Ordination Of Women Pastors; How Do We Respond?

            Could a woman be ordained as a [senior] pastor of a church? Is it biblically right or wrong?

            The Christian community is divided over this sensitive matter. Some say yes, others say no.

            Why?

Yes

            “Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is a senior vice president with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and Joint Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.”¹ She also pastors in a church, “Based in Oxford, England, where she pastors at Latimer Minster with her husband Francis…”²

            Regarding the view that there are ‘silence passages’ in the Bible wherein women are instructed to not be authoritative over men, Amy, while speaking with Eternity News, said:³

Even Paul, who is often seen as a key obstacle to women’s progress in the church, accepted that women could teach and prophesy, she points out.

“What’s interesting in 1 Corinthians where Paul mentions about women being silent in the church, two chapters earlier he’s talked about how women should behave when they prophesy, which means get up and speak in front of everyone.

“So obviously, when he says be silent, he doesn’t mean all women for all time should never say anything. He turns to a specific group of women who are disrupting services and he’s asking them to be silent, but in general he’s saying when women do teach or prophesy in the church they should cover their hair. And the reason he says that is your hair was incredibly seductive; it would be like saying don’t wear an incredibly short skirt when you get up in front of people in church today. He’s not saying ‘don’t get up in front and prophesy.’”

She said this is a classic example of people taking a verse out of context and applying it to everyone for all time.

“It’s absolutely clear if you read the letter in its entirety that it doesn’t mean that,” she says.

No

            Norman Geisler advocates for male church leadership (Emphasis Mine):⁴

…when understood in context, the “silence” passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women were not permitted “to have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Likewise, he follows his exhortation to “keep silent” by reminding them to be “submissive” (1 Cor. 14:34). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (1 Cor. 11:3). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (Phil. 2:5–8) and even in heaven (1 Cor. 15:28). That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact that it is based on the very order of creation (1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:13). Thus, elders are to be men, “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). This, however, in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church. The fact that men cannot have babies is not demeaning to their humanity or their role in the family. It is simply that God has not granted them this function, but a different one.

            Wayne Grudem is also of the opinion that women should not be pastors, “My own conclusion on this issue is that the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church.”⁵

            However, Wayne Grudem endorses the role of women in the various ministries of the church as long as that role precludes ruling and teaching functions. A woman can be a deacon (provided there is a pastor in that church), a treasurer, a counselor etc.⁶

Why Not?

            There should be no doubt whatsoever that Jesus Christ elevated the status of women in the society:⁷

1. Although Jews would have no dealings with the Samaritans, particularly the blatant sinners among them, Jesus engaged the Samaritan woman in conversation because HE cared about her spiritual condition (John 4).

2. Jesus commended the woman with hemorrhage who touched the edge of HIS cloak for her faith (Matthew 9: 20-22).

3. Mary and Martha were among Jesus’ closest friends.

4. A woman anointed Jesus at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13) would be remembered for her act of devotion whenever and wherever the gospel was preached (vv. 10-13).

5. Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom Jesus appeared following HIS resurrection, and HE instructed her to tell HIS disciples that HE has risen (John 20: 14-18).

            This list is partial.

            Women stand on the same footing as men in the sight of God, as far as salvation is concerned (Galatians 3:28). The context of this verse is the issue of justification by faith, the individual’s status before God in terms of personal righteousness (v. 27).⁸

            Women have played a significant role in the kingdom of God:⁹

1. Miriam assisted Moses and led the Israelite women in singing and dancing after their escape from Egypt (Exodus 15: 20-21).

2. Deborah was the judge of Israel. Esther saved the Jewish people from destruction.

3. Women were seen at the cross (Luke 23: 49), they sought to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 23: 55-56), they discovered the empty tomb, heard the message of the two angels, and conveyed the news to the apostles (Luke 24: 1-11).

4. Women were given the gift of prophecy (Isaiah 8:3; Acts 21:9; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

5. Paul commends Phoebe’s leadership (Romans 16:2). He speaks of Priscilla and Aquila as his ‘fellow workers’ in Christ Jesus (Romans 16:3-4). He speaks of Mary, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa as having worked very hard in the Lord (Romans 16: 6, 12). 

            The fact that both men and women are created in the image of God should not be forgotten (Genesis 1: 26-27, 5: 1-2).

            The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 is adorned because she promotes the welfare of her family, does not constantly remain within the confines of her home, and she is engaged in trading and business affairs (vv. 18, 24).¹⁰

            The Bible says that the woman was created to be a ‘helper’ to man. This does not relegate the woman to a position of insignificance or subservience. Rather the helper is thought to be as a co-worker or enabler.¹¹

            Having said this, let’s contemplate this matter from another angle.

