A fine article on the basics of what it means to be a TRUE
disciple of the Lord. Taken from the December 2007 "Thy Kingdom
Come" - a publication of the Association of the Covenant People,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada - Keith Hunt
A TRUE DISCIPLE
by Nell Stevenson
What would you say if you were asked the question "Are you a
true disciple of Jesus Christ?" That is what I asked myself
recently. I reflected a moment and answered. "I am a true
Israelite and a Christian; so, yes, I must be a true disciple of
Jesus Christ." But, for several days during my prayer time the
thought kept recurring to the point that I felt it was time to
consider this matter more seriously, that is, "Am I really a true
disciple of Jesus Christ?"
On looking up the word disciple I read: "one who accepts the
doctrine or teaching of an other" I am happy that according to
this definition I qualify and so, can dismiss the fleeting
thought that this may not be the criterion that satisfies Christ.
Almost immediately, I became aware of the link between
disciple and discipline, which obviously share the same origin. I
looked up the meaning of the word discipline and read, "the
training of the mind and character, a mode of life in accordance
with a certain code of conduct; self-control, order, obedience".
That makes a lot of sense as it pertains to Christianity,
but discipline isn't popular these days, either in the church or
in the world. Anyone over 50 years of age will agree that
discipline today is not what it used to be in home, school or
church. The standard of Christian behavior has also declined. Are
we guilty of rejecting discipline like the rest of society and
consequently rejecting the standard set by Jesus Christ for his
people? Proverbs 15:32 teaches that "he who ignores discipline
despises himself." Discipline now seems to be thought of as
something quite apart from the daily lifestyle. It may refer to
specific training - yoga, ballet, fencing, violin, or the
military. These all demand strict obedience, order and
self-control in order to learn the proper code of conduct. All
demand hours of rigorous practice and even pain willingly endured
in order to attain the next level of achievement. The need for
such commitment is accepted without question.
Is anything less acceptable for a disciple of Christ? Am I
doing all I can to "press toward the goal to win the prize for
which God has called me in Christ Jesus"? (Phil.3:14) Am I
dedicated to training my mind and character to follow a mode of
life that is worthy of Christ? We are so willing to discipline
(control, train, punish) ourselves to lose weight, get fit, excel
at a sport or a job! Are we willing to put the same effort into
our life for Christ? Paul says, "Train yourselves to be godly.
Physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for
all things" (1 Tim.4:7,8).
We must not neglect the training! How can we go daily into
an ungodly world unprepared to hold up the high standard of Jesus
Christ and be ignorant of the code of conduct He requires? To
learn these lessons it is essential that we spend time daily in
His word. This gives the Holy Spirit the opportunity to train our
mind and character, to teach us the code of conduct and the
obedience necessary for the discipline of the Christian life we
have chosen to follow. Christ's beloved disciple John teaches us
that "whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did." (1
Jn.2:6) We must learn this from Christ Himself by spending time
in His word, the Bible, so it may "teach, rebuke, correct and
train us in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).
The initial phase of a new life in Christ is exciting, as
any new endeavor might be. The challenge is to remain steadfast
to the end. Just as a builder does a cost analysis before
erecting a structure to make sure he can complete the project, so
as a believer I must analyze the cost of being Christ's disciple.
Without the discipline I cannot be a disciple.
In Luke 3:26, Christ's requirement for discipleship is made
very clear. "IF any one comes to me and does not hate his father
and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -
yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple". Part of the
discipline is coming out of the world and its standards, and
adopting Christ's standards. He tells us exactly what is
expected.
"Any of you who does not give up everything he has, cannot be my
disciple." (Lk.3:33) He can help us prioritize and bring balance
into our hectic life. His yoke is easy; His burden is light. What
a relief when we realize that we don't have to run on Satan's
treadmill! Can't we give up some of the general busy-ness we
ourselves have created; the shopping habit, T.V. programs, the
dedication to lessons or sports or internet time? This is a
small cost as a disciple to give Christ absolute priority in our
life.
In the case of a new believer faith may be weak, but
discipline will re-affirm and build up that faith. A disciple
cannot decide to quit. The term is for life. We may choose to be
a Sunday (or Sabbath - Keith Hunt) Christian, a wishy-washy
disciple in name only, OR we can choose to be a true disciple
acceptable to Him. Christ lays down this condition for His
followers: "IF you continue in my word, THEN are you my disciples
indeed." (Jn.8:31) We must be steadfast in His word until the end
and learn its every lesson; adhere to it without exception until
the end. Then we can honestly say, "your word is a lamp to my
feet and a light for my path". (Ps.119:105) Dependence on the
Word - That is the essential discipline; THEN am I His disciple
indeed.
The ultimate reward reserved for a true disciple is "that
you will recognize the truth and the truth will set you free."
Jn.8:32) Before His arrest Christ prayed for the disciples,
"Sanctify them by thy truth; thy word is truth." (Jn.17:17) And
so, you and I must continue in the word to let the Spirit of
truth guide us into the truth we need each day to walk as Jesus
walked. He will show truths to you and He will show truths to me;
to each one as needed in our personal experience as we remain in
His word.
These truths will set us free from guilt and fear, free from
bondage to the things of the world and free to be obedient to
Christ. As we continue to recognize truth from His word it will
impact our daily behaviour. "For the word of God is living and
active, sharper than any double-edged sword. It penetrates even
to dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb.4:12).
Only the word of God can pierce the conscience, break a
stubborn will, cut out a root of bitterness, break a proud and
rebellious spirit so as to transform us into vessels useful to
Almighty God, self-controlled and obedient to Him. The training
will be a lifetime process because there is always more to learn
and as with any discipline it may be painful at times. As we grow
and learn to recognize truth upon truth we will begin to "walk as
Jesus did".
We will be happy to say with the Psalmist, "I have hidden
your word in my heart that I might not sin against you" (Ps.
119:11). Isn't that what we strive for as followers of Jesus
Christ?
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved a
workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly divides
the word of truth." (2 Tim.2:15)
..................
NOTE:
That friends/brethren is a short but mighty powerful article on
the very basic of being a true disciple of the Lord. I do not
know where you are on your spiritual road, at the beginning,
around the first bend, half way finished, two more bends to go,
or turning the last bend and heading for home. But the above
teaching from Nell's article will apply, where ever you are on
your journey with Jesus.
Time spent in the Bible, reading it, meditating on it, is going
to be so important, at times very important as you are being led
by the Spirit into more and more truth.
I can remember my early days as God was leading me into truths I
had not known. I had just turned 19 years old. I received the
magazine from the then Radio Church of God, it was the winter of
1961/62. One article was headlined: "Will You Get to Heaven?" I
was somewhat offended by it, as I read it, because it claimed no
human has gone to heaven but Jesus, and no human goes to heaven
at death. I remember throwing it down on the table, being angry,
putting on my cowboy hat and boots and heading for the horse
ranch, where I worked part time. Oh yes I was upset, this was an
article that was contrary to what I had grown up being taught in
all my "going to church" days. But there was this small quiet
voice (not literal per se) saying to me, "Now you are all
emotional, you have not stopped to look up the Scriptures quoted.
What IF the article is correct. You will have ignored the leading
of God's Spirit."
Those thoughts kept coming back to me as I worked at the Ranch
that day. Finally I said, "Okay, alright, I will study it with my
Bible open, look up all the Scriptures, and take however long it
takes to prove the right from wrong."
I went home that evening and spent some hours studying it all. I
was amazed at the Scriptures I was reading, verses came popping
out, blinding me with light. At the end of it all I REJOICED that
I had found truth in God's word I did not know existed.
That was just a little start, as I was to go on to discover. I
think that was a little test for me from God, to see what my
attitude would be. With that little test, I just had to admit
some "theological" error - didn't have to change my life-style as
such, just had to admit a theological error and admit what the
truth of the Bible was on the subject of death and going to
heaven or hell.
Well the flood doors were open now, and wow, what the Lord was
about to pour at me - challenge after challenge, hours, and days,
and weeks, and months, of the study of His word. But I WANTED to
KNOW His truths. I was wanting to be CORRECTED, I cried out to
Him to show me truth from error. I said, "Lord, I desire to
HUNGER and THIRST after your righteousness. You have promised
that Your Spirit will lead us into all truth. Lead me Lord!"
It was not easy, it was work, hours upon hours of it, hours of
meditation on all that I was studying, going to the local library
and reading this book and that book. Then back to reading the
Bible. Often I would read the Bible on my knees, with a lot of
prayer to the Almighty for guidance.
I was in an attitude of fearing the word of God before the fear
of men and what they had to say, or what they may think of my
life in Christ, as I moved into a closer and clearer perspective
of what it REALLY MEANS to be a DISCIPLE of the Lord.
All of that is a long time back for me now, from being 19 years
old to my present 65 years of age. But I hope I have not lost
that BURNING DESIRE to have all the aspects it takes to be a TRUE
disciples of Christ. No matter where you are on the road to
eternal life, HUMILITY, a willingness to be taught, to be
corrected, a desire of mind that loves to grow in grace and
knowledge of our Lord and Savior, will ALWAYS be needed. A
continual reading of the Word of God (yes sometimes maybe on your
knees); a mind-set that is always saying to the Lord, "Show me my
errors, show me my sins, lead me Lord into more and more light;
guide me Father into truth, and help me then to live it, no
matter what others may think."
We will need, to the end of our life, the ability to GIVE UP
whatever we need to give up, to FOLLOW IN THE STEPS OF JESUS. It
may not always be easy, and it may consist of some of those
things that may be dear to us; a job you've always wanted, that
little bit of fame or fortune you've wanted (not all of such is
bad or wrong but to serve the Lord fully, you may have to let
such go by). You may have to give up (in whatever ways it may be)
a loved one, a family member, a wife, a husband. You may have to
give up your LIFE!
That is how much Jesus said you must IF God required it, GIVE UP
to serve Him, to be a DISCIPLE of Christ Jesus.
Many down through the centuries, were willing to give up much in
this physical life, some even gave up their lives, to be called a
disciple of Jesus Christ.
Most of us today, at present, will not have to give
up our lives for Christ, some in the future, during the last
three and one half years of this age, will be called upon to be
martyrs for the truth of God. Those that are, will be in very
good company with those who were martyrs in the past, for the
word of God, and for the truth that is in Christ Jesus.
Being a TRUE disciples of Christ is a lot more than just saying
you are a Christian, words can be easily spoken and words can be
cheap, but LIVING as Jesus set us the example in everything we
say and do, is the REAL test of who truly belongs to Him.
I pray that you will be one of those whom the Lord will say at
His coming, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter
into the joy of thy Lord."
Keith Hunt
...............
PERSONALITY
CLASHES
DO EXIST WITHIN THE CHURCH. THEY CAN BE BETWEEN ANY TWO PERSONS.
SATAN CAN USE PERSONALITY CLASHES TO UNDO LOVE AND HARMONY - HE
CAN USE IT TO SPLIT OR DESTROY ANY GROUP OF CHRISTIANS. IN THIS
ARTICLE YOU WILL BE SHOWN HOW TO OVERCOME THIS FIERY DART OF THE
ADVERSARY.
by
Keith Hunt
You are a unique person. There has never been a person quite
like you before - Yes, there may be a look-a-like. You've no
doubt heard about the "look alike" contests for the famous
entertainment "stars". Some are quite remarkable and a few I saw
on TV on one of those interview shows said people on the street
will not believe they are not the real film star or singer that
everyone knows.
