the chance to walk in and with the Holy Spirit.  We don’t need intermediaries and we don’t need super saints to make this a reality all we need is the Holy Spirit, and he is waiting on us.

    The only sad thing about this is the widespread rejection of this kind of contact with God.  I am not speaking here about Christians who do not accept these things for today these have been discussed at length earlier.  We need to turn outward, to the world of people who do not accept Jesus as Lord.  These are the people who have the worst of it.

    Ever since history began, people have been trying to make meaningful contact with powers greater than themselves.  They do this principally for their own benefit they realize that they cannot make it on their own, so they hope that some outside being can deliver them from their dire straits and make everything right.  This in itself is not really unadmirable this is a large world we live in, with many unpredictable external circumstances that can make life a real mess or end it without much warning.  People have been at this for so long and have tried so many ways that when a new way comes along, it is inevitably the old ways repackaged for a remarketing effort.  This in essence is the “New Age Movement” it is the old paganism our ancestors practiced, repackaged with modern salesmanship and tailored to modern sensibilities.

    After millennia of this kind of thing, secular humanists have come along and proclaimed that we don’t need gods of any kind, that we as people are so inherently wonderful that we can solve our own problems and make our own way, and that the world would be better off if everyone went along with this type of thinking.  In the past, these people, in whatever type of humanism they practiced, figured that history was on their side and that their victory was inevitable.

    This hasn’t quite worked out according to plan.  To begin with,. man just hasn’t been that wonderful lately.  Hundreds of millions have been murdered this century, sacrificed on the altars of such causes as Fascism, Communism, and Radical Feminism (this last is the sacrifice of the unborn), none of which are traditional religions in any sense of the word.  Every time the humanists come out with a new Manifesto, humans come out with new crimes to blow another hole in peoples’ faith in each other.  Beyond that, secular humanism and its bride, materialism, are dry cults in practice they promise no afterlife, they give no really tangible greater purpose to life they do not make people greater than they are to start with.  It is in this fading light that secular humanism has turned to the courts for relief they suppose that, if they can expel the Bible and prayer from the schools and nativity scenes from the courthouses and town squares, they can make God go away for good.  If the arm of the law continues to lengthen as it has in the U.S., these people will do everything they can to eradicate Christianity and make life for God’s people rougher and shorter, because as long as there are people in this country and world who proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior the secular humanists can never rest easy.

    But the secular humanists cannot make God go away neither can they do the same to the demons.  Today we have more cults and belief structures than we know what to do with.  We have the old occult practices of astrology, fortune telling, palm reading, and other kinds of divination, attempts on peoples’ part to discover the future and perhaps to control it.  People seek out spirit guides to help them along their way, hoping that these ascended masters can help them do things and be things they could not be on their own.  They attempt to raise their level of consciousness through all kinds of meditation and thought control, thinking they can raise the level of their existence by climbing their own ladder.

    We see the worship of Satan reborn in our time in all forms.  Some are simply attempts to get back to the Druid nature worship, and those of us with a good deal of Celtic ancestry find such is closer to natural than we care to admit.  Some serve a demanding devil they sacrifice animals and children to please him, just as the Baal worshippers of Caanan did in the days of the prophets.  The Masons may attempt to get around their use of occult symbols and pagan practices by telling us it’s all symbolic the Satan worshippers are beyond those excuses, for they are dead serious about their paganism, and have been since Lucifer himself took a fall with his angel followers.

    Neither the “New Age” types, nor the practitioners of the old occult superstitions, nor the worshippers of Satan, have much use for the followers of Jesus we can expect no better treatment from them than we can from the secular humanists.  We are facing spiritual warfare on a broad scale every day.  We have seen the back of the book and we know that God’s time is long and the Devil’s short but unless we put on the whole armor of God every day, we won’t get to the end the book is speaking of.

    Much of this confusion results from the nature of our times.  The advance of technology has brought many benefits it has also forced us into a discipline that chafes, where our time, life, and labor are counted out in whatever currency is legal tender.  We become cogs in a giant machine and indeed back in the eighteenth century, those who were in what they called “the Enlightenment” thought this was the ideal.  Unfortunately, many Christians thought that this was right too they thought that believers were just cogs in the machine of God’s advancing kingdom, and that the baser you felt, the better.

    The reaction to this was for many to go to the other extreme, to equate Christianity with a high self-esteem and nearly deifying (in some cases the nearly was dropped) the believer, with God as the pliant instrument of power in the hands of the man of faith.  Some said that this last concept was seduction, but we must be careful it is too tempting to combat the present seduction of Christianity by proposing a return to the last one!

    In the midst of this mess stands Jesus Christ, offering a better way out.  It is critical in the present time that we understand the nature of his solution.

    First, there is only room for one God in the universe.  In the old Western movie, one gunslinger tells another, “This town ain’t big enough for the two of us.” He hopes that the other gunslinger will get the message and leave, but he’s prepared to force a departure.  But God has never had to stop and tell anyone that the first one to challenge God on this point, Satan, fell from heaven so fast he never knew what hit him.  Although there are myriads of angels and demons floating around to well populate the universe with plenty of spiritual power, properly speaking there is, and can be, only one God.  This is because the qualities that make him God make him unique.  Who wins when two omnipotent beings oppose each other?  When people come around and tell you that you can be a god with their program, they really don’t know what they are talking about because they really don’t know who God is and why he is unique.

    Man is a complex business.  He was created fearfully and wonderfully, in the image and likeness of God and a little lower than the angels to have dominion over creation yet he was conceived in sin, with a short life full of woes, once to die and then the judgment.  People are well created but they have serious weaknesses that will prove their undoing without assistance.  Man is neither pure God nor pure animal, an entity on his own unless he establishes some kind of relationship with the outside world.

    It is here that an alliance between God and man is necessary.  God has much to offer man, but man must be first willing to take the whole package.  This is the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand and secular humanism and paganism (old and new) on the other in addition to promising his people prosperity under his wing, God also expects his people to behave themselves through moral demands relating to himself, to other members of the covenant community, and outsiders.  The central problem people have with these alliances between God and man — and this includes the one we are in now — is man’s desire to have the prosperity without the moral responsibility.

    The novel feature of the New Covenant concerns the method by which God makes provision for the moral excellence of his creatures.  In large measure the Jews were hoping to get it right through the observance of the Law, the sacrificial system, and political independence.  Many of the rabbis were looking to heal spiritual skin diseases, but Jesus replied that they shouldn’t be looking to cure a skin disease when the patient really had heart trouble.  Jesus, through his life and ministry, his death and resurrection, proposed to man that the best way to do better was to be better, and to be better meant starting over again.  It meant dying to the old man of sin and rising to the new life in Jesus Christ, in God himself.  “In him was life, and that life was the light of man.”[5]  With this new life people can walk in God and have access to the infinite resource of God to make it through life and into eternity.

    The pouring out of the Spirit is integral to this new life.  With the Holy Spirit and his baptism, people can have spiritual power to find their way through the darkness and confusion of the world, to do the things that they need to do to accomplish this and the other tasks that God sent them here to do.  With the baptism of the Spirit, men and women have the intimate contact with the inner workings of God and his plan that they would not have otherwise.  Mystics have slaved over the years to climb up the celestial hierarchy through the cloud of unknowing to reach God but those baptized in the Holy Spirit need only to stand still and experience God himself poured into them to overflowing.

    This all leads us to the real reason behind the pouring out of the Spirit.  The whole idea behind Jesus coming to us was the giving of life to men, both while we are here and after we are gone “`The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.’”[6]  People look into themselves for life, but that will only go so far.  People look to others, and sometimes that is worse. People come to spirit guides and gurus behind the mask of religiosity lie either demons or people under their control.  All of these are manifestations of the thief but if they were not, what sense is there to substitute the musings of little spiritual beings or humanistic thinkers when one can have the power and wisdom of the creator and sustainer of the universe?  This is where true life is to be found.  And those filled with the Holy Spirit, having what they have from God, are in the ideal position to receive from God the fulfillment and personal realization — the real content of life, if you please — that they are looking for.

    The Day of the Lord

    Peter, in quoting Joel, takes a sweeping look at these last days, which is our present time and toward the end of the quotation he speaks of the end of these last days.

    A lot of preaching time and many books have been devoted to the events that will take place when Jesus winds up history, opens the books, places his people in the heavenly city, tosses the rest into the lake of fire, and closes the books.  “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may in all in all.”[7]  These times will be tumultuous without precedent and the important thing about them is that they can come any time.

    The Second Chapter of Acts is task enough for this work concerning the end, we can only say something about calling upon the Lord.  If you’ve done it already, well and good.  If not, now is the time to do it wait until the final judgment and it will be too late.  “`Here I am!  I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.  To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.’”[8]

    Signs and Wonders

     Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.[9]

    Peter puts many people’s theology in serious trouble with this statement.