            Would God be unhappy or angry if the church ordains women pastors?

            Would God not bless the church that has a woman as a senior pastor (cf. Psalm 145: 9; Nahum 1: 3; Matthew 5: 45; Luke 6: 35)?

            It is God who calls a person to be a pastor (Ephesians 4:11). So if a person, even if it is a woman, has that calling, who are we to say no?

            When we argue that a woman cannot be ordained as a pastor, are we claiming that God will not give that gift to women? Can we second-guess the sovereign God?

            Are we going to claim that since God’s word explicitly mentions that the overseer/pastor/elder ought to be a man, God will not contradict HIS words and hence not offer the spiritual gift of the pastoral office to a woman?

            The description of an overseer/elder/pastor is not a command from God; rather it is a guideline/teaching for the church governance.

            So to contest God’s sovereignty even in light of HIS written word may not be a good choice (cf. Romans 9: 15-26 & ‘Cessationism’). (Contesting the ordination of women pastors and thereby peacefully agreeing to disagree is one thing. But to contest the ordination of women pastors and dividing the church of Jesus Christ is entirely another thing altogether.)

            When a church ordains women pastors, it is not sinning against God. A woman who pastors in a church will not lose her salvation.

            If the woman in contention is a sincere disciple of the Lord, Spirit-filled and has the calling into the pastoral office, why should she not be ordained?

            Significantly, the doctrine of a woman pastoring a church is not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity. If some churches ordain women as pastors, and if these women live up to their calling, then so be it.

            Why quarrel and divide the church over a theme that is non-essential? We have much bigger matters to be concerned about e.g. Science vs. Religion, Effects of Postmodernism and New Atheism, etc.

            So then, should I be a legalist and not espouse the ordination of women into the pastoral office?

            I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of the law.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.rzim.org/speakers/amy-orr-ewing

²https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/is-christianity-bad-news-for-women

³Ibid.

⁴https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Timothy_2.12-14.php

⁵Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine), p. 937.

⁶Ibid, p. 945.

⁷Millard J. Erickson, “Christian Theology,” Second Edition, p. 564-565.

⁸Ibid, p. 565.

⁹Ibid, p. 565-566.

¹⁰Ibid, p. 564.

¹¹Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 9^th October 2019.

Are You A Member Of The Universal Church? (Conservative vs. Liberal Churches)

            THE PROBLEM: As we continue to live our lives as Christians, the spiritual deterioration of the church is distressing. On the one hand, there is a church that is conservative in nature, which professes to the Lordship of Christ by worshipping HIM as the God who came to save the lost. This church, for instance, believes that:

            1. The Bible is God’s Word and it’s infallible/trustworthy.

            2. Christ was born of a virgin.

            3. Christ rose again from the grave in bodily form.

            4. Belief in Christ is essential for salvation.

            On the other hand, there is another church that is liberal in nature, which also professes to the Lordship of Christ. The liberal church considers the Lord Jesus as the one who came to help the poor and the oppressed. Salvation [of people] is not the mission of this church. This church believes that:

            1. The Bible is not “God-breathed” and it contains errors.

            2. Christ was not born of a virgin.

            3. Christ did not rise from the grave in bodily form.

            4. Belief in Christ is not essential for salvation - everyone will be saved, even a practicing Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or an Atheist, Agnostic or a Skeptic.

            Both these churches exist – the conservative and the liberal. Both these churches label themselves as Christian. They profess to the Lordship of Christ.

            But the Jesus whom they worship is not the same. (Either Christ was born of a virgin or HE did not. Either HE rose again from the grave in bodily form or HE did not.)

            Therefore, from a strictly spiritual sense, it is either one of these churches – the conservative or the liberal – that can be Christian. So from the perspective of truth and eternity, the bearer of the truth is either the conservative or the liberal church; not both the conservative and the liberal church.

            The Bible accentuates this problem. The presence of conservative and liberal churches emphasizes the existence of true and false believers in Christianity. The Bible speaks of this fact, which Norman Geisler highlights, “The Bible exhorts us to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) so that we can know “the spirit of truth” (v. 6). Paul warned against “deceitful spirits” (1 Tim. 4:1), and Jesus exhorted us to beware of “false prophets” (Mat. 24:11) who are really “wolves” that come “in sheep’s clothing” (Mat. 7:15).”¹

            THE VISIBLE & THE INVISIBLE CHURCH: While discussing the theme of the church, the terms “visible church” and “invisible church” vis-à-vis the terms “local church” and “universal church” should be understood.