There are the "identical twins" - twins that look so much
alike it is very difficult to tell them apart. These identical
twins do often have the same likes, abilities, talents, and
often show an uncanny mental telepathy between themselves. Yet,
they are not 100%, exactly the same.
The one difference we all have, besides our finger prints,
is - we ALL have our own distinct PERSONALITY!
Your personality is made up of many varying parts. It
includes all that makes you - YOU. It contains your talents, your
likes, your feelings, your very thoughts, and everything that
just makes you "tick" as they say.
Now your personality can be shaped by your environment - the
cultural ideology you were raised in. Your personality can be
shaped by the way your parents influenced you, or other close
relatives or friends. The type of school you attended may have
helped mould your personality. Certain clubs you joined as a
growing child may have influenced the personality you became as
an adult. There are many things that can determine what
personality you will be, even heredity plays a part. But the
bottom line is that you are an individual, different from any
other individual with a unique personality.
TURN BACK THE PAGES
Think back now to when you were a pre-schooler, possibly
when you were in kindergarten or just playing with neighborhood
friends. Were there some kids you simply did not get along with -
you just plainly did not like them? There sure was! There was
that "nasty" little Sam or Sue.
There may have been those "pests" from around the corner who
disturbed everyone. Or there was that Jimmy who would love to
trip you up if he got the opportunity. And on it goes - kids you
just did not get along with for one reason or another.
Now think about your years in grade school. Did you just
love the school bully? Or that boy (if you are a girl reading
this) who kept pulling your hair? There may have been a kid that
was always putting his foot in his mouth with stupid remarks
about you, and you would have loved to put your foot in his
mouth. Did you get along with the school prankster - the one who
tied your shoe laces together when you weren't looking?
How about the time spent in High school. Was there no one
that you didn't have problems with? Someone you wished was going
to another High school than the one you attended.
After entering the adult world you probably did not "hit it
off" with everyone you met. There was I'm sure some individual
that you wished was not in your life. Someone you did not see
"eye to eye" with. You did not like their views on politics, or
entertainment, on religion, or fashion etc. You just hoped they
would move away to another place of work or another town.
You didn't get along with these individuals because of your
distinct personality which was at variance in some way with their
distinct personality. Personalities manifesting themselves as
shaped by natural heredity and environmental influences.
Personality clashes - a common occurrence in our societies
and nations. Most think little about it - most learn to live with
it as a part of this life, but when.....
YOU BECOME A CHRISTIAN.......
All that is supposed to change is it not? Are we not as
Christians to love each other, have no jealousies, animosities,
strife, dislikes, and personality clashes? Yes, that is true, but
the truth is we do not become PERFECT when we become a Christian
and receive the Spirit of God. Our carnal nature does not
disappear with the wave of a hand, and a "be gone with you"
command. At the time we receive God's Spirit there is still a
great dose of carnality within us. Because of this fact, many
are shocked when they come into the Church of God, to discover
that personality clashes can and often do - exist.
We are all growing at different rates, and we all have
varying degrees of carnality to overcome, depending on what we
came out of as far as how our personalities were shaped by our
heredity and environment. We can in time, overcome most of our
obvious bad personality traits such as bad temper, unbecoming
speech, wrong ideas based on the "way that seems right unto man"
and others. These can be put aside as we put on the new man that
is being created by Christ living in us.
Most of our personality clashes come about because of the
"open" - easy to see areas in our personality that are still "the
works of the flesh" such as the ones I've mentioned above. But
there is a more sinister and harder to recognize problem, yet
maybe not so hard to recognize as knowing how to overcome a
personality clash.
Have you ever attended a meeting, perhaps a regional or
national company meeting, where there are many of your peers
there that you have never met before? Within a few hours you have
found one or two individuals that you prefer to "stay away"
from. You do not really know them, you have not talked to them at
any length to really find what "makes them tick." There is just
something about them that irks you - something that "gets your
goat" - something that "rubs you the wrong way" so you would
prefer to leave them alone and not be around them.
Usually this reaction is not precipitated by the LARGE
personality faults we have mentioned before, but very small
incidents in fact, yet to us, to our mind, they are large
- uncomfortable - and very threatening to our peace and
tranquillity of mind. So we "shy away" from that person, hoping
we never have to spend very long in close encounters with them.
We delude ourselves into thinking that if we ignore the problem
it will go away, or that it does not really exist at all, when
deep down we know there is a problem. If we are willing to admit
that there is a difficulty between us and this other person, we
would be able to see that part of the problem is within
ourselves. It is our pre-conceived ideas and thoughts about this
person that is partly to blame, as well as some of our own
prejudice and unfairness.
Oh yes, the "works of the flesh" are still at work, even in
this instance, but they are the works of the flesh that are more
cunning and clandestine. So it can be harder to OVERCOME. But
such personality clashes can be overcome. For the Christian they
must be overcome. WE must admit it is there(if indeed it is) and
ask God to help us do our part in solving the problem.
Twice in my life(to the present writing of this article) I
have found myself in the subtle type of personality clash that
I've talked about above. I want to tell you about them and the
way they were overcome.
REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES
I was 19 when I first heard the voices of Herbert W.
Armstrong and his son Garner Ted over the radio air waves - it
was the fall of 1961. Soon I was reading every piece of
literature the then Radio Church of God would send me. After the
initial SHOCK of discovering that some of my cherished Christian
beliefs that I had, from my years of church attendance, were not
to be found in the Bible(like going to heaven when you die),
I became like a starving lion - devouring the Bible with night
and day study to find more truths. Soon I was getting strange
glances from my friends in the Baptist church I attended - they
knew who I was listening to on the radio. After some months I
knew I could not continue attending a Sunday keeping Church(my
Baptist landlord had told me to my utter shock that Sunday was
not the 7th day of the week), I was alone - there was no one who
was close to believing as I now did. It felt strange, was I the
only one who could see these basic truths that this father and
son were preaching I often thought.
One day by luck or chance(probably neither but from God) I
met a lady (a married lady - about 5 years older than me) who
also was believing as I was. What a joy - what a blessing - what
a delight - what a conversation we had. There was no personality
clash here.
Then, some time later(a year or more) came the first meeting
with a minister from the Radio Church of God (later to be called
the Worldwide Church of God) - it was a Bible study and baptism
meeting. I was there along with a few others.
I now knew about 10 more persons whom I could fellowship
with. There was Peter and his wife Nomi, there was George and
Rose his wife (farmers from not to far out of town), there was Al
and Josephine, Jim and June, and a few single guys like me. We
all immediately got along well - no personality clashes.
Then there was Don - a man about 20 years older than myself,
a somewhat quiet and reserved man. He had more experience than I
had in this world, a middle income man with a wife but no
children. I found it hard to talk to him, so I didn't most of the
time. Our personalities were different. At that time in my life
(now I look back) I was burning with enthusiasm for the truths I
was discovering, and being somewhat vociferous, I probably said
too much, too often, and without too much "tack". I remember one
day while visiting with Al and Josephine(whom I got along with
like a house on fire) there was a knock at the door - it was Don.
As we were all fellowshipping, the topic of MASONS came up. I had
read the booklet about Masons from the WCG, and as I remember
now, blurted out in a thoughtless manner that the Masonic Lodge
was another of Satan's tools. Don was a Mason and had never read
the booklet. If we didn't have a personality clash before
(which we did) - we sure had one now.
Don did eventually read that booklet on the Masons and did
drop out from belonging to that Lodge, but the personality clash
between us continued. Neither of us had ever been openly nasty to
each other - we had never had an argument. Our personalities at
that time, as newly baptized persons, just didn't "jive"
together. You couldn't put your finger on the specific problem
between us. I'm sure the problem was much more than just that
"Masonic Lodge" incident.
It was some time later (when we had our first local minister
sent to us to establish a church) that I was to discover or face
the problem head on. We had just never tried to understand or
even get to know each other - we had never made an effort to
befriend each other.
A year or more went by, and now we had a minister and the
church was growing, many more couples and singles coming to
services. I was in the Spokesman Club and so was Don. Then
another close friend of mine and I were chosen to be song leaders
in services, we took turns - he one week and me the next week.
Then I was chosen as librarian for the church (I think I had the
reputation of being a "book worm"). All of this and all of this
growth, with no serious personality clashes except with Don - it
was still an arms length relationship that we had.
ANOTHER PERSONALITY CLASH
Then entered George, a younger married man, about my age. He
was a "musician" as I was. Some of the other fellows in the
church also played various musical instruments. We would often
get together to "jam."
The minister liked to have one or two "fun nights" for the
church every year. Now the congregation was nearing 200. I was
chosen to be in charge of the fun program. I was to organize the
music and talent skits etc. making sure they were in "good"
taste.
Well, George and I didn't hit it off on the music side of things.
Again there was no arguing between us, just a kind of "cold war"
that we both endured.
I was not sure if he just did not like the way I did things,
or if he just did not think I was a good musician. Whatever it
was, it gave us a personality clash. Now I had TWO people I had
serious "unspoken" clashes with. I knew it was there and I knew
they knew it was there.
Our local minister was a wise man. He knew that with a
congregation of about 200 and increasing, there had to be some
personality clashes. I found out later there were more problems
along this line than just what existed between Don, George, and
I. So the minister, from time to time, would bring sermons along
the lines of down to earth Christian living - how to get along
with each other, how to appreciate and serve each other, how to
understand each other, and a whole lot of plain practical
suggestions as to what we could do to alleviate personality
clashes among ourselves. Those sermons hit home. I had been
trying to run from the problem that existed between Don and
George and I. If I wasn't running from it I was turning a blind
eye to it. Now I faced up to the problem and admitted to myself
that it was very real and determined to do something about it.
Upon examining the situation I realized that I had never
really acknowledged that these two men(Don and George) had their
God giver talents and abilities. I had never tried to understand
them, or listen to what they had to say. I made very little
effort to get to KNOW them and never invited them over to my home
for an evenings visit, or gave them the chance to open up to me.
I did not make any real effort to be "their friend."
I made a decision to change all that. It was not easy the
first time to ask them to come over for dinner and fellowship. I
was apprehensive that they would refuse, but they did not.
Within a few private visits with these two men (individual - one
on one visits) I was to see great changes between us. I'm sure
they were also trying to act upon the sermons we had all heard.
Our understanding of each other grew and grew. Our appreciation
of each others talents and abilities within the body of Christ
grew. We were kind and thoughtful of each other from that time
on. I got along with everyone in that congregation, some I was
closer to than others because of age and outside interests, but
these two men - Don and George - with whom I had for so long a
time this personality clash, became two of the closest friends I
had in that congregation.
That first WCG church that I was a founding member of,
became known as one of the warmest, friendliest, and loving
congregations in that part of the country. The minister at that
time must take a large part of the credit for guiding us, and
helping us get to the nuts and bolts in overcoming not only sins
in general, but also that little spoken about problem of
PERSONALITY CLASHES.
If you have a personality clash with someone, I hope you
will admit you do. Possibly this article will help you decide to
do something about it. I hope relating my personal experiences
along these lines will have shown you how to go about solving
"personality clashes." They do exist, but with love and a
determined effort, and the Spirit of God, they can be - OVERCOME.