    It is conventional wisdom amongst many evangelical theologians, ministers, and lay people that miracles don’t constitute valid proof of the presence of God.  What does constitute valid proof, they say, is sound teaching and a changed life.

    Both of these are vitally important one won’t find one’s way to eternal life without them.  Jesus didn’t show a changed life, because he had it right to start with.  He also gave out sound teaching more than that he gave out powerful teaching, of a kind the Jews had never seen before.  Both of these were and are important for Jesus, but Peter tells us that Jesus was accredited — in other words, received his authority amongst the people — by the miracles, wonders, and signs that he did during his ministry.

    But the miracles didn’t stop with Jesus’ ascension into heaven, for Jesus told his followers, “`Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.  I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.  He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.’”[10]  Jesus intended that his followers would continue and amplify the working of signs, wonders, and miracles after he was gone, and as we saw in Peter’s citation of Joel, this would follow the pouring out of the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit was sent to enable Jesus’ followers to do the work he sent them to do, as we have seen earlier.

    The working of miracles is something that has had a part of every age of human history.  All of the religions that surrounded Judaism and then Christianity had some provision for this.  Many still do today.  This was accomplished either by the intrinsic powers that were in the miracle worker or from some outside supernatural being, who inevitably turned out to be a demon.  However, it was and is not God’s intention for his people to rely on demons, their own power, or psychological tricks to accomplish miracles.  To enable his followers to fulfill such commands as “`Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.  Freely you have received, freely give.’”[11], he sends them forth, to use Bossuet’s expansive phrase, “clothed in the omnipotence of God.”

    Most books, tapes, and discourses on the subject of miracles concentrate on our faith in the miraculous process.  They spend a lot of time attempting to instruct us on how to activate our faith, how to plant our faith as a seed, how to speak our faith, etc..  Now faith is a necessary prerequisite for the working of miracles without faith these will not take place.  “`Have faith in God,’ Jesus answered.  `I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be yours.’”[12]  Faith for miracles is like faith for salvation it is essential, but not enough.  Nothing really takes place without God.  Just as “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness,”[13] so also when we believe for a miracle, God acts, but the miracle, like the righteousness, is an act of God, not us.  There is no intrinsic power in our faith it is the value it has to God that makes both salvation and the working of miracles possible.

    We discussed earlier the presence of resurrection power in the life of the Spirit filled believer.  Nowhere can this be more openly manifest than in the working of miracles.  Without the power of Jesus’ rising, miracles from God simply do not take place as for the counterfeits from the other side, the eternal cost far outweighs the present benefit.  With this power Jesus has sent his fully credentialed ambassadors into the whole world, equipped to do all aspects of the work that he did during his ministry on this earth — and then some.

    In so enabling his followers by the Holy Spirit, both Jesus Christ and we ourselves have taken on an awesome task.  To centralize the power in a few well connected swamis, the easy way out, is one thing to do so throughout the whole Body of Christ is another.  For both God and us, the risk is our failure.  With this power and authority comes responsibility if we fail, we look bad, but God looks even worse to a world waiting for us to fall on our face.  We must stick close to the heart of God if we expect the miraculous resurrection power to benefit us and advance the kingdom of God.

    The Special Place of Healing

    Generally speaking, when we first think of miracles, we think of healing.  We find that God is of like opinion, for we find that Jesus Christ won divine healing for us even before his resurrection: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.”[14]  Attempts to spiritualize the healing discussed in the verse won’t do, as the term used will simply not allow it.

    We should not think, though, that the divine power to heal is fundamentally different from the power to work other divine miracles for it comes from the same God.  It was won for us before the resurrection however, had there been no resurrection, it would not have mattered because Jesus would have perished and our hope with him.  The resurrection and the pouring out of the Spirit put this power into action.  The special place of healing for both God and man comes from man’s condition.  While we live in our bodies, their condition is important to us.  The enormous amount of money we put into health care, directly or indirectly through government and private insurance, is testimony enough that healing is still an important need for all people.

    Ahistorical?

    One of the frequent criticisms of all types of fundamentally Biblical Christianity is that it is ahistorical.  This means churches that go back to the Bible for the rule of faith and practice and ignore whatever church evolution might have taken place from then until now are removing themselves from the historical process and attempting to make an ideal construct out of Christianity.  This is a backhanded way of challenging the relevance of fundamental Christianity if it was out of the flow of the past, then it must be out of the flow of the present, and thus not relevant to the condition of people today.

    Part of the answer to this charge is wrapped up in the cross-cultural issue which we have gone through at length.  The other part of this concerns the basic definition of historicity, and it is to this that we must now turn.

    When Pentecostals and Charismatics are challenged on many of their practices, one favorite response is to say that their accusers are “having a form of godliness but denying its power.”[15]  The people and denominations that pursue the historicity argument have a similar problem they have a form of historicity but deny its power and reality.  They and their churches frequently faithfully attempt to retain the same form of worship, church architecture, symbols, and polity as those in the past but their hearts are far from the doctrine and reality that their forefathers held on to.  This was the essence of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, one which Pentecostal churches were mercifully spared but the battle still goes on today.

    In reading the works of the church Fathers and other Christian writers of old, one thing that they were conscious of that many modern Christians have lost was the imminent power of God working in the world around them.  This frequently took the form of miracles of all kinds and other divine manifestations.  It is this type of thing that this present outpouring of the Holy Spirit is about, in a sense recovering the presence of God that has been lost for a long time for many Christians.  In this regard, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are eminently historical and a few examples from days gone by should suffice to illustrate this point.

    The first one comes from Irenaeus, who was bishop in Lyons, a city in Gaul (now France).  Irenaeus had studied under Polycarp of Smyrna, who in turn had studied under the Apostle John.  His book Against Heresies, written after he had become bishop in 177, is an interesting witness to the theological development of the church but about miracles he has this to say:

    If, however, they maintain that the Lord, too, performed such works simply in appearance, we shall refer them to the prophetical writings, and prove from these both that all things were thus predicted regarding him, and did take place undoubtedly, and that he is the only Son of God.  Wherefore, also, those who are in truth his disciples, receiving grace from him, do in his name perform (miracles), so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from him.  For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe (in Christ), and join themselves to the Church.  Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions.  Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them and making them whole.  Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years.  And what shall I more say?  It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, (scattered) throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practicing deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them (on account of such miraculous interpositions.)  For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister (to others.)

    Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.[16]

    For this reason does the apostle declare “We speak wisdom among those that are perfect,”[17] terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used himself also to speak.  In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away…[18]

    This was written nearly a century after the close of the Apostolic Age, and yet all of these things were still taking place.  The dispensationalists should take a careful look at this kind of evidence.

    The second example comes from Eusebius’ History of the Church, written during the early years of the fourth century, shortly after Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire.  It concerns an incident that took place in the 170’s.

    While Antoninus was still on the throne, it is on record that when his brother Marcus Aurelius Caesar deployed his forces for battle with Germans and Sarmatians, his men were parched with thirst and he was in a quandary.  But the soldiers of the Melitene Legion, as it is called, through faith which has never wavered from that day to this, as they faced the enemy in their lines, knelt down on the ground, our normal attitude while praying, and turned to God in supplication.  The enemy were astonished at the sight, but the record goes on to say that something more astonishing followed a moment later: a thunderbolt drove the enemy to flight and destruction, while rain fell on the army which had called on the Almighty, reviving it when the entire force was on the point of perishing from thirst.[19]

    There are two things important to remember about this incident.  Although historical records for this period of Roman history aren’t the best, had this barbarian invasion succeeded, it could have been a disaster on the magnitude of those suffered by Rome in the barbarian invasions of the fifth century.  Second, the enemy was deeply affected by this event, but not Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who remained a Stoic and one of Christianity’s more determined opponents.  We will see why later.

    We skip a few centuries for the next incident, which comes from Bede’s History of the English Church and People.  Bede’s work is important for the understanding of earliest English history Sir Winston Churchill, writing about the times he chronicled, said that he “now comes forward as the most effective and almost the only audible voice from the British islands in these dim times.”  This passage, described in part by a traveling companion, concerns Bishop John of Beverly, who lived in the seventh century.