            The Greek word “Ekklesia” is commonly translated as church. Etymologically, the word ekklesia means “to call out.” This is used to support the biblical doctrine of the church as a people called out, and separated from the world by God. The New Testament uses ekklesia in the sense of the ‘local church’ and the ‘universal church.’ It is certainly not used for a church building or a particular denomination.

            The Local Church is the local or the visible assembly of all those who profess faith and allegiance to Christ. It could refer to a specific church (1 Thessalonians 1:1) or churches or any nonspecified individual assembly (“every church,” 1 Corinthians 4:17) or a nonspecified number of churches or for all the churches together (“all churches.” 1 Corinthians 7:17).

            The Universal Church is the invisible and the universal fellowship of the believers who meet visibly in local churches. The Universal Church refers to the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ. Ekklesia, in this sense, is not the assembly, but rather those constituting it; they are the church whether assembled or not. Gotquestions.org states, “Sometimes the universal church is called the “invisible church”—invisible in the sense of having no street address, GPS coordinates, or physical building and in the sense that only God can see who is truly saved.”²

            Two important points are to be assimilated:

            (1) The local church consists of the true believers and the false/fake Christians, who think/say that they are Christians, but in reality, they are not.

            (2) The universal church consists of the true believers in Christ. The universal church cannot contain the false/fake Christians.

            A Christian could be a member of a local church, but if his Christianity is fake or untenable, then he/she would not be a part of the universal church. In other words, if you are a member of a liberal church, then you should genuinely be concerned about your eternal destiny.

            HOW TO IDENTIFY A LIBERAL CHURCH? Knowledge of the truth is essential to identify a lie, says Norman Geisler, “Unfortunately, the truth is that one cannot discern what is false unless he is trained in what is true. Government agents who deal in counterfeits spend much of their time in studying genuine currency. The reason is simple:  we cannot recognize a counterfeit unless we know the genuine. Since Barna surveys show that less than ten-percent of evangelical Christians even have a Christian world view, it is no surprise that even the masses of Christians can be fooled by a good counterfeit theology…”³

            The liberal churches preach and proliferate a counterfeit theology. Christian apologetics website, Carm.org has a very helpful note to identify the liberal churches:⁴

Following is a list of basic principles and examples that reveal some aspects of liberalism.  Of course, not all liberals hold to all the points; but as you read through them, you should see that it comes down to one thing--not believing the Bible for what it says.

1. Denial of inspiration, inerrancy, and/or authority of the Bible

     1. Saying that the Bible has errors, is "written by man," is only a guide, or is not absolutely true.

2. Denying historic accuracy of the Bible

1. Denying that Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus, etc., were real people.

2. Denying that the Exodus happened.

3. Denying that there was an actual Garden of Eden, etc.

3. Denial of particular parts of the Bible as being authentic

1. Denying that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

2. Denying Paul's letter's as authentic.

3. Denying that the Gospels are accurate, etc.

4. Denial (sic) a basic Christian doctrine

1. Trinity, deity of Christ, resurrection, etc.

2. Salvation by grace.

3. Denying that Jesus is the only way to salvation, the doctrine of hell, etc.

5. Denial of historic understanding of Scripture and substituting new ones

1. Redefining salvation as self-deliverance from oppression.

2. Saying that Jesus' didn't literally rise from the dead and that it is a metaphor for success over trials.

3. "Husband of one wife" is not taken literally.  It is a phrase applied to wives, too.

4. Homosexuality is not a sin; it is an alternative lifestyle.

6. Affirming experience over Scripture

1. A person's feelings supersede biblical revelation.

2. "Feeling" that Jesus isn't the only way to God.

3. As long as you are sincere, God will let you go to heaven.

7. Using outside sources to interpret scripture

1. Use of psychology manuals, self-help books, science books, etc. and subjecting the Bible to their teaching.

8. Saying the Bible is outdated, patriarchal

1. This is an attempt to invalidate scripture by dismissing it as ancient and, therefore, not true.

2. It also negates the inspiration of Scripture because it implies the patriarchal structure is due to cultural influence and not scriptural revelation.

9. Imposing secular ideals upon Scripture

1. Women ordination.

2. Pro homosexuality.

3. Denying moral absolutes.

4. Upholding evolution as how mankind arrived on earth.

5. Defending "abortion rights" from scripture.

10. Gender Neutral wording in reference to God, people, mankind, etc.

1. Referring to God as Mother God or Father-Mother God.

2. Referring to various references of male leaders as people.

        3. Christians who are a part of liberal churches should reject that church. 

            So to conclude, every Christian should be duly concerned about his/her membership in the universal church while maintaining and growing in his/her membership in a local church that preaches conservative Christianity.