..........................................
Written in 1991
Detecting a Cult - Part one
by the late
Dr.Charles Dorothy
Published by the Association for Christian Development 1986
How do cults attract -- and trap? This highly useful and
readable article combines both recent scholarship and personal
experience into a handy guide for distinguishing healthy growth
movements from dangerous/lethal cults. If you have children or
young relatives you will want this checklist for cult detection
-- it could turn your life around.
Guess, if you can, the identity of this famous spiritual
leader.
As a young minister, he dedicated himself full-time
resisting public scorn and opposition -- to help an unpopular
minority group. Not only did our mystery minister preach
tolerance and equality, he did something about prejudice and
injustice. Not taking no for an answer he arranged the purchase
of an abandoned synagogue. With little funds and apparent faith
he turned the synagogue into a church with a "mixed" congregation
of blacks and whites.
The townspeople did not necessarily approve; they certainly
did not help: in the later 1950's small-minded people and racial
prejudice often went together. As a matter of fact, the locals --
ministers included -- tried to shut the upstart church down. But
our plucky leader's persistence, coupled with care for the sick
and downtrodden, served the new congregation well. With these
qualities plus undoubted charismatic appeal, he won over
thousands of dedicated followers, and support from the greater
community as well. He and his wife adopted nine orphans and gave
them a permanent home with his two natural children.
He managed to stay on the good side of the press,
successfully avoiding and defeating the occasional challenges of
government agencies checking on his church. Moreover he gained
political influence and positively impacted his community in the
area of civil rights. He housed and fed senior citizens and
medical convalescents, maintained a home for retarded boys,
rehabilitated youthful drug users. Of many inspiring stories that
surround our legendary leader, this is only one. Once lying ill
in a hospital, he refused treatment until a seriously ill black
man could be attended to. Finally in April 1975 he was named "one
of the 100 most outstanding clergymen in the nation" by Religion
in American Life, Inc., an inter-faith organization.
For these reasons and many others, his followers loved him.
Who was he?
His name was James Warren Jones.
Most knew him better as Jim Jones.
His final sermon in the jungles of Guyana killed 913 people!
Beyond these unfortunate 913, Jones' son and crony brutally
slaughtered nine more at nearby Port Kaituma airport. Back in the
U.S. at least three more were murdered in their home by a Jones'
agent. Often overlooked is this: 277 of these human sacrifices
were innocent children . . . less than 16 years old.
SURPRISE PACKAGES
Would you have identified him sooner than his unfortunate
900 plus victims? Perhaps so, but hindsight far outstrips
foresight. Realistically we must admit that Jones' followers also
had intelligence, yet it was difficult for ordinary onlookers as
well as those involved to detect Jones' paranoia, his borderline
insanity. But the sickness went largely undetected --
understandably so, because cults frequently attract their
unsuspecting prey by putting forward a very deceptive front.
Those days in November, 1978 were tragic indeed --
especially the loss of the children.
But here is good news. Good news, even if more than 2,000
cults have sprung up in the last two decades! Jones' sinister
surprise package -- and the phony fronts of other cultists --
would now be easier to detect. How so? Two major advances help
us: 1) knowledge, especially from fresh investigation of
Scripture and the study called sociology of religion; 2)
experience, drawn from many old and new cults and their escapees.
If you read on carefully you and/or your friends and loved
ones -- especially your children -- can avoid the serious pitfall
of being caught in a cult.
LET KNOWLEDGE BE YOUR GUIDE
Not only can you avoid the cult trap with the knowledge that
follows, you can discover/identify healthy growth movements. The
first step to begin identifying requires us to know the
difference between "church," "sect," and "cult."
CHURCH
As we explained in "Oh Captain! My Captain!" (RCD
Newsletter, Feb.1988) "church" applies to a relatively
long-standing, institutionalized group which exists in low
tension with society. (Stark and Bainbridge, 1905, see Endnote
(2).
1) This "low tension" means that as an institution, it has become
-- to a greater or lesser degree -- part and parcel with the
surrounding culture.
2) Church growth takes place mainly by marriage (an outsider
marries into the church) and by baptism (of younger family
members).
3) Finally, churches usually give their solution formally -- i.e.
the salvation, the sacraments, or grace that is offered, is
officially administered through a ritual and/or hierarchy.
SECT
"Sect" and "cult" have been hazy words applied to even
foggier concepts for decades. Even so, we are surprised to find
the most authoritative dictionary in this area, the "Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church," second edition, 1974, has no
entry for either word. Let's clear up confusion by studying each
of these two words in order.
Formerly a negative sounding word, "sect" is now losing its
sneer thanks to long, arduous work by researchers and
sociologists. "Sect" now describes positive groups who break away
from a church or another sect. ("Sect" comes from the Latin verb
"to follow," and in this form meant a "way of life"). Why do they
separate and follow another path, another way of life? The answer
involves both the "grace" and the tension just mentioned . . .
unless it concerns sheer personality conflict over leadership.
If the issue really is issues, not persons, the new break-away
sect wants to 1) receive "grace" more directly, and/or 2) correct
or challenge the surrounding culture. Culture has swallowed or
dominated the staid, deeply rooted church -- or the sleepy sect.
It is time, in the mind of our sectarians, to pull up roots,
stand outside, and change their group, or even society! Look at
this same idea in graphic form; then you will be well prepared to
understand the crucial differences between sect and cult.
<------SECT/ RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT Correcting culture Conflict with
society Grace more direct (High tension)
------->CHURCH/ RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION Blending with culture
Society accepted Grace more formalized (Law tension)
The line at the going right (no political reference)
represents (almost) total acceptance of the surrounding society
and culture.
Perhaps no church goes quite that far; but as we move slowly
left, away from the right, we find most of the mainline churches.
As we continue moving left, crossing center, we encounter sects:
by definition splinter or reform groups which break off from an
existing religious group. The key is this: the far left
represents rejection of society. Thus as we proceed leftwards, we
find groups becoming more and more "radical." That is what we
usually mean by "radical" -- strong rejection of same "majority"
idea or practice. Sects thus exist in greater or lesser tension
with secular society. Typically these groups grow principally
through active canvassing, outreach and evangelism. Churches,
remember, grow principally through adding the children of
members.
Many Christians will agree on this: that dynamic
Christianity witnesses to, not becomes part and parcel with,
godless or materialistic society. Some of these same Christians
may lament that their church or sect has made too much peace with
the world! When this lament becomes loud enough, a new sect will
form.
So as you may now suspect, many sects reflect healthy
growth, creative criticism and/or a "revival" of dynamic
Christian witness. An important insight? As we now proceed to
clarify the concept of "cult", keep the above graph in mind.
THE CHAOS OF CULTS: CLEARING AWAY CONFUSION
By now we are clear on the word church -- an institution
existing as part of, and in low tension with society -- and on
sect -- a breakaway group. What about the slippery word "cult"?
We have already seen that major reference works (usually from the
1960s and early '70s) do not even list or discuss "cults." Are we
then limited to Lewis Rambo's (no relation to the movie hero!)
humorous definition: "cult" sometimes means "any group you don't
like"?! (3)
Right, the word is used that way sometimes, we admit. We
also recognize the usual academic meaning: "religion," "way of
worship." But neither the humorous nor academic definitions help
us with the modern morass of chaotic cults. However do not
despair.
At last confusion is clearing away. Beginning with Jan van
Baalen's "Chaos of the Cults" (1938), and Walter Martin's "The
Kingdom of The Cults" (1965, second edition 1985), on through
Rambo (1983) who has more to offer than just a humorous idea, up
to the most recent work of the brilliant sociologists Stark and
Bainbridge (1985,1986), a clear concept of cult emerges.
CULT
Dr. Charles Braden in his book "These Also Believe" (1951)
offers this definition, explaining that he means nothing
derogatory:
any religious group which differs significantly in some one
or more respects as to belief or practice from those
religious groups which are regarded as the normative
expressions of religion in our total culture (4).
Dr. Walter Martin offers a simplification after citing Braden:
a cult is a group of people gathered about a specific person
or person's misinterpretation of the Bible . . . cults
contain many major deviations from historic Christianity
(5).
While we would not argue with his list of cults, we would
need to sharpen his definition. That definition, strictly taken,
leaves Jesus and his followers open to the label "cult." Of
course Dr.Martin, since he is a sincere Christian, does not
intend that. The second phrase "a person's misinterpretation"
leaves open the question: who determines the only "right"
interpretation? Sincere and orthodox Christians have honest
differences over interpreting the Bible. On the positive side,
however, Dr.Martin gives us a helpful clue:
cults do not necessarily have living leaders, as formerly
thought. Cults can center on doctrine -- even on the
doctrine of a departed demagog.
Now we are ready for the clarification and breakthroughs of
Professors Stark and Bainbridge, researchers in sociology, who
spent years of arduous study in this area and published their
startling results in 1985 and 1986 (see Endnote 6). As a result,
three kinds of cults can new be identified: 1) audience; 2)
client; 3) movement. Only the briefest description will be
necessary for our purpose.
AUDIENCE cults.
Not necessarily religious, these types are "diffusely
organized" with little or no formal ties. Membership is mostly a
consumer activity. How so?
Indeed, cult audiences often do not gather physically but
consume cult doctrines entirely through magazines, books,
newspapers, radio, and television (Stark, 1985: 26).
Describing the minimal face-to-face contact of this type as
"most closely resembling a very loose lecture circuit," Stark
presents the curious findings of his on-site investigation of the
Annual Spacecraft Convention held in Oakland, California. (One
can almost hear the comeback "California . . . where else?") But
here is Stork's report, slightly edited for shortness.
Some speakers described their trips to outer space on flying
saucers piloted by "persons" from other planets. Some even
showed (and sold) photographs of the saucer they had gone on
and of outer space creatures (contactors) who had taken them
far the ride. What seemed astounding in context, because
tales of those contacted by spacemen (cantactees) seemed to
be accepted uncritically, was the fact that other speakers
merely tried to demonstrate that same kind of UFOs must
exist, but without claiming that they necessarily came from
outer space.
Our researchers, along with most of us, puzzle over this,
explaining further:
People who had given nodding support to tales of space
travellers also gave full attention to those who merely
suggested that saucers might exist. Moreover, many speakers
(and the majority of those working out of booths) had little
connection with the saucer question at all. Instead they
pushed standard varieties of pseudoscience and cult
doctrines on the ground that these flourish on the more
enlightened worlds from which UFOs come. Astrologers,
medical quacks, inventors of perpetual motion machines
(seeking investors), food faddist,, spiritualists, and the
like were all present and busy. (7)
Another curious but clear finding:
They accept everything, more or less, and in effect accept
nothing but their sheer open-mindedness makes it impossible
for them to strongly commit to any complete system of
thought: they are constitutional nibblers" (Stark, 1905:28,
emphasis ours).
Accepting too much, these secular to quasi-religious cults
provide many curious examples of the "bogey-man" mentality. Many
conspiracy theories range within the audience type: the
CFR-phobes, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, "evil-Rockefellers", etc.
Worst of all however are the hate doctrines of the Jew/Black
loathers. Some of these last even teach that these humans -- made
in the image of God -- descend from the Serpents mating with Eve.