    …he came one day to a convent of nuns at a place called Wetadun, ruled at the time by Abbess Heriburg. `When we had arrived and been welcomed with general rejoicing, the abbess informed us that one of the nuns, her own daughter, was very seriously ill.  She told us that the nun had recently been bled in the arm and that, while she was being treated, she was suddenly seized by a violent pain which rapidly increased, so that the wounded arm grew worse and became so swollen that it could hardly be encircled with two hands.  In consequence, the nun was lying in bed and terrible pain and seemed likely to die.  The abbess therefore begged the bishop to visit her and give her his blessing, being sure that she would improve if the bishop blessed or touched her…So he went in, taking me with him to see the girl who, as I have said, lay helpless and in great pain, with her arms swollen so such a size that she could not bend her elbow.  The bishop stood and said a prayer over her, and having given her his blessing, went out.  Some while later, as we were sitting at table, someone cam in and asked me to come outside, saying: “Coenburg” — for that was the girl’s name — “wishes for you to come back to her room at once.”  I did so, and when I entered, I found her looking cheerful and apparently in good health…As we were leaving the convent, the dissapearance of the pain in her limbs was promptly followed by a subsidence of the swelling, and the girl, saved from the pain of death, gave thanks to our Lord and Savior with all the other servants of God in the place.’[20]

    The last passage to be quoted comes from Bossuet.  Jaques Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, was a magnetic preacher, and spoke and wrote some of the finest French prose ever composed.  In his Meditations on the Gospel, written about 1695, he says this about miracles:

    Here, therefore, is the greatest miracle of Jesus Christ.  Not only is he all-powerful, but here he renders them all-powerful and, if possible, more power than he himself is, constantly performing greater miracles, and all through faith and through prayer: “and all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive.”[21]  Faith, therefore, and prayer are all-powerful, and they clothe man with the omnipotence of God.  “If you can believe,” said the Savior, “all is possible to him who believes”[22].

    The performance of miracles, therefore, is not the difficulty.  Rather, the difficulty is to believe.  “If you can believe.”  That is the miracle of miracles to believe absolutely and without hesitation.  “I believe, Lord, help my unbelief”[23]

    Thus the great miracle of Jesus Christ is not to make us all-powerful men.  Rather, it is to make us courageous and faithful believers who dare to hope all from God, when it is a question of his glory…

    Let us dare all things, and no matter how slight our faith may be, let us fear nothing.  A small grain of faith, the size of a mustard seed, enables us to undertake anything.  Grandeur has not part in it, said the Savior.  I ask only for truth and sincerity if it becomes necessary that this small grain grow, God who has given it, will make it grow.  Act then with the little you possess, and much will be given to you: “And this grain of mustard seed” and this budding faith “will become a great tree, and the birds of the air will dwell in the branches thereof.”[24]  The most sublime virtues will not only come there, but will make their abode therein.[25]

    “Jesus did many other things as well.  If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”[26]  His followers, doing the greater works he promised, could fill even more.  Full gospel Christianity is well in the mainstream of the practice and belief of many Christians over the years, and we should feel honored to carry it on.

    But Peter is still preaching, so we must go back and hear more.

    Died and Arose

    This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.  But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.[27]

    Peter continues to lay out the plan of salvation in terms of Jesus himself.  Although this plan has been discussed at length, there are a couple of things that Peter brings out that need to be emphasized.

    One of those disputes from which Pentecostals and Charismatics have been largely spared concerns the debate over whether or not the Jews should, as a group, take responsibility for the death of Jesus.  For centuries Jews had to put up with the label of “Christ killers,” which was an excuse for persecution of all kinds.  Since the Holocaust has jolted both the Jews and everybody else into taking such persecution very seriously, we need to take a look at this.

    Peter states that this is what in fact happened, that it was the Jews that conspired to get rid of Jesus.  Peter also states that the Jews had help, in this case from the Romans.  The Jews could have never done what they did without them, because the Romans took away from them the power of capital punishment.  When the Sanhedrin decided that Jesus must die, they had to go to Pontius Pilate to get it done.  He could have put an end to the whole matter there and then, but he did not.

    The Jews, therefore, cannot be saddled with the entire responsibility of Jesus’ death this Peter makes clear.  But Peter’s aim — and the aim of the rest of the Apostles — was to change the Jews’ mind about Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit and persuasion, not coercion, forced conversions and baptisms, ghettos, pogroms, etc..  These last only engender bitterness and hate, and these defeat the whole purpose of evangelization.  Also, Jesus ministered in an entirely Jewish setting the Jews were the only people who had formed an opinion of Jesus one way or the other, and thus the only ones with a desire to take action.  When Jesus’ followers penetrated the Gentile world and got the Roman Empire’s direct attention, they got very much the same treatment.

    We have discussed earlier the importance of the blood sacrifice in the forgiveness of sins.  Peter brings out something else concerning the saving act that needs to be emphasized.  When Jesus died on the cross, he had two main adversaries to face, sin and death.  This miserable couple had haunted humanity since Adam and Eve brought them into the world.  Jesus broke the power of these two himself by taking on both onto himself.  In going to the cross, he took the sins of humanity, past, present, and future.  In dying he took on death to himself as well.  As Jesus is God, however, neither of these two could hold him in the grave or in Hades.  The absolute power of both was broken, Jesus showing the way out.  Those who follow him will likewise make good their escape.

    Graves, Full and Empty

    David said about him:

    `I saw the Lord always before me.

    Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

    Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

    You have made known to me the paths of life you will fill me with your joy and presence.’

    Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.  But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on the throne.  Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.  God has raised Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.[28]

    We have seen that Jesus was David’s descendant the passage from Psalm 16 that Peter quotes here (vv. 8-11) is one of the prophecies that foretells this.  Looking at the passage on its face, it would seem that David was wrong, because, he died, and was given a decent burial.  His tomb was in Jerusalem, still visible at the day of Pentecost.  David’s prophecy was, in fact, for one of his descendants and Jesus fulfilled his forefather’s foretelling in his own resurrection.

    This earth we live on is a giant graveyard, constantly receiving back the dead corpses of those who have had life.  Our lives are a fast business we are born, soon grow up and become adults, go through the cycle of life, and then perish from the earth.  We run the human race with others, with family, friends, and others.  We see others drop out in death our lives are scarred by their loss.  Those who one day gave us life and love are now only dead matter.  The closer they were, the more our life was intertwined with theirs when they die, a part of us dies with them.  The scars accumulate worse than that, we realize that our time to follow them is fast approaching.  The day comes for all of us when we must experience the agony of death, when we are ripped from our bodies and our world, hurled into eternity to leave more grieving people behind to follow us in the endless cycle of decay and death.

    There is no more compelling reason than this to make God our all in all now, because he has freed us from the power of death.  For those of us who have, “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”[29]  What Jesus did in the resurrection made this possible.

    Concerning graves, some people have nicer ones than others.  David’s was nice enough to last from his day to the Apostles’.  The Egyptians’ pyramids were even better than that they had a concept of immortality that demanded such a home.  However, it doesn’t take a concept of immortality to produce magnificent tombs, just a good deal of money and the desire to be venerated (by the deceased) or to venerate (for those left behind).  We see V.I. Lenin’s tomb in Moscow the lines are long, even in winter.  Mao Zedong is enshrined in even a larger structure in Beijing.  Neither of these has left their tombs on their own volition they are still there, along with most everyone else who has not been a victim of grave robbing or cremation.  But Jesus’s tomb is empty because he walked out of it, alive and ready to take others with him.  And we don’t even have to stand in line.

    Lord of All

    Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.  For David did not ascend to heaven, yet he said,

    The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

    Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.[30]

    Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 to demonstrate another point here, this concerning the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Charismatics make much about this point “Jesus is Lord” is an expression that finds its way onto a lot of things.  Pentecostal preaching traditionally has not spent as much time on this.  The reasons are historical and are another part of the Pentecostal inheritance from earlier evangelical churches.

    When I was growing up, I was a part of a liturgical church.  The parish I was a member of was housed in an impressive Gothic structure, complete with stone vaults and traditional, medieval style stained glass windows.  The largest of these windows was located just above the altar, covering most of that end of the church.  It was a “Te Deum window,” named after the old Latin hymn by the same name.  The opening line of this song is “We praise thee O God we acknowledge thee to be the Lord,” and continues in the same vein.  The window had Jesus Christ depicted in the center, with martyrs, apostles, and other groups of important Christians around, praising him.  Whatever type of response this elicited from the parishioners who cared to look, the message of this elegant window was clear: Jesus is Lord and it’s everyone else’s business to recognize that fact.  And this window wasn’t unique in that respect much older Christian art, especially in the Orthodox churches, was conceived along the same lines.  People have complained about the artificial perspective and settings and the stern looks on the people (especially Christ himself), but whether at the Last Judgment or another setting, Jesus’ Lordship is the clear message given.

    Lordship in the ancient world was a serious business, because society was very conscious of rank and authority, and consequently undemocratic.  A person’s lord had a great deal of control over that individual.  When a person spoke of their god, they frequently prefaced that god’s name with the expression “the Lord,” thus “the lord Serapis,” or “the lord Zeus.”  For a Christian to say “the Lord Jesus” was not just a casual expression it was a mark of his or her identification with the One who controlled his or her life.