Endnotes:

¹http://normangeisler.com/category/postmodernism/ (The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach)

²https://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html

³http://normangeisler.com/category/postmodernism/ (The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach)

⁴https://carm.org/elements-liberalism

Websites last accessed on 9^th June 2018.

Reasons You Won’t Believe Why People Attend Church!

I’d Be Hatching, Matching & Dispatching

            Hatching (birth), matching (marriage) and dispatching (death) could be three primary reasons for people to attend church. Membership in a local church fetches baptism, marriage, and a place in the local graveyard.

            Definite worldly needs indeed! But if these are the motivational factors to worship in a church, then we are missing the mark. If the church you are worshiping in does not liberate you from these worldly needs, then your church and your spirituality are equally pitiable.

            The church is the body of Christ and not solely a channel for our material needs.  

I’ll Be Blessed           

            Would attending a worship service render a greater blessing?

            In the past, I diligently attended a church. My body was parked inside the church but my mind was wandering outside consumed with the responsibilities of my work. I was materially blessed, since I fared pretty well at work.

            I did not worship the Lord in the church. But was I blessed because I was diligent in my church attendance? No! The Bible does not say so.

            God blessed me, not because I attended church regularly, but because HE is gracious. Grace of God does not punish at every opportunity, instead it patiently blesses us constantly.

            You may still argue that God blessed me because I diligently attended the church. If so, what about my non-christian boss who was greatly successful (read blessed) but had never attended church?

            There is only one God, so all blessings flow from HIS being. HE blesses both the Christians and non-christians. If God blesses non-christians who do not attend the church, then would it not entail that our mere church attendance amounts to nothing?

            We will not be blessed merely for attending the church worship service.

I’ll Go To Hell

            That I’ll go to hell if I don’t attend church is a fascinating premise, or shall we say, a fearful premise. Many Christian leaders instill fear in the hearts of Christians, so to retain the believer in his church, whereas in reality he is to retain the believer in Christ.  

            Is there a verse in the Bible that posits hell for a believing Christian for his failure to attend the local church? If so, show me that verse please!

            Heaven is guaranteed to those who believe and love the Lord Jesus Christ. Church exists as a means to Christian discipleship and growth, not as a means to hell.

I’m In Trouble

            When in trouble go to church. This seems to be the mantra of quite a few. 

            God is not a doctor whose only objective is to heal us of all our sickness. God is not a magician who magically delivers us from all our perils. We degrade God when we go to church only when we are in trouble.

            God, being gracious, would deliver us from our troubles. It’s then our real intent would be exposed.

            Do we continue attending church after we are delivered from our troubles or do we cease to attend church? If we discontinue church after being delivered from our troubles, then there is no greater hypocrite than you and me.  

It’s A Weekly Ritual

            Church going is a weekly ritual to a few Christians. This is a sad phenomenon. When church attendance is a weekly ritual, then it’s highly possible that these Christians’ love for the Lord Jesus could be lukewarm or absolutely nonexistent.

It’s A Sin If I don’t Attend Church

            Some Christian leaders teach that failure to attend a church is a sin. This need not necessarily be true. The more important question we need to ask is the reason behind not attending.

            Poverty, distance, personal problems etc. could play a genuine role in dissuading some Christians from attending church. Some Christians could have had a bitter experience with the local church so they may not attend church. However, their love and devotion for the Lord could be as good as those who attend church regularly.

            Willful negligence to attend church but indulging in lethargic or sinful pleasures is a sin against the Lord or could lead us to sin against the Lord.

I Should Perform

            We may be gifted in playing music, singing, preaching, teaching and administration. But to attend the church with a sole motive to perform is a dubious reasoning. Spiritual gifts are graciously given by the Triune God.

            There is a critical distinction between performance and offering.

            Performance makes us greater and the Lord lesser. When our mind is set on performing, we would become self-centered. Our focus may be to garner attention upon ourselves.

            God gives good gifts; not to bring glory upon ourselves. But God gives good gifts so that we bring glory to God.

            Primarily, our gifts are to be an offering to God. Our focus ought to be on God, and not on our gift. In other words our question should always be, “Is my offering pleasing and acceptable to God?” When our gifts are an offering to God, the Lord becomes greater and we become lesser.

            In quite a few instances, parents push their children to sing in the choir / worship team or act in a play. If parents fail to instill the concept of our skills being an offering to God, then the child would perform and would be unmindful of worshipping God through the spiritual gifts.