But to ascribe humans -- God's creation -- to Satan, is precisely
what Jesus called blasphemy (Mt. 12:22-32).
CLIENT cults.
The next step upward in terms of organization are the
"client" groups who relate to that, followers more along the
lines of therapist and patient or consultant and client. "In the
past the therapies/services sold centered around medical
miracles, forecasts of the future, or contact with the dead."
Today however these cults specialize in
psychological/personal adjustment. Thus Stark says:
...today one can "get in" at est, get "cleared" through
Scientology, store up "orgone" and seek the monumental
orgasm through the Reich Foundation, get rolfed, actualized,
sensitized, or psychoanalyzed (Stark:28).
The two researchers, who have also checked many of these
groups firsthand, report that client cults "more fully mobilize
participants" than the audience type. Nevertheless, this
"recruitment" or mobilization remains only partial. The
all-embracing dedication frequently associated with cults must
await our third category. At the client level most followers stay
as clients, not members. Sometimes the same followers participate
in two or more cults at the same time: They also may retain and
practice their membership in an organized, even mainstream
religious group besides!
CULT MOVEMENT
"When the spiritualist medium is able to get his or her
clients to attend sessions regularly on Sunday morning, and
thus, in a Christian context, to sever their ties with other
religious organizations, we observe the birth of a cult
movement."
Now read carefully. Cult movements:
are full-fledged religious organizations that attempt to
satisfy all the religious needs of converts. Dual membership
with another faith is out. Attempts to cause social change,
by converting others, become central to the group agenda
(8).
Still in all, many cult movements do not develop into strong
organizations. So we may distinguish three levels of
"strength"/intensity within cult movements themselves. As we rise
through these three levels, we will see an increasing demand an
the cult members as they attempt to usher in the "New Age."
Remember please, all three of the following "levels" qualify
as full-fledged religious organizations that attempt to satisfy
all the spiritual/religious/social needs of converts. "Dual
membership with another faith is out" -- nix, verboten! And
converting new members to strengthen the movement, in order to
cause social change, becomes a high priority on the group agenda.
Caution: do not confuse these three new levels with the
above cult types -audience and client -- which do not qualify as
religious movements?
1) LAW COMMITMENT CULTS
After the description just given, it may seem surprising,
but some cult movements do not mobilize to a high degree. As
Stark points out, they remain basically in the category of study
groups. These cells or groups gather regularly to hear the new
revelations or latest spirit messages from the leader/guru. And
what is expected for the honor of membership? Little more than
regular attendance, modest financial support and agreement with
(=assent to "truth") cult doctrines. Frequently in groups
surveyed, moral/life-style restrictions were no more stringent
than those of "the outside world" (=society in general). But more
intense groups do exist and bring us to the second level.
2) MEDIUM COMMITMENT CULTS
"Medium" here intends no pun, but since spiritism is not
dead, you may bring it up and enjoy it anyway? Here member
involvement is "quite intense." But the overall impression seems
much like a conventional sect. Tension with society/culture rates
high; moral rules exceed those of society in general. But notice
this: involvement in the cult, though intense, is not total:
to manipulate the universe for specific and/or personal
goals; 3) "there can be no Church of Magic" i.e. magic does
not bind a group together, does not hold a laity in
fellowship, does not unite a "moral community" (The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life 1915: 44-45).
Societies or guilds of magicians do not constitute an
exception: we do not refer at all to entertainment magic, which
is really illusion. Stark adds other important qualifiers to help
us identify magic. Religion requires long term commitment; magic
does not -- it frequently offers the "quick fix." Religion offers
vast general rewards, which are not subject to scientific
measurement; magic offers more limited, specific "rewards" that
are subject to tests and measurements. But magic offers its goods
to an unsuspecting public even though reliable science disclaims
the value of these goods.
What does magic, so defined, have to do with cults?
Quite a bit.
Audience cults -- our first type -- preoccupy themselves
with "simple mythology and only very weak farms of magic." An
example cited by the researchers is E. von Daniken's "magic
claims about the history of civilization" (Stark: 35), meaning
the theory that gods or beings from space colonized the earth.
But his film "In Search of Ancient Astronauts" does not offer
grand explanations of the meaning of life and does not offer
specific rewards.
Our second type however, client cults, deal in serious
magic: exchange of specific rewards for something of real value.
Here the example cited is the directive, not the descriptive type
of astrology which claims to pick the right day for lucrative
investments and happy marriages . . . valuable goods, indeed.
. . . most members continue to lead regular lives -- they work,
marry, rear children, have hobbies, take vacations, and have
contact in the ordinary way with noncult members such as family
and friends. (Stark: 29)
This last identifier contrasts with the third and most
tightly organized and intense of cult movements.
3) TOTAL COMMITMENT CULTS
Stark labels this level as a "total way of life."
Researcher Philip Selznick labelled the unfortunate dupes of
this level "deplorable agents." Their identity is formed, and
their lives are led, by the cult. Often they live in. If they
hold "outside" jobs it will be "only where and when they are
directed to do so, often in enterprises the cult owns and
operates . . . When not hustling money, these deplorable agents
seek converts or devote themselves to group chores or worship
activities" (Stark: 29-30).
So much for the three levels of cult movements. None of the
three general types nor the three cult movement "levels" qualify
as sects. But if you remember the sect-church diagram above, you
will see that all cults range from the mid-point to the far
(radical) left in "tension" with society.
MAGIC VS RELIGION
Stark and Bainbridge move forward to apply the distinction
between magic and religion to their cult classification. The
famous French sociologist, Emile Ourkheim, made a conceptual
breakthrough when he distinguished magic from religion in these
important ways: 1) magic does not concern itself with ultimate
meaning(s) of the universe (such ultimacy = one of the most
important identifiers of religion); 2) magic seeks the
third-level, cult movements, may or may mat offer magic. If they
do it is a serious deception - perhaps even lethal. In any case
they do offer religion -- grand explanations of ultimate meaning
and rewards which require long-term commitment. Moon's
Unification Church and Guru Maharji Ji's Divine Light Mission
provide good examples.
WARNING SIGNS
So much for background, definitions and general
understanding. Can we offer specifics so that you can protect
yourself or your loved ones?
Definitely!
Jim Jones did show signs -- signs that could have alerted
the innocent. As a child, Jones used to march playmates around,
switching out-of-liners until they cried . . . still they
returned to play again. Presumably they returned because of his
magnetism and promised rewards. Once a recognized minister, Jones
began to use members to spy and report on each other. Some knew
that he used electrodes to sting the legs and arms of the
children; why? So they would smile at the mention of his name
(for outsider and press consumption)!
In one sermon Jones slammed the Bible down on the floor and
shouted, "Too many people are looking at this and not at me!"
(9). But even though this last statement came in church, and
early on in his ministry, most of the danger signs were not as
public -- not so easy to see.
You can be much better prepared, however, than were those
unfortunate victims of Jonestown.
DETECTION LISTS
Look for these MAJOR danger signs. If SEVERAL show up
...BEWARE!
..............
TO BE CONTINUED
Keith Hunt and Dr.Charles Dorothy
Dr.Dorothy was a minister with the Worldwide Church of God and
teacher at Ambassador College, from at least the 1960s (when I
entered the membership of that church, in the early and middle
60s called "The Radio Church of God"). I did not meet and get to
know Charles Dorothy until 1985 or 1986 (the exact year now
escapes my memory), after he was "out of" the Worldwide Church
of God. I spent the entire Feast of Tabernacles with him, at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, under the sponsorship of the
Association of Christian Development. Charles had recently
married Ken Westby's sister (Ken was the founder of ACD after he
had left the WCG) and was a direct part of ACD.
A nicer man one could not wish to meet. Dr.Charles Dorothy was a
"scholar" of both Hebrew and Greek. I well remember that I had my
4 volume Hebrew/English Bible by Green, with me. On seeing them
Charles sorrowfully, with a sign in his voice, said to me,
"Keith, that could have been my name of that set of
Hebrew/English Bible. I wanted to do what Green did, before Green
did it, but they (meaning the Worldwide Church of God) would not
let me or allow me to do it."
You could see the sadness written all over his face.
Dr.Charles Dorothy was a most HUMBLE man, no vanity, no "airs" of
"scholarship" about him, as far too many carry around with their
PhD's. It was a pleasure to have known him. He died in the late
1990s from cancer.
More about Charles Dorothy at the end of part two in this study
of his - Keith Hunt (August 2004).
Detecting a Cult - Part two
The important points to watch for
by the late
Dr.Charles Dorothy
DETECTION LISTS
Look for these major danger signs. If several show up,
beware!
Is it a "closed" system? Virginia Satir in "Peoplemaking"
(1972, Endnote 10) gives clues for recognizing this most basic,
critical identifier:
a.The system provides for little or no change at all; change
is resisted.
b.Does it tend to isolate members from healthy, or even
ordinary, elements of our culture? (Few would argue with
isolating children from pornography, or morbid concentration
on death/ suffering, but books, movies, sports and clubs,
with some parental guidance, are entirely another matter.)
c.The group operates by edict, law and order, and through
force -- both physical and psychological.
d.Closed systems evolve from certain sets of beliefs which
are few but powerful. Here are a few she lists. Man is
basically evil and must be controlled by force. Self-worth
is secondary to power and performance. There is only one
right way and the person with the most power has it -- that
"right way" or "one true church."
My former student and current colleague, Dr.Phil Arnold, has
organized "Reunion Ministries" which fosters family unity and
combats the chaos of cults; here are his "Criteria for Judging
New Intense Religions."
We present his eight questions as a helpful detection list.
ASK THESE EIGHT QUESTIONS
1. Does the group claim to have all the answers? If so, beware!
Contrast a real discovery in philosophy or science which only
claims an answer to one, or a few problems.
2. Are there extreme financial demands on the individual, but no
accounting given -- even if requested? Contrast the
hermit/monastery vow of poverty; extreme, yes, but not dangerous
because an accounting can be obtained.
3. Are individual creativity and further education stifled? If
so, beware.
4. Is the governing hierarchy closed -- unwilling to listen to
healthy criticism?
5. Are those who disagree or dissent verbally mistreated, and/or
assigned to low positions in the organization? If so, you are
seeing a sign of a "closed system."
6. Have you sought out specialists/experts in the field of cults
or "new intense religions" to find out the background and
specifics of the group? Some devotees/fans can be dissuaded by
understanding the past history and context of their movement
which seems, but isn't, so novel. History helps. Facts may free
your friend.
7. Have you checked out former members of the group . . . have
you or the devotee sought their input? Some allowance may have to
be made for bitterness, but a former cult member's testimony
can be eye opening.
8. How does the group's teaching square with the Judeo-Christian
world-view? How does it square with the Bible? Some groups use
the "right" vocabulary, but the content is corrupt. Remember
the good "Christian" front Jones used! (10A).
If a group you check on scores on the "beware" side even one
time, it deserves closer scrutiny. But ONE or TWO negative marks
does NOT prove the group is ALL bad. FOUR and UP however means
SERIOUS danger?
Additional help comes through understanding, not only
deviation from sound biblical doctrine, but also signs of danger
in the methods of recruitment and indoctrination. Shirley and
George Landa of Seattle (1970) offer, among other helpful
insights, the following:
1) Recognized religions are "pro-family"; extremist cults often
require that children reject their parents, or otherwise break up
the family unit.