    As the Roman Empire wore on, the deification of the emperors increased and many Christians shed blood because they would not acknowledge that the emperor was God.  The Emperor Domitian, under whose rule John was exiled to Patmos, insisted on being addressed as “Lord and God.”  As the Roman Empire collapsed, it was replaced by feudalism, and the pyramidal structure of lord and vassal became the linchpin of the organization of society.  The well known ceremony where the king or noblemen knighted someone with the sword on the shoulders was an oath of fealty, where the knight acknowledged the lordship of his superior.  The British House of Lords is an institution filled with people who in the past would have had lordship, but real lordship is something that hasn’t been in the House for a good long while.

    As our civilization became more democratic and less deferential in nature — and especially in the wake of American democracy — people saw fewer secular examples of absolute lordship, and so lost a good deal of their vision of the heavenly kind.  Churches became democracies where pastors were called and ejected at the whim of the congregation.  The believer became the supreme, autonomous unit in the church, and as long as he followed the rules from the collective interpretation of the Bible, everything was all right.  This kind of thing was the inheritance of many of the early Pentecostal pioneers.

    Now this does not mean that church democracy is wrong indeed, if we are serious about the presence of the Holy Spirit being spread amongst God’s people, we must also admit that his inspiration is there too, inspiration which needs some mechanism to express itself.  The only way in which church democracy will ever work is when the people have Jesus as Lord and are led by the Holy Spirit, in which case the whole church can move as one God directed unit.  But some are not convinced of this.

    The missionary whom the Lord used to introduce my wife and I was in the U.S. on leave, and was visiting some friends at an evangelical church where he had been youth minister.  He got into a discussion with one woman about the possibility of having black people (both he and the woman are white) come to this church.  Our friend is a strong supporter of interracial churches, but this woman was adamantly opposed to the idea, and expressed herself in strong, sometimes vulgar terms.

    Our friend had listened long enough to this, so he asked her, “What would Jesus think about your opinion?”

    Before the woman had a chance to stop herself, she unloaded the truth: “I don’t care what Jesus thinks!”

    Jesus is Lord and we need to admit to it and live it, whether or not it offends our democratic sensibilities or worse yet our pride.  This is especially important for Spirit filled people how can the Spirit move and have free rein if Jesus, who sent the Holy Spirit, is not in charge?  He is in charge of every creature whether they want to acknowledge the fact or not.  On the last day, the believers will bow the knee gladly to Jesus Christ our Lord.  The demons and the lost won’t be glad, but they’ll bow the knee anyway.  We need to be glad now.


    [1]Acts 2:16-21

    [2]Jl 1:2

    [3]Mt 24:36

    [4]2 Pet 3:3-7

    [5]Jn 1:3

    [6]Jn 10:10

    [7]1 Cor 15:28

    [8]Rev. 3:20,21

    [9]Acts 2:22

    [10]Jn 14:11,12

    [11]Mt 10:8

    [12]Mk 11:22,23

    [13]Gen 15:6

    [14]Is 53:5

    [15]2 Tm 3:5a

    [16]Iraneus, Aganist All Heresies, II,4 & 5a

    [17]1 Cor 2:6

    [18]Iraneus, Against All Heresies, V,6,1

    [19]Eusebius, History of the Church, V,5.  Translated by G.A. Williamson

    [20]Bede, History of the English Church and People.

    [21]Mt 21:22

    [22]Mk 11:22

    [23]Mk 11:23

    [24]Mt. 13:31,32

    [25]Bossuet, Jaques Beningue.  Meditations on the Gospel.

    [26]Jn 21:25

    [27]Acts 2:23,24

    [28]Acts 2:25-32

    [29]1 Cor 15:51,52

    [30]Acts 2:33-36

  • Power and Privilege Training at Harvard? Just Pull the Plug!

    Those diversity people are at it again, this time at The Place Where Future Presidents go:

    The administration at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government has agreed to work with a student group to implement a “mandatory power and privilege training” as part of its orientation, according to several reports by the group.

    “We have exciting news to share — the administration has officially expressed its desire to collaborate with us on designing a privilege training component for Orientation week for every HKS degree program!” states a post on the group’sTumblr page…

    A mandatory power and privilege training that examines components of race, gender, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability, religion, international status, and power differentials for every incoming HKS student starting August 2014.

    Mandatory hat tips to other groups notwithstanding, the idea behind “power and privilege training” is to inculcate the proposition that white people–and especially white men–have a built-in lead in terms to running things and that they need to be knocked down to size.  For my part I’ve tried to undermine things for one segment of the Caucasian population (the Scots-Irish) but all I’ve gotten is fears of racial profiling.  And the people of Massachusetts, which surrounds the Harvard campus, still elected Elizabeth Warren as their Senator.

    In any case all of this overlooks one simple fact: obtaining power and privilege is the reason people go to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in the first place.  I’m a broken record on this, but we haven’t elected a non-Ivy League President in thirty years.  And 2016 doesn’t look promising, questions about Hilary Clinton’s health notwithstanding.

    So: if you want to take a major step against “power and privilege” the simplest way to do this is to pull the plug on the School of Government, and take the rest of Harvard with it.  Failure to do so will simply lead to transference of power and privilege from one group to another, and the rest of the population will be no better off.

    Put another way, the “egalitarian vision” of our elites is such that, in spite of all of the bawling over economic inequality, as long as the 1% (or the 0.1% or the 0.01%) and their sycophantic clients have the requisite number of blacks, women, Hispanics, gays, etc., everything is good.

    The real issue isn’t the race or gender of the power holders but the growing centralisation of power itself.

  • Just Mail Us Our Diplomas and Be Done With It

    Getting the boot as a commencement speaker is becoming quite fashionable these days:

    The head of the International Monetary Fund on Monday joined an élite group—those whose plans to give commencement addresses this graduation season were derailed by student or faculty protests.

    Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, was scheduled to speak this coming Sunday at Smith College, but she withdrew her name after nearly 500 people signed a petition objecting to the policies of the IMF. Similar outcries foiled speaking engagements by former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University and human-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Brandeis University, among several others.

    “I call it disinvitation season,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech advocacy group. “Not everyone gets disinvited, but there is such consistent effort to get rid of people.”

    I’ve never put much weight on big ceremonials.  For me, the purpose of commencement is twofold: to put a period on a sentence of a degree pursuit, and for academia to show off its importance.  Most commencement speakers put forth a long list of platitudes, urging students in a boring speech to lofty goals that are generally unattainable and in some cases undesirable.

    I do, however, have my own ideas on what a reasonable commencement speech should be.  I don’t expect to get invited, so I put them on this blog; you can see them this time of year in the “Featured Posts” in the sidebar (the second one).

    Evidently my low expectations aren’t so bad after all. I’d rather never get invited than to get invited and then watch as my invitation gets pulled under pressure by a bunch of narrow-minded ninnies whose inability to see the bigger picture casts aspersions on their university’s decision to grant them a diploma in anything.  (To say nothing of the professors who support them…)

    With God’s help, I’ve got one more degree to obtain.  I found with the last one that disseminating the results of the research is more important than the ceremonial, and I don’t expect anything different here.  But if the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga is unwise enough to allow their joint leftist/corporatist elements to get the best of them with a commencement speaker, then I’d sooner have my diploma mailed to be and be done with it.

  • The Apostolic Charisms and the Sacraments

    It’s not quite a follow-up to this earlier post, but this interesting nugget from St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, 3 q. 72 a. 2) puts the issue in an interesting light:

    Christ, by the power which He exercises in the sacraments, bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament, i.e. the fulness of theHoly Ghost, without the sacrament itself, because they had received “the first fruits of the Spirit” (Romans 8:23). Nevertheless, something of keeping with the matterof this sacrament was displayed to the apostles in a sensible manner when they received the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost came down upon them in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to the same signification as oil: except in so far as fire has an active power, while oil has a passive power, as being the matter and incentive of fire. And this was quite fitting: for it was through the apostles that the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again, the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue. Which refers to the same signification as balm: except in so far as the tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its odor. because, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, as teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that which gives edification to the faithful.

    In like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down under visible signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles: hence Peter said (Acts 11:15): “When I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning.” Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter, where God sent sensible signs miraculously.

    However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the sacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv): “There is a certain perfecting operation which our guides,” i.e. the apostles, “call the sacrifice of Chrism.”

    Starting with the last paragraph, we certainly now know that the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy was not the original Areopagite.  So any comments he had to make re the days of the Apostles were back projections from five centuries after the fact.  His idea that the practices of the present church are identical to those of New Testament times is not a conceit that has died out either.

    Aquinas gives a pretty nice overview of the power of the Holy Spirit in  his description of the works of the Apostles.  But that overview brings up two significant questions that don’t get answered very well these days.