            We don’t go to church to perform, but to offer our gifts as an act of worship.  

I Should Lead

            Some Christians are addicted to leadership and power. From the moment they enter the church, they worm their way to leadership. Leadership as a motive to attend church is deplorable.

            We don’t intend to become anything. We become what God intends us to be. We submit ourselves to God and HE enables us to become who HE wants us to be.  

I Want A Big Church

            Some think that mega churches are better than the smaller churches. There is a reasonable premise behind this need. If a church serves its people well, people flock to it; hence mega churches could be better.

            However, there could be quite a few genuine reasons as to why small churches do not grow in numbers. Their lack of growth need not necessarily imply a deficiency in their ministry.

            Small churches could be as effective as a mega church.

I’d Attend Church Only On Occasions

            Have you wondered why churches overflow during occasions such as New Year, Good Friday, Easter and Christmas? It’s because some Christians attend church only during these occasions.

            This sad phenomenon exposes the presence of nominal Christians. Those who attend church only during occasions display their lack of love for the Lord Jesus.

Conclusion

            Having said these, attending church is a good step into growing as a Christian. It’s better to worship in a church than not.  

            Although our motive to attend church may be nauseatingly revolting, we may be giving ourselves an opportunity to grow in the Lord when we are in the church. While we are at the church, a song or a sermon or a Scripture reading could lead us to love the Lord. It’s the church’s bounden responsibility to disciple its members. 

            We attend church to worship God in the community of fellow Christians. Church should enable our discipleship in our Lord.

            The purpose of the church is “…to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4: 12-13, NIV). May our churches be diligent in this responsibility.

            Just as the Lord went after that one lost sheep, may our churches care for that one member who may be in need so to motivate, encourage and draw him closer to the Lord. 

The Dirty Church

The church is to be a beautiful community that worships the only living God, nurtures the seeker with the truth, fellowships in the loving community of saints, and encourages the brokenhearted with Christ’s love. In other words, the church looks ‘upward’ in worship, ‘inward’ to edify, and ‘outward’ to serve those in need.

However, the church, from Christ’s time on earth, has been losing these components slowly yet steadily (cf. Mark 11: 15-17). A church can profess her allegiance to the Lord Jesus, yet be corrupt in her core values and expressions. In other words, the church, from the surface, could seem adherent to the biblical teachings, but avoid being truthful, loving and gracious, and thus corrupt.

When resolving a situation, the church could opt to enforce law or grace. Here is a rather dense situation to highlight the church’s corruption. A church rejects the marriage proposal of a couple because one partner has had multiple divorces. Not only is the church ungracious, but she could be successful in driving away the couple from her precincts. While rejecting the proposal, the church may have even cited a few scripture passages (e.g. Malachi 2: 16). But is this the only viable or the most biblical option for the church? If you say yes, please allow me to contradict you.

I submit that the church should have married this couple, of course, with bible-centered pre-marital counseling. If this couple were married, it is possible that this marriage would survive and the past sins of divorce, repented. By rejecting the marriage proposal, the church eliminated a magnificent opportunity for the person to repent and establish a family. More importantly, the church may have even driven these two away from Christianity. (You could argue that the multiple divorcée, as in the past, would reject/divorce this partner as well. This, however, is an ‘argument from ignorance’ i.e., one cannot predict if that marriage would result in divorce.)

Now then, why should the church not be radically gracious in solemnizing such a marriage? The church may have either rejected this proposal to avoid unnecessary criticism (for the leadership to have their job intact) or because she is profusely legalistic (so to abandon grace into oblivion). In both these instances, the church abandons the minority. This is in total contradiction to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If the church leadership claims ignorance on this matter, then they are inadequate for leadership.)

It is good to err on the side of grace, than on the side of law. But only strong and courageous leaders (Joshua 1: 9) would dare to err on the side of grace. The selfishly fearful, corrupt and theologically impotent leaders would cite the law to evade being gracious. They defy the Lord’s act of running after that one lost sheep, leaving the ninety-nine. Losing one sheep is insignificant to these leaders. They satisfy the majority, even at the cost of one sheep and the gospel! The Lord is the epitome of grace (John 1: 14-17); when the church adheres to the law and abandons grace, the church becomes corrupt.

The first entity to take responsibility for the church’s corruption is her leadership. Christ showed the way for mankind to follow. Similarly the church leadership ought to be role models for the flock to follow the Lord. If the leadership is legalistic, the essence of the church would be legalistic.