2) All candidates to the ministry or priesthood leave home -- but
they do so on friendly terms. New cult recruits must give up not
only home and parents, but everything of their past life. In some
cases (Mt.10:34-39) one may have to choose between family and
CHRIST, but it shouldn't be so to OBEY CULT LEADERS.
3) Cult leaders have one thing in common: they are all either
"messiahs" or representatives of God, and God speaks through
them. Of course neither good evangelical nor liberal theology
allows this in the way cults have it; so why do more people not
see through this ruse? Our experience confirms what the Landas
answer: The leader prevents any expose by isolation and by
reinforcing the idea that questioning/thinking is disloyal,
wrong, evil. Members fall under more or less complete mind
control and do not think for themselves; if they did, they would
question many cult activities and rules. They would probably
discover the deception.
4) In contrast to a church or healthy sect, cults do not engage
in works of charity (note however the exception in Jim Jones).
They do not sponsor orphanages, hospitals, alcohol/drug rehab
centers, food distribution programs, etc. Frequently they will
try to obtain funds fraudulently, or honestly through sales and
fund-raisers, but all proceeds go to the exalted leader. One
thinks here of the 90 plus Rolls Royces owned by the Bagwan
Rajneesh.
The Landas also offer a helpful insight on the relationship
between cultism and fanaticism.
A fanatic is a person whose extreme zeal and piety goes
beyond that which is reasonable. Many people become
"fanatics" about their religions, politics, hobbies, even
about their own kids. However, the differences are that
non-cultic fanatics do not, tell their parents they hate
them and that the devil speaks through them; give up their
free will to think; give up all their possessions . . .
college careers or professions; give up their former life
values completely. Fanatics do not give up their free will
to think, as cult members do (11).
We can be thankful to Almighty God for the helpful work
being done by both Christians and secular researchers in this
area. If you would like to read and understand more few a
professional/Christian point of view we recommend Ronald Enroth's
"What Is a Cult?", and the AGO tapes "How Cults Attract", and
"Cult Fanaticism" (12). For more see the Endnotes...
JESUS AND THE CHURCH/SECT MODEL
In spiritual terms Jesus Christ had nothing to do with
present-day cults, sects, mainline established religions, or even
a group of such religious institutions. Rather, the crucified
Jesus - resurrected and ascended on high as the Messiah-Christ
-- "was declared to be the Son of God with power" (Rm.1:4) and
became "the chief cornerstone" of a heavenly, spiritual organism
(Is.20:16; Eph.2:19-22). This partly invisible organism -- which
the Bible calls "the body of Christ" (Eph.4:15-16; Col.1:18-22)
-- must he distinguished from visible, human organizations. The
earthly members of this body -- in New Testament times as now --
due to ethnic, cultural and language differences, yes, even
doctrinal differences, naturally fell into different groups that
we today would call denominations (various groups of Gentile
Christians, Palestinian Jewish Christians, Diaspora Jewish
Christians, etc. see Ac 15). But those earthly members of the
body of Christ did not represent the entire "church" (Greek:
ekklesia) which physically contained unconverted hangers-on, or
pretending people (Acts 8; Phil.1:15-18; 2 Tim.2:17). The truly
converted members, then as now, are known only to God in heaven
-- the only membership that counts . . . .
So much for the Biblical and spiritual side.
Now let us briefly apply the physical model developed in
this article to the earthly ministry of Jesus.
During the physical years of his ministry, Jesus' "little
flock" (Hebrew: "haburah," fellowship) in purely human terms did
not yet qualify as a church. Why? Because Jesus and his followers
challenged, yet worked within the true religion of Israel. Thus,
again in human terms only, they formed neither a cult nor a
church, but a sect. As a sect, they challenged and corrected both
the world and the established "church" -- as a healthy movement
should. They also helped, healed and saved all who would as they
gradually grew into religious institutions. Once again we see the
importance of understanding, especially understanding
how to distinguish between a spiritual organism and a physical
organization, between a healthy growth movement and a stifling
"closed system."
FINAL WARNING AND REMINDER
Words do not suffice to emphasize the importance of being
prepared ahead of time -- armed to combat the confusion of the
cults. The "new intense religions" (new to us, but sometimes old
in other parts of the world; intense because of the demand for
heavy/total commitment; religion because of claims to explain or
offer ultimate value) attract, as Rambo explains, because in our
modern world urbanization, secularization and technology have
seemingly "overpowered" mainline religions and have stripped the
individual of his/her spiritual heritage and identity. Enter the
"new intense religions." They are perceived -- by the spiritually
deprived person -- as providing 1) intensive group support; 2)
comprehensive and compelling interpretations of the worlds and 3)
a means of relieving the frustrations and anxieties produced by
modern life (13).
In other words, our children are vulnerable -exposed to cult
danger, whether the death of Jonestown or the living death of
brain-washed mind-prisons matters little -- our precious youth is
susceptible, unless we provide loving homes and knowledgeable
Christian teaching. We, not the cultists, must provide the
"intense support", the compelling Christian view of the world"
and ways of "relieving the frustration of modern life."
Perhaps you can also see, on the positive side, that not all
sects or groups are unhealthy. This understanding should help you
and your precious children lead a life free of fear. But several
have asked me "How do sects (OK by definition) turn into cults
(harmful, and not OK by definition)?" The questioners have seen
this happen, so it is a real possibility. A detailed explanation
would be too lengthy, but a short answer will help. Any group can
become cultish if the leader(s) (and leadership = the first key)
begin to create a "closed system" (= the second key). You will
remember that closed systems start with isolation and end with
total dedication to a person or doctrine.
You now have in your hands the promised detection list.
Indeed this list is informed by the social sciences and has been
forged in the crucible of our painful experience. May it help you
or your loved ones. More information is available through
books, pamphlets and addresses in the Endnotes. But let us close
with a true story that will prove the urgency of taking
preventative action.
THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
Ted Childress, now an elder but formerly twenty-one years
with the F.B.I., explains this unusual occurrence as follows:
The term Stockholm Syndrome first occurred in 1973 at an
attempted bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. A man tried to
rob a bank, and the police caught him inside. He took three
female hostages and one male hostage and held them for 131
hours, during which time he terrorized them. He fired his
Russian automatic assault weapon at them. He threatened to
kill them on numerous occasions. He put nooses around their
necks and threatened to hang them. But he didn't harm any of
them. When he finally surrendered something vary unusual
happened.
We expected the hostages to be antagonistic toward the
hostage taker. But instead they said they feared the police
more than the hostage taker. They also said they didn't hate
the hostage taker. They refused to testify against him.
One of the ladies became engaged to this hostage taker, and
as far as I know, she's still engaged to him.
The FBI analyzed thousands of hostage situations since that
time. We found this happens very frequently. So we asked
psychologists, "What happened? What causes this?" They said
in hostage situations, with a high level of life-threatening
stress and positive human interaction, the peoples'
ego-defensive mechanisms come into play. There is denial of
what is happening and regression to a different emotional
state. The hostage will eventually begin to transfer his
hatred -- This guy doesn't really want to hurt me -- and
begins to hate the policemen. And something else very
important begins to happen; a love relationship begins to
take place. And this love relationship is like what happens
between a young child and a mother. The mother is protecting
the child from the terrifying world and providing all its
needs. This love relationship occurs both ways.
This unusual but powerful tendency also occurs in
mind-bending cults -- cult followers become completely devoted to
the person or doctrine that is almost brain-washing them. What
this means is that prevention -- proper education -- is much
easier than cure.
ENDNOTES
1. From Kenneth Wooden, "The Children of Jonestown" (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1981) p. iii.
2. Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge, "The Future of
Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation" (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1985), Chapter two. Hereafter
cited simply as "Stark" plus date and page.
3. Lewis R. Rambo, "Cult" in The Westminster Dictionary of
Christian Theology, A. Richardson and J. Bowden, eds.,
(Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1983) p.137.
4. Charles Braden, "These Also Believe" (New York: Macmillan,
1951), Preface, xii.
5. Walter R. Martin, "The Kingdom of the Cults," (Minneapolis:
Bethany Fellowship, Inc., second edition, 1985) p.11.
6. Stark and Bainbridge, see note two; now in pope,back, 1986.
7. Ibid., p.27, editing ours.
B. Ibid., p.29.
9. Marshall Kilduff and Ran Savers, "The Suicide Cult: the Inside
Story of the Peoples Temple Sect and the Massacre in Guyana" (New
York: Bantam Books, 1978) p.19.
10. Jon and Lin Hill, my colleagues, provided this very helpful
reference: Satir -- "Peoplemaking" (Palo Alto: Science and
Behavior Books, Inc. 1972) pp.113-15.
10a. Our thanks to REUNION, which can be contacted at P.0.Box
25336, Houston, TX 77265, or call (713) 523-3511.
11. Shirley and George Lands, "Have You Lost a Daughter, a Son,
or a Spouse to a Cult?" (Seattle: n.p., 1978) p.1.
12. R. Enroth, "What is a Cult?" (Downer's Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1982); this handy 28-page booklet offers much good
material, with three possible approaches in defining "cult": a
sensational/ popular approach with focus on the dramatic .
bizarre aspects; a sociological one "which includes the
authoritarian, manipulative, totalistic and sometimes communal
features of cults;" a theological one which of course implies
some standard of "orthodoxy."
13. L.R.Rambo, op. cit.. Rambo's short, to-the-paint article is
worth reading.
14. Taken from Donald E. Hake, "Preaching Today", Tape #30 "The
Stockholm Syndrome", Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church,
Knoxville, TN, n.d.
FURTHER Reading:
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, "Snapping: America's Epidemic of
Sudden Personality Change," (New York: J.B. Lippincott, 1918).
William J. Peterson, "Those Curious New Cults," (New Cancan, CT,
1982).
David Breese, "Know the Marks of Cults," (Wheaton, Illinois:
Victor Books, 1983).
I.Hexam, "Cults" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A.
Elwell, ad. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984).
N.H.Maring, "Cult" in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, Paul
N. Meagher, OP, S.T.M. et all., ads. (Washington, D.C.: Corpus
Publications, 1979).
See also the bibliographies in Lands and Landa, Enroth, etc.
Completed June, 1986
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr.Charles V. Dorothy: A northwesterner by birth and education
(honors graduate of the University of Washington, 1955), Charles
now serves as Director of Biblical Research for the ACD (he did
until his death - Keith Hunt). His academic credentials extend
through a Ph.D. in Spanish Language and Literature (Mexico,
1963), a M.A. in Theology (concentration in Semitics; Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1977) to his present candidacy for the
Ph.D. in Religion (specialization: Old Testament and Dead Sea
Scrolls) at Claremont Graduate School (I do not know if he ever
completed this PhD. I presume he did as this article was written
in 1986 and he did not die until the late 1990s - Keith Hunt).
................
Keith Hunt and Dr.Dorothy
I told you at the end of part one that I spent the entire Feast
of Tabernacles at Harrisburg with Charles Dorothy, in the middle
1980s. He was not only a scholar of Hebrew and Greek, but a very
fine "Flamenco Guitar" player. I had my guitar with me and we
had a "concert talent night" - Charles played a "flamenco
number" and I played a "boogie-woogie" number. He said to me,
"Well Keith I cannot do that stuff you do on the guitar" and I
replied, "And Charles I can't do what you do on the guitar" - he
was a real fine gentleman in every way.