    The first is whether the sacramental system in general replaces the kind of working of the Holy Spirit seen in the days of the Apostles (and for some years afterward) with another type of working.  I think that many of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church saw it that way, and many Catholics and Orthodox do today.  But I don’t think that this is the idea of our Founder or of the New Testament.  Neither do I think that it’s an “either/or” proposition.  There are certain graces that are taught in the New Testament (such as the Eucharist, baptism, and really matrimony) that are only available through a sacramental type of system.  But that doesn’t mean that the kinds of things that come through these and the other sacraments should replace what took place in Apostolic times.

    The second is whether confirmation in particular is a replacement for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.   Concerning that I commented along this line a while back:

    On the other hand, confirmation speaks of a subsequent reception of the Spirit, and a sacramental one at that. Those who believe that God’s grace are channeled primarily through the sacraments, however, are forced to argue that confirmation is the sacramental encapsulation of the subsequent receptions of the Holy Spirit documented in Acts. This turns the rite into an ersatz baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    I really don’t think the two are comparable.  A church that can operate both in the spontaneous power of the Holy Spirit and still keep up a sacramental system is the ideal combination, but finding that is easier said than done.

  • Born to be Alive: Born of the Spirit

    For the entire work and an interactive table of contents, click here.

    When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.  They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

    Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.  When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.  Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?  Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?  Parthians, Medes, and Elamites residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism) Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”  Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”[1]

    This is one of the greatest events recorded in the Scripture.  The believers there recognized that fact the Jews who witnessed it in astonishment recognized it and Luke, the inspired author of the Acts, recognized it.  It is therefore a great tragedy of Christianity that so many Christians have spent so much time trying to explain away the importance of this event.

    Birthday of the Church

    Most churches and denominations — even those that do not actively accept the work of the Spirit as Pentecostals do — recognize Pentecost as the birthday of the church.  They realize that the church, the body of Christ on the earth, was not really activated until the day of Pentecost and until the events that took place in the upper room transpired.  There are a few churches — fundamental ones at that — who deny that Pentecost was the beginning of the church, that in fact the church began with Jesus and his disciples.  They are in effect arguing for a church without the Spirit, and their churches are monuments to their theology.

    The church could have never started without Pentecost.  It was Jesus’ express intention that the Holy Spirit take the role as the Counselor and guide for the Body of Christ.  The Spirit was to give all manner of instruction to the Body — both as individuals and as a group — giving them direction as to how they were to carry out the mission that he had in mind for the Church.  Therefore, the church cannot be the church without the intimate presence of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit makes the church a body with members, each one having a purpose and a role in the overall work of spreading the Gospel and building up the Body.

    Filled with the Spirit

    Most Christians would accept all of the above because both their Trinitarian theology and their high regard for the Scripture forces them to do so.  The difference comes in the manner and scope in which the Holy Spirit works.  The purpose behind Pentecostal doctrine and practice is to insure that the Holy Spirit has full run of the church, that he is able to manifest himself in a scriptural way at all times with as little human hindrance as possible.

    This was achieved in a matter of seconds on the original day of Pentecost.  The one hundred and twenty believers were sitting together when they were suddenly baptized, or immersed, in the Spirit, and that filling overflowed with the speaking in unknown tongues.  Although they were expecting the event, there could be no human agency for the event, since they were not clear on how it would take place.

    This is important to note, because what did happen really had no precedent in Jewish history.  People had possessed the prophetic gift and used it extensively.  These people spoke directly what was on God’s mind concerning past, present, and future matters.  There is also evidence that some people in the Old Testament did speak in unknown tongues.  Both of these communication gifts were restricted to a relatively small group of people the New Testament would also see a special group of people get these gifts for public utterance in the sign gifts.  What is tremendous here, though, is the distribution of the speaking in unknown tongues to all of the believers.  Part of the purpose of the New Covenant which Jesus established with man was for all of his people to be priests, to have a direct link with God.  The distribution of the speaking in tongues was and is an outward manifestation of this process, and the church excludes this manifestation in her people at her own peril.

    As the Spirit Enabled

    The main problem that many have with Pentecostals concerns the matter of speaking in tongues.  Many cannot see how this can be for today or discern the real purpose for people doing this.  Yet this was the first work which the Holy Spirit did to the church.  If we can grasp why this was so, we can go a long way to determining why it is as important today as it was when the apostles were on the earth.

    To begin with, the tongue is an important part of the human body.  “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, `Listen and understand.  What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.’[2]  Jesus’ own brother takes up the theme: “When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal.  Or take ships as an examples.  Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go.  Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts.  Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.  The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body.  It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.”[3]

    Talk is cheap it is also deadly.  Once we say something, there is no retraction the words are gone from our mouths into others’ ears, never to return, accomplishing their mission for good or evil.  With the tongue we can do many things and inflict more damage with less expectation of retaliation than with any other part of our body.  No matter what realm people find themselves in, whether it is in business, politics, or church, they carry their deadliest weapon with them at all times.  Today they are the anonymous source to the press, telling lies to even a score tomorrow they are the church councilman spreading rumors to destroy a fellow Christian.  An uncontrolled mouth is like the demon’s nostril in The Cloud of Unknowing: look into it and you can see straight into Hell.

    With this in mind, it should come as no great surprise that God, in his wisdom, started out directing the church with an activity for the tongue.  To insure that what came out was from God and without human filtration, the Holy Spirit made the speech unknown to the speaker, so that both the Holy Spirit and the speaker could insure what came out was right.  This obviously is not the only explanation for speaking in tongues, but it is a comfort to us who do to know that, when we are speaking in tongues, what is coming out is from God and not from our own imperfect will.

    And here is something essential.  Those baptized in the Spirit spoke “as the Spirit enabled them.”  For purposes of both corporate worship and private dialogue in prayer, speaking in tongues is a method of communication unhindered by either demon activity or the workings of the flesh.  It enables people to speak the things of God which in their own capabilities they are unable to do.

    Unknown Tongues

    One controversy that always surrounds this event concerns just what exactly came out of the mouths of the believers that were baptized in the Holy Spirit.  When they began to speak out, the Jews assembled there heard them in the diverse languages which they spoke.  As a result of that fact, many contend that what the believers spoke were in reality the languages of the listeners, not unknown tongues.  Many Pentecostal teachers and writers have felt duty bound to defend the opposite notion.

    This may be one of these debates where winning may accomplish very little, because either way we are discussing a move of the Holy Spirit.  The first question we must ask is simply, “To whom are the tongues or languages unknown?”  The first answer to this question must be, “Not to God!”  There are no unknown tongues to God.  Where we are speaking of other human languages, the languages of God, or the counterfeit languages of demons, there are no tongues or languages which God does not understand.  When men speak to each other, to God, to demons, or even dialogue amongst the demons, God is listening in with total understanding of what is being said.  Additionally, God can speak in whatever language is necessary to communicate what he has to say to created beings.

    This leaves the humbling truth that it is to man that languages or tongues are unknown.  No one knows all languages most people do well to communicate in two or even one.  If the Holy Spirit instructs a person to speak in a language which they do not know, he is surely moving them to speak in an unknown tongue, the transmission of which they cannot confuse while they allow the transmission.

    The same Holy Spirit who empowers believers to speak in tongues unknown to anyone can also empower people to speak in ones which are (that omnipotence again!).  We are looking at the same Spirit and the same power either way, exercised as God sees fit for the best interest of his kingdom.  Some of the Jews who witnessed the event heard words in their own languages some thought they were drunk, implying speech they did not understand.  We can thus conclude from this that it is neither incorrect nor unpentecostal to conclude that the believers first empowered with this speaking could have spoken in tongues unknown to man, known to man, or a mixture of the two, since they were all unknown to the speakers.

    “Not for Today”

    Beyond this, the next line of defense that Christians frequently erect against speaking in tongues and other supernatural events is that they are somehow “not for today.”  These objections generally take one of two courses, dispensational and historical.

    People who take the dispensational route say that things such as speaking in tongues, sign gifts, and even miracles died out with the apostles because there was at the end of the Apostolic Era a change in the dispensation from God.  A dispensation is basically the way in which God relates to man at any given time, especially as it relates to man getting from sin to God.  In the Old Testament, this is marked most prominently by the procession of covenants.  Expelled from the Garden, Adam and Eve were given a series of promises these as a group constitute the Adamic Covenant.  Likewise after the flood Noah was given a covenant every time you see a rainbow you are looking at the most important sign of that covenant.  Then we move on to Abraham, who, along with his descendants, were given both the Promised Land of Israel and the designation as God’s chosen people, the Jews.  The most important Old Testament covenant was the Mosaic covenant, given to the Israelites through Moses, which included the law and the sacrificial system.  The last major covenant in the Old Testament was the Davidic Covenant.  Jesus himself was the ultimate beneficiary of this covenant, as he was one of David’s descendants.