However, it could be healthier to have a legalistic leader than a weak leader. If the leadership is weak, then the church would travel the way of the powerful group in the church, and the powerful, if biblically correct, will remove the weak leader (so to resolve the problem). If the weak leadership remains, the church is bound to be sold to the devil in one form or another. If leaders are ruled by fear, they will inevitably succumb to the temptations of the evil one.

The elaborate description of Jesus cleansing the temple in Mark 11: 15-17 presents an instance of a ‘dirty church.’ The Lord’s house was transformed into a house of business instead of a house of prayer. The Lord cleansed the temple by driving out the offenders (15). Wait! Did HE really drive them out? I don’t think so! Verse 17 fascinates me, for the Lord taught ‘them’ the true intent of the church. ‘Them’ refers to those who abused the temple precincts and the spectators. Hence the Lord not only cleansed HIS house off its filth, but taught the abusers the truth. Isn’t this what today’s church leaders ought to do and isn’t this where they fail?

We take pride in proclaiming the church as a congregation of sinners, and truly so. Sin is inevitable in the congregation of sinners. When sin is encountered, the sinful act should be eliminated by the power of God, and the sinful actor cleansed by the Word of God. 

Today’s church seems more intent on driving out the sinners; not the sinners who sin against God, but those who disagree with the leadership. The formula of today’s church seems to be if-you-don’t-agree-to-my-agenda-you-will-be-fired. Thus, instead of church multiplication, church division seems to be the order of the day. Where is the fault? It’s obviously in the insecure arms of the weak leadership.

I am part of a ‘facebook prayer group’ of a certain church. One day, I realized I wasn’t a part of that prayer group. Upon digging for clarity, I discovered that the church leadership had me removed from that group, because my blogs seemed to implicate that church. Thus far, I have not received a response as to what unholy or unbiblical content from my blog merited such an ungracious decision. If I am a sinner, where is the teaching to correct me? If there is no teaching, does it imply I am correct? If I am correct, why should I be removed? Or am I a terrible sinner beyond correction? This is not a personal rant, but an illustration of what I see as a failure of the church.

The church seeks easy, or evil, solutions today. Quite a few AGM’s (Annual General Meeting) of the contemporary church present a sad yet hilarious scene. The powerful oppress the powerless and the seemingly-more-spiritual oppress their brothers and sisters. If you speak the truth, you are mandated to shut up. Is this the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Laugh-out-Loud! It is the case of weak and unbiblical leadership. Weak leadership manifests in several ways. You are fired if you disagree; you are disciplined if you speak the truth. Both situations were a reality in the life of Martin Luther and many others who stood firm for truth. Welcome to the dirty church.

George Barna and Frank Viola expressed this sentiment as they dedicated their book, “To our forgotten brothers and sisters throughout the ages who courageously stepped outside the safe bounds of institutional Christianity at the risk of life and limb. You faithfully carried the torch, endured persecution, forfeited reputation, lost family, suffered torture, and spilled your blood to preserve the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest .a minister ... and a functioning member of God's house. This book is dedicated to you.” ¹ Weakness hides behind law, discards grace and Christ out of the church. The church then is sold to the devil.

I think it was Malcolm Muggeridge who ridiculed the church to say, “they have taken that which belongs to the soul and institutionalized it.” Do you belong to a dirty church that destroys a soul, or do you belong to a grace-abounding, Christ-filled, Spirit-anointed church?

You can for all you want shout at the top of your voice that you are anointed. But if you discard grace from your life, you are discarding Christ. If you are abandoning Christ from your life, are you a true disciple of the Lord Jesus? You need to answer these questions as much as I need to. Amen.

References:

¹ George Barna and Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity, 2007. 

Understanding Catholics and their Critics

I will dive a little deeper into the Catholic rationale behind their contentious practices and highlight a few of the prevalent contentious practices of the non-Catholics that negate their seemingly superior theological advantage.

Catholic theologians, I believe, didn’t innovate random practices contrary to the Bible, but have read the Bible and subsequently implemented and supported these practices according to their interpretations. The essence of many of these contentious practices is to draw closer to Christ. The ‘means’ may be faulty but not the ‘end.’ The same applies to the contentious practices of the non-Catholic churches.

For example, the Catholic and the non-Catholic understanding of ‘grace’ is quite different. A non-Catholic would define ‘grace’ as God’s goodness towards those who deserve punishment. In other words, grace is “unmerited favor” that is freely given, never obligated, and cannot be earned. The only human attitude that is appropriate to receiving such a grace is ‘faith.’ ¹

Now examine ‘grace’ within the Catholic comprehension. “The meaning of the word grace is primarily favor: but it is used especially of that act of favor by which God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement and salvages it through men…” (emphasis mine).² The phrase ‘God finally salvages his creation from man’s mismanagement,’ emphasizes God’s act, but in the next few words it emphasizes man’s role while stating ‘and salvages it through men.’