Charles Dorothy was hurt by and very badly treated by the
Worldwide Church of God in the last few years he was a teacher at
Ambassador College and one of their fine ministerial scholars.
When I knew him in the middle 1980s he was finding his way
mentally and emotionally through the garbage and corruptions that
had become so prevalent in the WCG by the middle 1980s. He did
find his way through it all, and went on to serve and help Ken
Westby's "Association of Christian Development" in many ways,
including proving to Ken and others that the Bible and History
show the "Festivals of the Lord" (Lev.23) were observed by the NT
Church of God, and should still be observed by the Church of God
today.
One question I was anxious to ask Charles at that Feast of
Tabernacles in Harrisburg, was this: "I remember Charles, the
article you wrote in the middle 1960s in the "Good News" magazine
(a magazine for members only in the WCG at that time) about those
groups of people you came across in South America, who were
observing the weekly 7th day Sabbath and also the Festivals of
Leviticus 23. I remember a lot of excitement about finding those
people, but then absolutely nothing after that article of yours
was ever written, nor was there any more talk about those people
from the ministers. All went completely silent. What happened?"
Charles looked at me and smiled, and replied, "Well Keith, I and
a few others were sent back to those people, to ask them if they
would recognize Herbert W. Armstrong as God's "THE apostle" of
the end times and become part of the Worldwide Church of God.
They looked at us and laughing said, 'And who on earth is Herbert
W. Armstrong?' And that was the end of the matter."
We now known that those people in South America were part of the
Seventh Day Adventist Church in the 1900s and then early in the
20th century an Adventist minister came to see that the Festivals
of Lev.23 should be observed. His articles on the matter were
published in the Adventist magazine. Most SDA churches around the
world, just did not take the studies seriously. But 4 or 5 SDA
churches in South America saw the truth of the matter and started
to observe the Feasts of the Lord. They then left the SDA
organization and became independent churches.
God has always worked His work all over the earth in various ways
with various people, when and how He decides. He has never been
limited (who can limit God, but some in their foolishness have so
tried, by their misguided and silly ideas, as the "we are the
only true church" teachings of cults and some sects) as to
teaching and proclaiming His word of truth - Keith Hunt (August
2004).
THE WOMEN'S WORK
| | WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES CAN WOMEN PERFORM IN THE CHURCH? ARE WOMEN
TO BE MINISTERS/ELDERS AND PREACHERS? CAN WOMEN BE ALLOWED TO
TEACH IN CHURCH? CAN WOMEN HAVE "SPIRITUAL GIFTS" AND IF THEY
CAN,ARE THEY ALLOWED TO USE THEM IN CHURCH SERVICES? ARE WOMEN TO
EXERCISE PERSONAL EVANGELISM? WILL LADIES BE LOWER OR HIGHER THAN
MEN IN POSITIONS OF REWARD IN THE KINGDOM? THESE QUESTIONS CAN
ONLY BE ANSWERED BY A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES AND BY
LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLES GIVEN IN GOD'S WORD. THE TRUTH MAY
SURPRISE MANY.
SALVATION - EQUAL FOR BOTH SEXES!
Let it be said at the onset, as far as salvation is concerned
there is no difference between Greek, Jew, Black, White - men or
women. There is ONE Lord for all. Men and women must be saved
exactly the same way. ALL have sinned - ALL need redemption
- ALL need Christ's blood to justify and His life in us (through
the Holy Spirit) to save us.
Both men and women are called the sons of God. Both will be
glorified, made immortal and inherit all things. Women are to
pray, study, fast and grow in grace and knowledge as MUCH as men
are to do these things. Both will be rewarded according to
their works. If a woman has been faithful in what God has given
her to do, she will be rewarded accordingly. God is no respecter
of persons. Both men and women will be rewarded according to what
they have done with what they were given. All scripture
asserts the truth of that mentioned above.
But God did make men and women for different roles in life and
the church, in some respects and in some functions. Let's find
out what God wants WOMEN to do in the church.
TO TEACH GOOD THINGS
One of the greatest blessings a woman can give to the church is
to be the kind of feminine woman God intended all women to be.
Read I Pet. 3:1-6; I Tim. 2:9-15; Eph. 5: 1-24; 1 Cor. 11:3. Man
was created to need the help of a woman. He is not all
encompassing - woman was made to be a serving, inspiring, helpful
companion to man (Gen. 2:18, 21-25). She was not only to be the
bearer of all children but it was through a woman that Christ was
born - the savior of MAN as well as WOMAN (Matt. 1:18-25; Lk.
1: 26-3 5 ; I Tim. 2: 15, see these passages in the Amplified
Bible).
She is not only to be an example of Godly character and
femininity but also to teach it to others. Paul writing to Titus
told him to, "teach the older women to be quiet and
respectful in everything they do. They must not go around
speaking evil of others and must not be heavy drinkers, but they
should be TEACHERS OF GOODNESS. These OLDER WOMEN MUST TRAIN THE
YOUNGER women to live quietly, to love their husbands and their
children, and to be sensible and clean-minded, spending their
time in their own homes, being kind and obedient to their
husbands, so that the Christian faith can't be spoken against by
those who know them" ( Titus 2:3-6 Living Bible).
SERVICE AND GOOD WORKS
During Christ's ministry there were evidently certain women who
were "rendering Him services" (Matt. 27:55 Modern Language Bible)
in one way or another. Christ did not only have His immediate
twelve disciples but others also who followed Him (Matt. 10:1-5;
Lk.10:1-2). With all those men following him, there would be
ample work for the service of women to repair clothes, to cook
meals, wash clothes, and all the other 101 things that
women are so good at doing for men.
In Acts 9:36 we read about a woman of God called Dorcas who was
known for "good works and acts of charity" (RSV).
Acts 16:13-16 tells us about Lydia and how she was converted,
baptized and was hostess to Paul and others for a short time.
She no doubt not only gave them a place to sleep but food and
drink and other acts of service and kindness.
Timothy and other ministers at one time were in the need of women
to help them as they preached the gospel. Paul wrote and told
Timothy that, "A widow who wants to become one of the special
church workers should be at least sixty years old, well thought
of by everyone because of the good she has done. Has she brought
up her children well? Has she been kind to strangers as well as
to other Christians? Has she helped those who are sick and hurt?
Is she always ready to show kindness?" (I Tim.5:9-10 Living
Bible). The women chosen for this special group probably did the
same kind of service that the women who followed Christ during
His earthly ministry did.
WOMEN - "SPIRITUAL" ELDERS?
Was Paul speaking about "spiritual elders" in I Tim. 5:1-2? Was
he instructing Timothy how to deal with women who were church
pastors or overseers? The Modern Language Bible renders these
verses: "Do not rebuke an older man but plead with him as a
father, and younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and
the younger women as sisters with absolute purity." Paul was
speaking of AGE - not ministerial office or function.
Just before the day of Pentecost Christ's disciples were together
with the women in the upper room. "These all continued with one
accord in prayer and supplication"(Acts 1:13,14). But there is
NOTHING in these verses to prove or disprove what the women
did or said - if indeed they did or said anything.
Some say I Cor. 11:1-6 is talking about church services and both
men and women praying and preaching - one wearing a hat (women)
and the other (men) not.
First, the "covering" Paul is speaking about is not hats but hair
(v.14-16) - women are to have long hair, while men have short
hair in relation to each other. Second, the words "church
service" or "synagogue" or "meetings" can not be found in this
passage, nor the words "when you come together." Praying or
foretelling future events or speaking forth the word of God (as
the Greek word can mean) can be done any time or any place. Paul
is NOT here talking about church services.
WOMEN AS MESSENGERS?
Certainly, it is possible for God to send an angel to a woman
with a message to the church about some future event, or
something He wants His ministers to do. But NEVER WILL such a
dream, revelation be contrary to God's inspired word as given in
the Bible (Isa 8:20). If it is, then we can know it is not from
God - but Satan. For Satan can also appear as an angel of light
(2 Cor. 11:13-15).
Christ appeared to the two Marys shortly after his resurrection
and He gave them a message to His ministers to be, the men were
to go into Galilee there Jesus would meet them (Matt. 28:5-9).
This amounted to a prophecy - the two Marys were at this time as
prophetesses. God has used women as prophets - to foretell future
happenings (Ex.15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22;
Neh. 6:14; Isa.8:3).
The only example in the entire Bible of a prophetess doing any
what we call "preaching" is that of Deborah in Judges 4. The
Israelites had left off obeying God - obviously, there
was no man around God could use until Gideon was old enough
(Judges 6:11-16) to do God's work. So God used a woman under this
ONCE in many years situation. If the circumstances are such God
can raise up the stones to do His work if He chose. God only used
Deborah for a short time to lead and teach the Israelites - ONLY
UNTIL a man came along to assume leadership. This is not "putting
down" women. It is just looking at what God has said and how He
has decided to do things.
Let us be willing to be honest. Nowhere in the Bible do we have
ANY prophetess becoming a priest, apostle, church minister or
overseer or elder.
Nowhere in the Bible can we find a prophetess preaching or
teaching from the Temple or Church meetings. Never to date has
God once used a prophetess to write ANY book of the Bible. No
other so-called "inspired" books by women or men have been handed
down to us except those in the Bible. Prophetesses were/are used
by God, but to date God has never used a prophetess to WRITE
"inspired books," so any church CLAIMING it has a prophetess as
its founder or has "inspired books" written by a claimed
prophetess does so without one word of scriptural background
authority.
Prophetesses were used as MESSENGERS to the church. They were
used VERBALLY by God.
NEW TESTAMENT PROPHETESSES !
There are only TWO passages in the New Testament where the word
"prophetess" is used. The first is in Luke 2:36-37. Anna, a
prophetess, served God in the temple with prayers and fastings.
It does not say she PREACHED or was a TEACHER in the temple.
She did on one special occasion talk to others about Jesus
(v-38). This was on the day that Joseph and Mary had brought
Jesus to the temple to dedicate and buy Him back (redeem) - as
was required by the law(Ex. 13:2,13,15; Lev.12) - and being
blessed by Simeon(v.34). It was certainly fitting that Anna,
".......began thanking God and telling everyone in Jerusalem who
had been awaiting the coming of the saviour that the Messiah
had finally arrived"(verse 38, Living Bible). Notice, she only
told those who were also looking for the arrival of the Messiah -
she did not "preach" or "teach" in any official way.
All women can talk of Jesus to all who look for salvation, on ANY
day of the week. They can talk of Christ before church and after
church. There is nothing in this example to prove that women
should be MINISTERS, ELDERS, PASTOR/TEACHERS in church.
The only other place in the New Testament where the word
"prophetess" is used is in Rev. 2:20 - where God tells the church
of Thyatira, "I have a few things against thee, because you
sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a
prophetess, to TEACH and to seduce My servants to commit
fornication." God goes on to say He will cast her and the ones
following her into tribulation if they do not repent(v.32). Not
a good commentary at all. God said the CHURCH of Thyatira was
PERMITTING this woman Jezebel to teach and lead people astray.
TO TEACH OR NOT TO TEACH?
After being willing to look at all the verses in the Bible
pertaining to women, woman, wife, prophetess, we come to TWO
plain passages on the question of women as preachers,
ministers or church teachers. These two passages of scripture
are I Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim.2:11-12.