    With each covenant came a change in the operating relationship between God and his people for instance, there was no extensive law or sacrificial system before the Mosaic Covenant there was no permanent royal dynasty before the Davidic Covenant, etc.  Each of these covenants represented a different dispensation that marked a new phase of God’s dealings with his people, and also required a change in the way in which his people were supposed to respond.

    The ultimate dispensational change, however, was brought to pass by Jesus Christ himself, in the New Covenant.  This is what he was talking about when he instituted the Lord’s Supper.  His own blood was and is the blood of the New Covenant or alliance between God and men.  His own sacrifice on the Cross made a permanent and dramatic change in the way in which men could come to God and vice versa.

    To begin with, as we have seen, the sacrificial system was no longer necessary, as Jesus Christ himself was a perfect sacrifice for our sins.  By coming to Jesus and making him our Savior through both confession of and being sorry for our sins, we can get the sin barrier out of the way and establish a right relationship with God.  In doing this, we must fulfill the most important commandment: “‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, `is this:`Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.””[4]

    The second important change concerned the Law.  Adherence to the provisions of the Law was essential for the righteousness of the Jew.  With the New Covenant, the Law was fulfilled by Jesus Christ therefore, adherence to Jesus became the most important thing.  Of course, this should never be interpreted as a license to do anything we please “Jesus replied, `If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching.  My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.’”[5]

    To make this New Covenant work, the Holy Spirit is essential.  We have seen already that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment this is necessary in order to bring people to the place where they give themselves over to God.  The Spirit also counsels and comforts God’s people, important ministries if there ever were any.  Now on Pentecost we see the Holy Spirit baptizing people and filling them with himself — an activity fitting to God — and empowering them to do the work which Jesus had commissioned them to do after his departure.

    With all this, the believers were in fine shape.  The question now arises, “Are there any further changes in the dispensation and thus the relationship between God and his people?”  Looking at the wonderful event of Pentecost, we can only reply “We certainly hope not!”

    But there are those who claim that in fact there is a different dispensation between the day of Pentecost and now, and use this claim to deny the reality of the speaking in tongues and other sign gifts at the present time.  They use such passages as “Love never fails.  But where there are prophecies, they will cease where there are tongues, they will be stilled where there is knowledge, it will pass away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.”[6]  From this they conclude that, when the perfect, inerrant Bible became complete, the sign gifts were no longer necessary and passed out of existence, along with the Apostolic Age.  They then say that there has been a dispensational change from the times of the New Testament until now.

    To answer these serious challenges, we need to first look at the passage we have just cited.  This author, in common with most Pentecostal and Charismatic people, believes the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible.  There would be no use in citing the Scriptures as I have done if the Bible were any less than the inerrant Word of God.  The close of the canon of Scripture has given us a matchless resource for the transmission of the mind and heart of God to people.

    When Paul speaks about the coming perfection, he is speaking about something to the future of his writing to the Corinthians as unruly a bunch as they were, it was enough to inspire anyone to fervent hope in the arrival of perfection.  The problem with equating the Bible with perfection is simple — it came too late.  We had a perfect Word on this earth in Jesus Christ his words were still living, apostolic memory when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and his teaching was being transmitted faithfully by both the apostles who were with him in life and Paul, the latecomer.  The New Testament was complete in time to enable generations who had never seen Jesus Christ in the flesh on this earth to have a faithful account of what took place and what Jesus said, along with true Apostolic teaching to amplify this.

    The problem with the coming of perfection is not with the Scriptures it is with us.  As brilliant as we seem to ourselves and as much as we have accomplished, our understanding is still limited by our human weakness.  As the body of knowledge expands, the human race has had to parcel this body out to a larger and larger group of people, each one holding a relatively small part of the whole body.  This is the main reason why specialization grows in importance as time progresses the human mind is less and less capable of a really comprehensive grasp of the body of knowledge, not because brains are becoming weaker but because what we know as a group is becoming greater.  We find ourselves more dependent daily on the assistance of computers to organize, retrieve, and process all of the information we have to deal with just to keep up with our own affairs these machines have become extensions of our brains just as tools are extensions of our hands.

    When it comes to God, though, we humans were beaten from the start, because our minds were and are not capable of grasping the infinite.  The Bible is surely inerrant but it is also placed in a form, in words, sentences, paragraphs, and books, that we can comprehend in our present state.  Even with this gracious allowance from God, we still find ourselves perplexed by many of the things we find in the Bible we, like the Ethiopian eunuch, read the Bible and cry “`How can I (understand),’ he said, `unless someone explains it to me?’”[7]  (This, too, is part of the Holy Spirit’s work.)  Our perfect understanding of God will only come when perfection comes to us, namely in heaven, and especially when Jesus comes again and we are part of his final kingdom.  At that point we will not need any of the gifts of the Spirit because we will be both in God’s direct presence and be enabled by God to understand what is now mysterious to us.

    This is the perfection that Paul is speaking about until then we will need the intimate presence of the Holy Spirit both in our lives and in our churches, complete with every gift and fruit that he has to offer us.  But now we must turn to the larger question of the dispensation.  Has there been a dispensational change since the days of the Apostles?

    We have seen that, throughout the Old Testament, there is a progression of covenants and dispensations.  These were part of God’s progressive revelation to his people.  “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”[8]  But what Jesus Christ did for us in his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit was complete and perfect, and was meant as God’s final and definitive relationship with man until the end of the age.  To say that there have been dispensational changes from then until now is to say that this is not so, that there were or are things that are not quite right with what Jesus did for and to us.  The closing of the canon of Scripture doesn’t change this because of the matter of the Apostolic teaching we have already discussed.  Jesus Christ’s work for us is either done or it isn’t, and to say the latter is to belittle it.  The gifts and fruits of the Spirit — all of them — and the speaking in tongues as the Spirit directs are part and parcel with Jesus’ finished work for us.  This is what Pentecostals mean when they speak of the “full gospel” and if we abandon parts of this for any reason we do so at our own serious peril.

    Having said enough about the dispensationalism, we must turn to the historical route people take to deny the reality of the speaking in tongues and sign gifts for today.  These people state that the sign gifts are not for today because of the evolutionary process of the church.  They say that these were present during the Apostolic Age because of the people and circumstances that were then present once these passed, and both church and circumstance changed, then the need for these gifts went out too.

    There can be no doubt that the church needs to suit much of what it does to effectively minister to people to whom it is sent.  It is a serious mistake for churches to attempt to live in the past for its own sake, whatever past that might be it is even worse when they force new people in the church to live in the past they are trying to recreate.  But the problem with the historical argument is pretty much the same as with the dispensational one: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”[9]  His work is finished and complete until he returns.  What he had to offer was right from the start and still right today.  Although we as Christians need to always be ready to proclaim the Gospel in a way that is comprehensible to the age about us and to “become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some,”[10]  we need to always proclaim the same Gospel with the same benefits.

    The Real Problem

    In addition to real differences of doctrine or theories about church history, there are other factors to consider in this debate.  One of these concerns considerations of pastoral and church polity, and this is perhaps the one thing that has set so many against the introduction of the full gospel into older denominations.

    People get into a rut quite easily.  Change comes only with pain.  This is especially true in the church world.  We attempt to reproduce an eternal, unchanging God with eternal, unchanging church practice.  Sometimes the appeal to tradition makes sense it provides continuity with the past that people need.  But it is equally easy to carry things too far, to get to the stage where we attempt to assimilate people into the church by forcing them into our own image and likeness, whether it is God’s or not or even relevant to their situation.

    “`The wind blows wherever it pleases.  You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.  So it is with everyone that is born of the Spirit.’”[11]  Without the unpredictability of the Spirit, church practice and polity can be a very regular, methodical thing.  Our worship form can be firmly fixed we can regulate all things according to the rules we can put things to a vote when we think we have the votes and don’t want responsibility when it doesn’t work out we can even dispense with what God thinks if we have enough tradition and popular acceptance behind us.  When the Holy Spirit is in charge, though, things aren’t quite so regular.  We get interrupted, our course gets changed, and we find ourselves doing things we wouldn’t have done otherwise.

    This can be a major pastoral challenge.  Pastors who risk this regime can find themselves following the Spirit along with everyone else, rather than leading a tidy routine.  They must have discernment to know the Holy Spirit from Satan’s, and how to deal with that in a pastoral way.  Their preaching must show the power that is God’s and must be what God is wanting to speak to the people assembled.  Ideally, they should be equipped with a wide variety of sign gifts.  The vast majority of pastors not of full gospel persuasion are not equipped to handle this kind of spirituality the laity is in pretty much the same position.  When it comes to their churches, they find themselves gripped in fear of the unknown.