Moreover, please read these words, “…there occurs a distinction between two so-called effects of grace: it works in us to justify or vindicate or redeem, and it works with us to reward our cooperation. For grace is a gift to our cooperation so to speak…” (emphasis mine).³ The emphasis that God’s grace works ‘in us’ implies God’s act, whereas ‘with us’ implies man’s role in appropriating God’s grace. So grace is not merely a gift from God, it is a gift to our cooperation. This emphasizes man’s role. Thus the Catholic hermeneutics of the Bible causes ‘salvation by works’ theology. However the Catholic theologians do emphasize grace as a free gift as well. Please read the footnote for relevant quotations.

Therefore, it is my belief that the Catholic theology should not be ridiculed at the applicational realm of its contentious practices; instead it should be debated at the exegetical realm of its Biblical hermeneutics.

On a different note, one could argue that the theology of the ‘Christian Universalists’ are a similar outcome of a faulty biblical interpretation. On the contrary, I believe that the christian universalists are a product of an eisegetical interpretation of the Bible. ‘Eisegesis’ or ‘to eisegete’ is to express the interpreter’s own ideas – thoughts that are not present in the text.⁴ Therefore, it would be even (un)fair to term the christian universalists as a cult, but the Catholics cannot be grouped as a cult. If you ask me whether christian universalists would go to heaven despite their false understanding, I would respond in the affirmative. (By the way, the Catholic leaders are guilty of universalistic teaching as well).

When non-Catholic christians slam their Catholic brothers and sisters, it is the case of “pot calling kettle black.” There are contentious practices within the non-Catholic church, and one should acknowledge that. Moreover, when we denounce or throw mud at another, we not only get our hands dirty but are losing ground from beneath our feet.⁵

Here is an introductory bird’s-eye view of a few similarities in the contentious practices existing in both the Catholic and the non-Catholic churches.

#	Contentious Catholic Practice / Teaching	Scriptural Violation	Equivalent Contentious Non-Catholic Practice / Teaching
1	Salvation – Baptismal and Sacramental	Ephesians 2: 8-10; Titus 3: 5	Baptismal salvation & Gift based (Tongues, Prophecy etc)
2	Baptism mandated	Romans 10: 13	Baptism mandated
3	Worshiping Mary & Saints	Exodus 20: 3; John 14: 6	Worshiping gifted people – divine healers, preachers, pastors etc. Praying through some “supposedly-righteous” people
4	Idol Worship	Exodus 20: 4-6	Idols worship: Building, Images of cross, Bible
5	Sacraments Priesthood – distinction	Ephesians 2: 8-10; John 1: 12; Romans 3: 20 John 13: 14; 1 Peter 2:9	Speaking in tongues, prophesying, school for “signs and wonders”  etc. Similar practice exists

If the Catholic church teaches only a baptized believer will be saved, then some non-Catholic denominations are guilty of the same practice. If baptism is mandatory for salvation, then let us not scream about being saved by grace alone. If we are only saved by grace through faith, then baptism isn’t a factor in our salvation.

If the Catholic church teaches that Mary and the saints ought to be worshipped, then the non-Catholics worship gifted people in Christendom. These gifted people may be divine healers, powerful preachers, pastors etc.

There is a distinction between respect and worship. To respect is to esteem or honor. To worship is to respect, honor and, more importantly, to submit - all our faculties to the object of worship. It is admirable to respect people, but we ought to be diligent while integrating everything that is poured into our domain. The thoughts, words and deeds of man should be examined in the light of God’s Word. We ought to submit to God and worship HIM alone. When we agree with man’s perspective, our conscious submission or worship is only to God, and not man, who is merely the channel of God. From this perspective, no human being is infallible, neither the Pastor nor the Pope!

If Catholics are guilty of idolatry, the non-Catholics are also equally guilty. Buildings, images of cross and bible verses, and even the Bible are idolized. The Bible by our side will not heal us (nor would the image of cross). These objects do not make one a disciple of the Lord. The Bible does no magic by its mere presence. The word of God when believed, read, integrated and spoken, keeps evil out and brings healing (cf. Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10).