Paul says in I Cor. 14:34, "Let your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Now, is
Paul saying that a woman cannot say "hello" to anyone? Is she
not permitted to have a conversation with anyone while she is in
church?
Is she not to speak if someone talks to her? Hardly. This was
not the problem at Corinth.
Paul was answering the question about women being teachers,
elders, ministers over men in and during church services, as well
as a woman who had a "spiritual gift" - when or when not to use
it.
I Tim. 2:12 says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach." Is Paul
saying that a woman cannot teach her children, cannot teach in a
secular school, college or at the YWCA? No!
This verse must be put with the passage in I Cor. 14:34. Then
the truth is clear.
Paul is talking about the DUTY of a women during church meetings,
when they "came together."
Notice the whole context of 1 Corinthians 14. It was when
outsiders may attend and hear and see what was being done. When
Paul was writing to Timothy it was to inform him:
"....how you should behave yourself in the house of God..." (1
Tim.3:15).
The Living Bible renders 1 Tim. 2:12 as, "I never let a woman
teach men or lord it over them. Let them be silent in your church
meetings......." 1 Cor.14:34 is translated as, ".......women
should be silent during the church meetings. They are not to take
part in the discussion, for they are subordinate to men as the
scriptures also declare."
Some would have us believe that Paul is only talking to Jewish
churches about a Jewish custom. This can hardly be the case, when
the church at Corinth was predominantly GENTILE, and Paul uses
the plural - "churches" - not just one church, but all the
churches of God. Paul was desirous that all the churches be run
"decently and in order" (verse 4O). "For God is not the author of
confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"
(v.33).
The letters to Timothy are known as "pastoral letters" by the
Bible Commentaries. They contain instruction to the pastors on
church administration - how things should be run in the churches
at large. Paul's instruction was inspired of God, and is
applicable as much today as in Paul's lifetime.
MATTHEW HENRY'S BIBLE COMMENTARY says this on I Cor. 14:34-35.
Quote:
Here the apostle.......
Enjoins silence on their women in PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES, and to
such a degree that THEY MUST NOT ASK QUESTIONS for their own
information in the church, but ASK THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME.
They are to LEARN IN SILENCE with all subjection; but, says
the apostle, I SUFFER THEM NOT TO TEACH (I Tim.2:11,12).
They are not permitted to speak (v.34) in the church,
neither in praying nor PROPHESYING. The connection seems
PLAINLY to INCLUDE THE LAST - in the limited sense in which
it is taken in this chapter; that is,for preaching or
interpreting scripture by inspiration. And indeed, for a
woman to PROPHESY, in this sense, were to teach, does not so
well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has
in that respect a superiority over them, which is not
allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be
allowed to teach in a congregation.........uttering HYMNS
inspired were not teaching. There were women who had
spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church.
Why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly
exercised? They were not ordinarily to teach, not so much
as to DEBATE AND ASK QUESTIONS IN THE CHURCH, but learn in
silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ASK THEIR OWN
HUSBANDS AT HOME. Note - as it is the woman's duty to learn
in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his
superiority, by being able to instruct her. If it be
her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and
duty to endeavour at least to be able to answer her
inquiries. If it be a shame for her to speak in the
church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to
be silent when he should speak, not being able to give an
answer when she asks him at home.
We have here the reason of this injunction. It is God's law
and commandment that they should be under obedience (v.34);
they are placed in subordination to the man; and it is a
shame for them to do anything that looks like an affectation
of changing ranks (which speaking in public seemed to
imply).......as would public teaching much more: so that the
apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the
church, in the assembly. Note - our spirit and conduct
should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God
has made, we should observe.
The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep
station, and be content with it. For this reason they must
be silent in the church, not set up for teachers; for this
is setting up for superiority over the man.......
End of quote.
We may also note here the spiritual gifts of TONGUES,
INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES, PROPHECY, REVELATION - all of which
may be given to women as well as men. Paul in 1 Cor.12 verse
1,7,11, makes it plain that these gifts are to ALL as the
Spirit distributes. But such gifts are not to be exercised by the
women DURING the church meetings or assemblies. Any woman who
would claim she is compelled to use such gifts, Paul would
answer, THE SPIRITS OF THE PROPHETS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS
(v.32). God does not give a gift to His child which
cannot be controlled by His child and controlled as to when it
may be used.
The other question not raised here is: if women are to learn in
silence in church and ask questions to their husbands at home -
what about the WIDOWS and UNMARRIED WOMEN who have no husband to
ask? Paul's instruction on keeping silent in church meetings is
to ALL women - married, widows, single. The woman who has no
physical husband certainly does have a SPIRITUAL husband - the
elder/s of the church. They are the ones to whom these women
should direct their questions on Biblical understanding.
MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTS on 1 TIM. 2:11-15 are also very
pertinent:
Quote:
Women must LEARN - learn the principles of their religion,
learn CHRIST, learn the scriptures; they must not think that
their sex excuses them from that learning which is necessary
for salvation.
Women must be silent and submissive, and subject, and NOT
USURP AUTHORITY. The reason given is, because ADAM was FIRST
FORMED, then EVE - out of him - to denote her subordination
to him, to be a HELP, MEET for him. And as she was last in
the creation, which is the one reason for her subjection, so
she was first in the transgression; and that is another
reason. Adam was not deceived (that is - not first).
The serpent did not immediately set upon him but the woman
was first in the transgression; (2 Cor.11:3), and it was
part of the sentence - THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND,
AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE. (Gen. 3:16).
Let me say here that this verse of Gen.3:16 is not understood by
very many, including Matthew Henry. It really has nothing to do
with men and women in "church services." The full explanation of
this verse must be given in a separate study article. It is not
the intent of this study to cover Genesis 3:16 (Keith Hunt).
Continuing with Matthew Henry:
But it is a word of comfort (v.15) that they who continue in
sobriety shall be SAVED IN CHILDBEARING,or WITH
childbearing. The Messiah, who was born of a woman, should
break the serpent's head (Gen. 3:15) - or - the sentence
which women are under for sin shall be no bar to their
acceptance with Christ, IF they CONTINUE in faith, and
charity, and holiness, with sobriety.
Here we observe According to St. Paul, women must be
learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the
church; for teaching is an office of authority; whereas she
must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in
silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women
may and ought to teach their children at home the principles
of God's teaching. Timothy from a child had known the holy
scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and
grandmother? (2 Tim. 3:15).
Aquilla and his WIFE PRISCILLA expounded unto Apollas the
way of God more perfectly; but then they did it PRIVATELY,
for THEY TOOK HIM UNTO THEM (Acts l8:26).
Here are two very good reasons given for man's authority
over the woman, and her subjection to the man (v.13,14).
Adam was FIRST formed, then EVE; she was created for the
man, and not the man for the woman (I Cor. 11:9).
Then she was deceived, and brought man into the
transgression.......
End of quote from Henry.
In Romans 16:3 we see that PRISCILLA was a HELPER in Christ. A
woman can and should be a worker for the gospel WITHIN the bounds
God has decreed. As we can see from Acts 18:26, a WOMAN can on a
personal basis be an instrument for the spread of the Gospel and
teaching of God's word as much as any man.
The teaching of God on the ROLE that women are to take in the
Church may not be popular with the "WOMAN'S LIBERATION" movement,
but it is the truth of God and God is LOVE and WISDOM. He knows
what is best for us and why in this life we were created MALE and
FEMALE. God is the DESIGNER and LAWGIVER - when we are willing to
obey His laws governing every facet of our lives, then we shall
have happiness, peace and joy.
God has given us instruction on how the family relationship -
husband, wife, children - should be run (Eph. 5:21-33; I
Cor.11:3; Col. 3:18-21 ). He has revealed to us the roles each is
to fulfil in the family structure, and He has revealed the role
that women are to take in the function of the church.
Let us willingly obey, so Christ may present the church to
Himself "a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish"
(Eph.5:27).
POSTSCRIPT
Since the writing of this article I have read and studied the
comments of 1 Corinthians 14 by ALBERT BARNES in his commentary
called "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament."
His comments on this whole chapter art very good indeed, and it
is worthwhile for the reader to take the time to read those
comments. It is possible your public library will have
the one volume New Testament commentary by Barnes.
Here I will only give his comments on verses 34,35.
ALBERT BARNES One Vol. Commentary on the New Testament, page 782.
Quote:
Let your women keep silent etc. This rule is positive,
explicit, and universal.
There is no ambiguity in the expressions; and there can be
no difference of opinion, one would suppose, in regard to
their meaning. The sense evidently is, THAT IN ALL THOSE
THINGS WHICH HE HAD SPECIFIED, the women were to keep
silence; they were not to take part. He had discoursed
of speaking foreign languages, and of prophecy, and the
evident sense is, that in regard to all these they were to
keep silence, or were not to engage in them.
These pertained solely to the MALE PORTION of the
congregation. These thing, constituted the business
of the PUBLIC TEACHING; and in this the female part of the
congregation were to be silent. "They were not to teach the
people, nor were they to interrupt those who were speaking"
Rosenmuller. It is probable that on pretence of being
inspired, the women had assumed the office of public
teachers.......He here argues the practice ON EVERY GROUND;
forbids it altogether; and shows that on every
consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them
even so much as TO ASK A QUESTION in time of public
service.......the force of the whole is, that ON
EVERY CONSIDERATION it was improper, and to be expressly
prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the
church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to be
inspired, but to all; it does not refer merely to acts of
public preaching, but to ALL ACTS OF SPEAKING, OR EVEN
ASKING QUESTIONS, when the church is assembled for public
worship. No rule in the New Testament is more positive than
this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may
be argued for disregarding it, and for suffering women to
take part in conducting public worship, yet the AUTHORITY of
the apostle Paul is POSITIVE. and his MEANING cannot he
MISTAKEN. Compare 1 Tim.2:11,12.....
To be under obedience. To be subject to their husbands; to
acknowledge the superior authority of the man. Note, chapter
11:3......
And if they shall learn anything. If anything has been
spoken which they do not understand; or if on any particular
subject they desire more full information, let them inquire
of their husbands in their own dwelling. They may there
converse freely; and their inquiries will not be attended
with the irregularity and disorder which would occur should
they interrupt the order and solemnity of public worship....
For it is a shame. It is disreputable and shameful; it is a
breach of propriety. Their station in life demands modesty,
humility, ant they should be free from the ostentation of
appearing so much it public as to take part in the public
services of TEACHING and PRAYING.....
It does not become their rank in life; it is not fulfilling
the object which God evidently intended them to fill. He
has appointed men to rule; to hold offices; to instruct and
govern the church; and it is improper that women should
assume that office upon themselves. This evidently and
OBVIOUSLY refers to the church assembled for PUBLIC WORSHIP,
in the ordinary and regular acts of devotion.
There the assembly is made up of males and females, of old
and young, and there it is improper for them to take part in
conducting the exercises. BUT THIS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS
MEANING that it is improper for females to speak or to pray
in meetings of their own sex, assembled for prayer or for
benevolence; nor that it is improper for a female to speak
or to pray in a Sabbath-school. Neither of these come under
the apostle's idea of a church. And
in such meetings, no rule of propriety or of the Scriptures
is violated in their speaking for the edification of each
other, or in leading in social prayer.......