    This is a problem that is real to many, because it comes where the rubber meets the road.  It is for this reason that people in the older denominations who are baptized in the Holy Spirit find themselves either run off, leave out of desperation, or are beaten both into submission and out of their spiritual inheritance.  The real surprise comes when we discover that the alternative to these unhappy methods — and a pretty frank discussion of the difficulties of pastoring a full gospel church — sits in the center of the New Testament.  Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians are written into a situation where the situation had run amok, where the gifts became weapons and the church divided for civil war to use them.  But Paul does not suggest that the spiritual gifts be jettisoned because of the abuses that were taking place.  His advise on their orderly procession is sound, and literally a godsend for the right exercise of God’s gifts to men.

    All of this is not to suggest that Pentecostal churches are free of rigid routines or fear of the spiritual unknown.  Given a chance, their pastors and people are just as capable of getting into a rut as anyone.  This is especially true when everyone gets together for a worship service, and it is to this that we must turn.

    Spiritual Worship

    One of the longest running questions within Pentecostal and other Full Gospel circles is simply this: What constitutes spiritual worship?  And how can we as an assembly of believers  do it?  This is an urgent question for clergy and laity alike, and quite a lot of time is spent on it.

    Some people insist that we have an anointed leader to lead the worship.  This person can be a pastor, an evangelist, one or several top name speakers, or whatever but this person has to have the anointing of God.  Such a person, having the anointing, can impart same to the people by saying the words that they have always heard and have these words resonate in the way they always have.

    Others say that the type of music played and sung is the key part.  Whatever is used should be God’s music of course.  What this constitutes, unfortunately, depends on the congregation involved some like old time Gospel music, some liturgical music, some choruses, some “praise and worship” type music.  This music should be led by people who have as much anointing as the speaker or speakers if not more, because music is always done first and leads the people in worship.

    Still others insist that a certain order or form of worship must be used to insure spiritual worship.  These can range from liturgists to those who just appeal to local church tradition and practice.  These people insist that a certain form must be followed to insure that the worship be acceptable to God, let alone spiritual.  Others take the opposite extreme, setting their face hard as flint against “formalism” and other deviant practices.

    While any of the above may or may not contribute to spiritual worship, “Jesus declared, `Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You Samaritans worship what you do not know we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshiper the Father seeks.  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth.’”[12]

    The only requirement for spiritual worship is the presence of the Holy Spirit.  When he is there, we can have spiritual worship when he is not, we can’t.  Now we know that God is everywhere, but we also know that, when it comes to the life of the believers, he will not come in unless invited.  This does not mean that we have to anticipate everything God does before we let him in, because we don’t have the intelligence to outhink God in this way.

    There is another important factor at work here, and this concerns who needs to worship in spirit and truth.  Jesus did not restrict the spiritual worship to the worship leaders, but extended it to all of the worshipers.  It is just as important for the hearers to be prepared for the move of the spirit as it is for the leaders, because it takes both for true spiritual worship.  Many preachers, especially young ones, get very discouraged when they preach their hearts out and little happens.  Since this is a layman’s book, it works both ways — we get discouraged when spiritual worship is absent from the platform as well.  In either case, one of the essential elements is missing.  Anointed or spiritual preaching must be complemented by anointed or spiritual listening and response.

    In addition to the edifying effects of spiritual worship on the believers, Pentecostal praise should also be part of the witness of the church.  Many Pentecostals worry when people from the outside come into a worship service.  When the Holy Spirit is truly in charge, such fears need to be laid to rest.  Worship can be a powerful witness to others.  One of the classic (and in this case non-Pentecostal) examples of this took place in 987, when Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided his people needed a new religion.  He sent delegations to investigate the major religions around him, which included Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism.  He was not impressed with the reports coming back concerning these.  The delegation he sent to Constantinople to investigate Greek Orthodoxy, however, was so swept away by what they saw they told Prince Vladamir “we no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.”  On that report Vladamir made Orthodoxy the state religion and herded his people into the Dniepr River for baptism.

    Over the years Christians have equipped themselves with a wide variety of methods to communicate the Gospel to people.  We have well researched and planned methods for Sunday School, visitation, personal witnessing, missions of all kinds, etc..  It seems a waste to hide our worship under a bushel basket when the Holy Spirit is there among us, for it is he who draws people to Jesus Christ and not we ourselves or our methods.  We need to consider this carefully when we prepare for worship.  What will people think when they come into our worship?  Will they see just another ritual?  Will they see us acting out a tradition?  Or will they be so overwhelmed by the presence of the Holy Spirit that they will not know whether they are on earth or in heaven?

    The day of Pentecost is an ideal example of the Spirit at work.  He falls on the entire group, which had been prepared by the teaching of Jesus.  They all manifest the Spirit spontaneously yet in unity, and make a strong impression on the people around them.  There is no record of the time just before the event this is intentional.  Only the move of the Holy Spirit and the response of a prepared people is really important.  And that hasn’t changed from that day to the present.

    From One Source

    The description of the Pentecostal event includes the description of the tongues of fire.  These separated and came to rest on each one of the believers present.  These are the famous “cloven tongues of fire” celebrated in Pentecostal literature and preaching.  In both cases we are looking at the separation of the fire into parts.

    This description is like the description of the glass — is it half full or half empty?  We can look at the separation of this fire, or we can, like John Chrysostom, look at the fire as being from one source.  It started out as one fire and then distributed itself amongst the believers.  The reason why this is so is because there is only one Holy Spirit and many of us.  “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.  There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.  There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.”[13]

    Many claim that the introduction of tongues and spiritual gifts and manifestations is divisive.  The problem with that assertion is simply that the Holy Spirit is one, and not the author of division.  Divisions are a result of man’s condition, not God’s.

    From All Nations

    Up until now, we have spent most of our time looking at the believers and what they were experiencing.  We now turn our attention to the audience.

    The Jews came from far and near to celebrate the Pentecost in Jerusalem.  The nations called out in the Acts surrounded Jerusalem like its mountains.  From the land God had promised them the Jews had dispersed in all directions.  They adopted local languages and made an attempt to integrate themselves enough to make a go of it while at the same time retaining their Jewish identity.  This process in Judaism has not ceased to the present time, and will continue so long as the Jews have a Diaspora outside of the land of Israel.

    Yet, in spite of the diversity of the Jews, each one heard the message that the Holy Spirit was giving the believers in his or her own language, presumably the language they were using in their local situations.  By this time Hebrew, the language of the Jewish scriptures, was restricted in its usage.  Many Jews spoke Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke and the one most current amongst the Jews in and around Palestine at that time.  Other Jews, such as those in Alexandria, found themselves needing the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible because Greek was so current among them.  In order to make sure the message got through to them, the Holy Spirit had the message presented in their own language.  When they started to compare notes about what they had heard, they were astonished, and rightly so.

    This multilingual presentation was not only for the Jews’ benefit it is for our own as well.  The Holy Spirit, acting as Counselor, had for his first session an important message to pass along to the church.  Given the church’s propensity to get into cultural ruts, it’s little wonder it was given right up front.

    The message was simply this: Everyone is included in Christianity.  The word goes out in many tongues, and God expects many races and nations to respond positively, as he said “so is my word that goes out of my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”[14]  Spirit filled Christianity must bring all nations into itself or it cannot properly be said to be fulfilling its mission.  After the Jews, there was no chosen people or nation or family.  The new Israel was to be made up of people reborn in Jesus Christ their actual nationality or race had no bearing on this.

    Unfortunately, much of Christianity has missed this message.  A classic example of this problem concerns the Hamitic Curse, which attributed the difficulties black people face to their descent from Ham, and the curse that God placed on him.  This gave biblical sanction to racial attitudes that needed little encouraging.  Those who encouraged the propagation of this type of thinking never stopped to consider that “this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”[15]  When it is all said and done, and history be wound up, will there be racial or cultural separation or hierarchy in the New Jerusalem?  Or for that matter in the lake of fire?

    There are other examples of this kind of problem, but fundamental Christianity’s enemies have made so much of this there is no point in going on here.  These people — and this includes liberal church people along with humanists of all types — have used the cultural tunnel vision of some believers as a major weapon against them.  According to these refined types, people who plan to relate to fellow human beings of other races, cultures, and the like must approach them with a completely open mind, they must be liberal and tolerant, they should have a thorough education in the workings of other cultures, and best of all they should be so unsure of their own values that they become open and tolerant to those of others.  This last is best achieved by a long and generally expensive humanistic education, designed to sap the faith and missionary vitality of those who partake of it.  The sad part of this is the widespread surrender of many Christian people to this type of thinking.