If a Catholic is to practice his Sacraments (sacred signs), then there are innovative ‘Sacraments’ from the non-Catholic church. Some non-Catholic churches insist on speaking in tongues or the ability to prophecy or heal. There are schools that apparently impart these gifts. To the best of my knowledge, these are gifts of the Holy Spirit, given by God as HE pleases and chooses. I am unsure how man can supersede God in imparting these gifts. (A counter argument would be that God gifted that man the gift of gift-impartation, but anything taken to the realm of subjective will suffer the lack of objective verification, hence disputable.)

The reformation rebelled against the contentious practices of the Catholic church and empowered the ordinary christian to discern and apply the right and discard the wrong. Unfortunately, it is the “reformed church” (used generically, not denominationally) that is guilty of propagating the same contentious practice, even in a diluted form. I do see an application of this verse in the lives of the non-Catholic churches, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12: 47-48, NASB).

If christians from the catholic church are going to hell based on their contentious practices, then the christians from the much-knowing non-Catholic churches should also go to hell for practicing similar contentious practices. In a nutshell, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith crumbles into dust.

It is not about which denomination is better or worse, it is all about sincerely loving Christ our Lord and obeying God’s Word. May the good Lord bless us with the much needed enlightenment of HIS Word to drive out the imperfection that plagues us, and lead us towards HIS perfect presence. Amen.

Notes and References:

¹ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p 200-201.

² Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 278. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

³Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Law & Grace, p 279. (Quote from ‘Introductory Comment’ of the editor, Timothy McDermott).

⁴ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eisegesis

⁵ Ravi Zacharias’ statement

Quotes of Thomas Aquinas from Summa Theologiae:

Thomas Aquinas on Grace as a free & earned gift of God:

(ST: Summa Theologiae)

“Grace then is a disposition presupposed to instilled virtues as their origin and root. And since by grace we are reborn as sons of God, grace must modify our very nature in some way: it is presupposed to virtues, so affects what is presupposed to every ability of the soul, namely its nature.” ST, Law & Grace, 110.3

“Grace does five things: first it heals our soul, so that secondly we will to do good, thirdly actually do the good we will, fourthly persevere in doing good, and finally come to glory.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.3

“Only God can give grace, since it surpasses the abilities of any created nature, and shares in the nature of God.” ST, Law & Grace, 112.1.

“Grace is given to every man in the measure Christ gives it, for perfecting the saints and building up Christ’s body.” ST, Law & Grace, 111.4.

 “The end that grace moves towards is eternal life, and the movement develops by growth in charity and grace. So growth in grace can also be earned commensurately…So perseverance in glory (which is the end in question) can be earned. But perseverarance in grace throughout life cannot be earned, since it depends only on God’s movement, the source of all earning.” ST, Law & Grace, 114.8,9.

Thomas Aquinas on Sacraments with its focus in Christ:

“The Sacraments are signs of all three: commemorating Christ’s past sufferings, demonstrating the grace those sufferings are presently producing in us, and foretelling the future glory. Because a sacrament is a sign of the sanctifying cause as sanctifying, it must be a sign of the effect produced.” ST, Living in Christ, 60.3.

“The patriarchs were saved through faith in a Christ to come; we are saved through faith in a Christ who has already been born and suffered. Sacraments are signs expressing the faith by which we are saved, and it is right to have different signs for what is future, past or present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on the need for Sacraments:

“You cant unite men in a religion unless they share visible symbols or sacraments keeping them together.” (Aquinas quoting St. Augustine, ST, Living in Christ, 61.1)

The fact that God after Christ’s coming instituted different Sacraments doesn’t show change in God; the earlier were suitable for prefiguring grace, the later showed grace present.” ST, Living in Christ, 61.4

Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation:

The conversion of bread into the body of Christ is similar in some ways both to creation and to natural change yet different in others. Common to all three is a certain order: after this, that. In creation after non-existence existence, in this sacrament after the substance of bread the body of Christ, in natural change after black white, or after air fire. (Aquinas’ Aristotelian basis for transubstantiation. ST, Living in Christ, 75:8)

“Whatever is true of natural change because of the shared subject must be denied of transubstantiation: we can say that what is white could be black but we cant say that what is non-existent could be existent or that what is bread could be the body of Christ. Nor can we properly say that existence is made out of non-existence of the body of Christ out of bread, nor that the bread will be the body or becomes the body, though because the properties do remain we use some of these ways of speaking in a sort of analogous way, not meaning by bread the substance of bread, but using it as a general term for what underlies the properties of bread , though that is at first bread could be the body of Christ because of the possibility of its conversion is not founded on some potentiality to become in the bread, but on a power to convert in the Creator.”  ST, Living in Christ, 75.8.