    Happily these people never got to the Pentecostal missionary pioneers.  Now it’s important for anyone who plans any substantial activity in a place of a different cultural millieu from your own to have some familiarity with the new territory Pentecostal missionaries have learned the hard way about this as much as anyone else.  But these missionaries, many of whom had either limited education or limited finances or both, advanced the church without many things that others would deem essential.  They did this for two reasons.  The first and essential reason is the Holy Spirit, who had empowered these people to do what he had sent them into the field to do.  This is part of what Jesus promised his followers this is part of that resurrection power.  The second is sincerity.  People of all cultures respond to others better when they are real there are few types of people under heaven more insufferable than a cross-cultural phony.  Probably the financial and educational limitations of these missionaries were helpful in poorer places the elimination of inequities can lead to the elimination of barriers.  These people could say with Paul, “That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties.  For when I am weak, than I am strong.”[16]

    This activity was carried out, not only by full time missionaries, but also by lay people moving from place to place, spreading the full Gospel where they went.  The result of this activity is manifest in the state of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity today.  In just the few years since the beginning of this movement around the turn of the century, most people baptized in the Holy Spirit are not white most do not speak English as their first language, and many not at all.  There are Pentecostal and Charismatic people in every part of the world, many in congregations which are ethnically, culturally, and sometimes linguistically diverse.  Such a move is not a human invention but is a result of the power of God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit working in people who were willing to be led by him, whether or not they could see where they were going on this earth.

    Babel Reversed

    When the Tower of Babel was started, people spoke one language before it could be completed, the peoples’ languages were made many and the project had to be canceled.  This has been the case ever since, and the rise and fall of the various “universal” languages has make things easier without solving the problem.

    At Pentecost this was reversed the Holy Spirit broke through the diversity of languages and sent the message forth so that everyone present could understand it.  As we have seen, this was and is important for the opening of the age of grace to everyone.  It was a sign that many of the setbacks that humanity had endured up to now were to be reversed, provided humanity was ready to accept the final Covenant that God had worked out in his own Son.  This is the big “if” of history it is one that man has not quite gotten right.

    One further observation about this point concerns unknown tongues.  We speak different human languages, but the tongue unknown to people is universal.  It is something that transcends the different languages we use in life and worship.  I have had the privilege of knowing Pentecostals from the USSR we could not understand them when they spoke Russian, but we knew it when they spoke in tongues.  It was a transcendent sign that our brothers and sisters were among us.

    Drunk

    Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”

    Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who are in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you listen carefully to what I say.  These men are not drunk, as you suppose.  It’s only nine in the morning!”[17]

    Being made fun of goes with being Pentecostal.  We should not let Satan get our goat so easily with talk like this Peter didn’t.  Being supposed to be drunk brings up an interesting business.

    Of all the nations that participated in the First World War, the one that had without a doubt the most miserable lot was the Russian Empire.  The Tsar’s realm was behind most of the other European nations in industrialization as a result of this, they were always short of munitions and supplies to fight the invading Germans and Austrians.  Other problems that they faced were an inadequate transportation system and excessive government regulation that impeded the efficient production and distribution of goods and services.

    Those Russian factories that were in operation at the time were generally miserable places to work.  Housing, food, medical care, and the other necessities of life were either in short supply or of substandard quality.  Living conditions were unspeakable some of the workers even slept on their workbenches between shifts.  The factories were bad enough the mines were worse.

    As the war wore on and the shaky economic system of the country unraveled further, the shortages got worse and the purchasing power of wages in many places shrank as the shortages jacked up prices.  Under these circumstances, Russian men (and even some children) increased their consumption of their favorite killer of the pains of body and life — vodka.  In the cities there was so much of the stuff available it drove Russian moonshine out of circulation.  Many workers spent as much as 10% of their subsistence wages on vodka, six times as much as on books and other cultural pursuits.  But the women for the most part turned to God for solace.  They kept the religious holidays and prayed while the men just went out and got drunk again.

    In 1917, after three years of war, the Russian people had had enough of this, so they turned to revolution and overthrew the Tsar.  Before the year was out, the Bolsheviks, under V.I. Lenin, had come to power, and began their long campaign of takeover of the entire country, setting their enemies aside by either the sword or the gulag.  They came armed with Marxist doctrine that religion was the opiate of the people, their drug if you will, and that they wouldn’t need it any more under communism.

    The Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.  They came to the gates of Moscow and Leningrad twenty million people were dead before the hammer and sickle flag was raised over the Reichstag in Berlin.  In the meanwhile, J. V. Stalin, who had been busy liquidating Christians and others, was forced to give a limited relegalization to the Russian Orthodox Church and other Christian groups so that they could give assistance to the war effort and help boost the people’s morale where his communism could not.

    In 1985 M.S. Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, and began his programs of glasnost and perestroika.  His first major public campaign was against the excessive consumption of alcohol and the drunkenness which resulted.  At that time there were still about 50 million Christians in the Soviet Union, including his own mother.  Every year that he came home to visit her, she would bake him a cake with the Russian initials “XB” on it for “Christos Voskrece!” or “Christ has Risen!,” the traditional Russian Easter Greeting.  As the economy moves on under perestroika, there are shortages of consumer goods and the miners have been striking for better pay and conditions.

    Christianity is frequently criticized for being a crutch for people who cannot face life.  Real men, according to this type of thinking, don’t need this kind of stick to lean on, and can face the problems of life without assistance from the opiate of the people, and now real women are getting in on this line of thinking.  This type of rugged individualism has been used as much against Christians as the collectivism of the communists.

    But those who lift their eyes and look around them see what the self conceited cannot.  There are a lot of crutches out there today.  Some are financial, some are family, some are just sheer fantasy, but many are chemical.  The statistics of those who have found temporary solace in the drinking, injection, snorting, smoking, pill-popping, or other forms of intake of alcohol and drugs are overwhelming testimonies to the simple fact that, at all levels of our society, many people cannot face life without the assistance of some kind of mind altering, pain numbing substance.  Many of these people are the first to ridicule the Saviour and his followers, but it really isn’t that funny after all.

    The Jews thought that the believers were drunk.  Peter was clever to appeal to the clock but in reality the believers didn’t need wine to feel as good as they did.  They were filled with the Holy Spirit, who lifted them up above life’s problems with resurrection power, power not only to speak in tongues and do miracles, but to live from day to day in a rough world.  He lifted them up to look into eternity, and they found that when they did this world was just infinitely more bearable.  Drunkenness in wine or vodka is the diametric opposite of infilling — and dare I say drunkenness — in the Spirit, and those in whom the Spirit dwells have no place left for binges with the bottle.


    [1]Ac 2:1-12

    [2]Mt. 15:10,11

    [3]Jas 3:5-7

    [4]Mk 12:29,30

    [5]Jn 14:23

    [6]I Cor 13:8-10

    [7]Ac 8:31a

    [8]Heb 1:1,2

    [9]Heb 13:8

    [10]1 Cor 9:22b

    [11]Jn 3:8

    [12]Jn 4:21-24

    [13]1 Cor 12:4-6

    [14]Is 55:11

    [15]Rom 3:22-24

    [16]2 Cor 12:10

    [17]Acts 2:13-15

  • Everybody at a University Needs to be Able to Thank God

    But as East Carolina University, that’s not necessarily the case:

    In an email obtained by Campus Reform, Assistant Professor Eli Hvastkovs, who teaches chemistry at East Carolina University (ECU), instructed his students to prepare a “family friendly” 35­ word personal statement that mentions future plans or “thanks someone.” The students, however, were explicitly forbidden from thanking God.

    “I’ve had some submissions that needed to be edited. so [sic] here are some guidelines,” the email reads. “1. You can’t thank God. I’m sorry about this – and I don’t want to have to outline the reasons why.”

    “Why” is the #1 question that universities should be able to answer.  The fact that he doesn’t want to is a disappointment.

    Everyone should be able to thank God at the end of their university experience.  Students should be able to because they’re leaving professors they don’t care for in the rear view mirror (although their evaluation may change over the years).

    And professors need to be able to reciprocate with certain students as well.

  • Marriage is the leading cause of divorce. Just ask Gene Robinson.

    And his own “marriage” is on the rocks:

    The former Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt Rev. V. Gene Robinson, announced today that he is divorcing his spouse and partner of 25 years, Mark Andrew.

    Writing in the Daily Beast on 3 Mary 2014, Bishop Robinson stated: “All of us sincerely intend, when we take our wedding vows, to live up to the ideal of ‘til death do us part.’ But not all of us are able to see it through.”

    When this whole business of same-sex civil marriage really became visible to most people, one of the questions I asked myself was, “Why do these people want in on an institution that isn’t working very well for heterosexuals”?  To some extent Robinson’s experience (and he’s certainly not the only one) answers that question.  It also speaks to the issue of committed relationships as well.

    I still believe that marriage is something that should be returned to God–and civil society–at the earliest time.  That wouldn’t have prevented the fallout from Robinson’s own ascension in 2003, which pushed the Anglican Revolt forward like nothing else.  But it would prevent the collateral damage of extending an institution at law that should be done away with altogether.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started