End of quote, emphasis his and mine.
After all that has been said, some may still want to argue that
women with spiritual gifts are excluded from those women who are
to keep silent in the church during public divine services. My
answer and my question to such arguments is: If women are allowed
in divine public services, to use the gift of revelation,
prophecy(inspired oracles of God), tongues, interpretation of
tongues, then WHO ARE THEY THAT ARE TO KEEP SILENT?
Are they those who would want to talk about their new house
decorating plans, or aunt Sue's visit, or what happened at the
mid-week garage sale? Most know that such "chit-chat" is not for
the Sabbath hours, let alone for divine public services.
The structure and flow of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians
in this chapter fourteen, can give no credence to the notion that
women with spiritual gifts can speak while women without such
gifts are to be silent. If you have none of the spiritual gifts
of the Spirit why would you want to speak to the church during
public devotional services, what purpose would your speaking be
for, what edification for the church would it bring?
Paul is plainly emphasizing two points in this whole chapter.
1).
Everything said must be for building up, edifying and instructing
all that are present.
2).
Everything is to be done decently and in order, no confusion is
to prevail. The only speaking with whichever gifts of the Spirit
are used, is to be for EDIFICATION. Paul has already stressed
that point, so it would be redundant for him to be in verses
34,35 expressing his view that women with only "chit-chat" talk
were to keep silent. And if that was what he wanted to say, he
could have easily used language that spelled it out clearly -
words such as: "Those women without spiritual gifts are to keep
silent, they must not even ask questions but should ask
their husbands at home."
No such words are used by Paul for the simple reason that he was
not trying to convey such a teaching as women with only
unedifying, no purpose, "six days of the week" talk were to
remain silent. The truth of the matter is what Albert
Barnes and others could see from the whole context of this
chapter, from the way Paul had systematically talked about
the use of certain spiritual gifts in public services without any
mention of male or female, then knowing that his readers would
naturally, after hearing his rules, ask about where the women
with such gifts would fit into the conducting of public
divine services, he gives his answer to that question in verses
34 and 35.
He anticipated that question (where do women with spiritual gifts
fit into conducting public
services?). He led up to his answer in verses 32 and 33 showing
that anyone with a gift of the Spirit is NOT A ROBOT, controlled
by the Spirit to the point where one says, "I could not help
myself, the Spirit made me do it, the Spirit made me speak."
On the contrary said Paul, the person with a Spiritual gift is in
COMPLETE CONTROL of that gift. Someone with the natural gift of
singing can control that gift, can sing or not sing as they
determine. I have the natural gift of being able to
YODEL. I can determine at any time and in any situation, in any
public meeting, to either stand(or sit) and yodel or not yodel.
The ability to yodel does not control me, I control it! So it was
in Paul's mind with any of the gifts of the Spirit - the person
having them was also able to control them, the gift did not
control the person, but the person controlled the gift.
Paul went on to show that any UN-controlled use of these
gifts(and many using them at the same time, as he had previously
mentioned) was CONFUSION, and such confusion was NOT FROM GOD -
the Lord was the author of order and peace, not confusion.
Order and peace was the hallmark of ALL the churches of the
saints. It should be clear from this that the church at Corinth
was ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION TO ALL THE OTHER CHURCHES OF GOD. They
were the "black sheep of the family" the "odd one out", the
"exception to the norm," and needed to be instructed and
corrected in the way of the Lord more fully on the matter of how
and when spiritual gifts were to be used in the public worship
hour.
After laying down all the instructions, guide lines, and rules of
using spiritual gifts in public worship, Paul then answers the
obvious question about women with such gifts. They controlled the
gift, the gifts did not control them, and as these gifts were to
be used for TEACHING, for EDIFYING all present(male, female,
young and old), THIS WAS THE MAN'S WORK IN PUBLIC DIVINE
SERVICES, and women PERIOD, SHOULD
KEEP SILENT! EVEN TO THE POINT THAT IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS ON
THE THINGS BEING TAUGHT, THEY SHOULD HOLD THEIR PEACE AND ASK
THEIR HUSBANDS AT HOME, NOT THE MINISTER/S AFTER SERVICES, BUT
THEIR HUSBANDS!
THE WHOLE SPIRITUAL STRUCTURE OF GOD IS BEING TAUGHT HERE - IN
THE CHURCH AND OUT OF THE CHURCH! PLEASE NOTE THIS WELL. IT IS
NOT BEING TAUGHT IN THE CHURCHES OF GOD AS IT SHOULD BE.
The minister is not to be the answering machine for all the women
at all times. This is a lesson, this is instruction, this is
correction if you will, to ministers also.
They need to realize God wants all family men to be spiritual
head of their wives and children. Their wives and their children
need to look to them for the answers to their spiritual
questions. If they cannot answer then they need to ask the
minister/s, then instruct their wives and children.
We need to deeply LEARN that God is the God of LAW, He is the God
of ORDER, He is the God of PEACE. God the Father is Spiritual
HEAD of everyone. He is the head of Christ. Jesus said He came
not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. He
said the words that He spoke were not His own but were the words
of Him that sent Him - the Father's words. Jesus is spiritual
HEAD of every man (including all ministers). The man is spiritual
HEAD of the wife. That is what 1 Corinthians 11 and verse 3 is
all about!
By the same token we can say that the woman is spiritual HEAD of
her children (they are usually the ones that spend more time
teaching and training the children). God has set law and order
and peace within the church in the same way He has set law and
order and peace within the home. Under certain situations within
those two very important God ordained structures, there are forms
and principles and rules to follow, laid down by the Lord for the
end result of producing PEACE and not confusion.
Sometimes carnal human nature does not like the way God wants
things done, or the laws He implements, sometimes our nature
thinks they are "strange" or "unfair" or even "sexist." What we
have to believe and practice is that we do not walk by sight in
this Christian life, but by FAITH! We look through a glass darkly
now as Paul said. One day we shall see face to face - we shall
see clearly that the ways of the Lord are right and just and
good.
We must, if we are to be the children of God, and brothers and
sisters to Christ Jesus, develop and cultivate within us the VERY
MIND of Christ (Phil.2:5). And His mind always said: "Not my will
be done but your(the Father's) will be done."
FOR THOSE WHO MAY DESIRE TO STUDY THIS SUBJECT IN FULL DEPTH I
RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING TWO BOOKS:
1. MAN AND WOMAN IN BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE by James B. Hurley,
Published by Zondervan Publishing House.
2. WOMEN IN THE CHURCH by Samuele Bacchiocchi.
I do not agree with ever sentence in the above books, but their
overall teaching is I believe the truth of the matter. They are
two very scholastic works on the subject at hand.
SECOND POSTSCRIPT
If some still do not understand the specifics of 1 Cor.14:34,35
in connection with questions like: "Are women permitted to sing a
song, or read a selected portion of scripture, during public
divine services?" Then let me answer that question and also the
question about women praying during the public service.
Paul in this chapter is talking about people in the church using
their tongue to TEACH, to INSTRUCT, to EDIFY through instructions
THE WORD, the MESSAGES of the Lord.
To his mind this teaching could come through various uses of
spiritual gifts, but it was still TEACHINGS FROM God.
You may be given a REVELATION from the Lord, but it was still
teaching to edify and instruct. You may have a DOCTRINE to
expound, but it was still a teaching. You may have a PROPHECY to
elucidate on, but it was still a teaching. You may have a
PSALM(the psalms of the Bible were originally a teaching of
various truths spoken), but it was still a teaching. You may have
a TONGUE, or an INTERPRETATION, but it was still a teaching from
God.
The context in all this is TEACHING, and on that issue of
teaching the women were to remain silent in public services.
But for a woman to SING a song or to READ a selected portion of
scripture and sit down without any common or amplified
expounding, can not properly be classified as "teaching"
in the context that Paul was using to the Corinthians.
Nearly all commentators on this topic find no contradiction of
these verses in letting women sing or read scripture, in public
divine worship services.
Neither do I.
Now concerning PRAYER in divine services. Some could argue the
word prayer is not used in 1 Cor.14 and that it should not be
classified as "teaching." The last idea could be debated strongly
by both sides of the issue. I will not enter that debate because
there is a very specific verse of instruction from Paul on this
topic.
Most will not see it as a specific when reading the English
translations of the New Testament because it is hidden in the
understanding of the Greek, which was not conveyed over
into the English translations. The verse of scripture I refer to
is found in 1 Timothy 2:8.
Many of the things Paul wrote to Timothy were for the purpose
that he should know "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the
house of God, which is the church of the living God...."(chapter
3:15, first letter). Notice the first 8 verses of chapter two.
The Greek for "I will therefore" is better rendered "It is my
direction." This was a direction of Paul inspired by the Holy
Spirit. It was not a suggestion, or a wish, or a "do if you like
to" but a DIRECTION from Paul. His direction was that MEN pray
everywhere, not just in a certain local church only. The word
"men" some would immediately say is GENERIC for "mankind." But is
that so? No it is not when you study the Greek.
Let me give you what W.E.VINE had in part, to say about this
word:
"ANER....is never used of the female sex; it stands (a) in
distinction from a woman... " (Vine's Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words, page 706).
Paul is being VERY specific in this verse. He does not spell it
all out for us. He does not tell us here WHEN, at what times,
only the men are to pray, but there obviously WAS A TIME IN HIS
MIND THAT ONLY MEN SHOULD PRAY!
We are left to try to understand from his other writings and
teachings WHEN this time of only men praying was to be.
With what he wrote about women keeping silent in public worship
services (part study of this paper), I believe the only time then
that MEN only should do the praying must be during the service
when women are not to teach but to remain silent. I see no other
possible time for this direction to be employed other than during
the public divine service of the Sabbath days.
..................
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published,
e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit. Mr.Hunt trusts
nothing will be changed without his consent.
Written in 1981
revised and expanded in 1997
by
Keith Hunt
FOR WOMEN ONLY
| | Among all the talk about this "silent women" issue, I would
like to address just the ladies and try to put this topic in
proper perspective. What, when it comes down to the bottom line
is the TIME length of the issue, as found in the discussion
concerning 1 Cor.14:34 and 1 Tim.2:11,12?
Paul wrote the letters to Timothy mainly, "that you may know
how you aught to behave yourself in the house of God, which is
the CHURCH OF GOD...."(1 Tim.3:15).
Much instruction on how he should teach, direct and guide in his
ministry within the context of the church. 1 Cor.14 is even more
specific within its context of the church.
Note verses 4,5,15-17,19. Note carefully verse 23-25. See verse
26,28. What could be clearer? Surely a young child can see it.
The CONTEXT is "the whole church come together into one
place.....and there come in one that believes not....when you
come together....if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent
in the church...." The context is an official PUBLIC CHURCH
SERVICE!
Now ask yourselves: How many HOURS A WEEK is that taking up?
Maybe ONE, maybe TWO, maybe a little more if there are two
Sabbath days in the week(one an annual Sabbath). But on the
AVERAGE, round figures we shall say TWO HOURS. How many hours are
there in the week? Simple arithmetic - 24 x 7 = 168. Two hours
from 168 = 166. Two hours is just about NOTHING when compared to
166 hours.
I want you to FORGET about the two hours. I'm not entering
that realm and debate. I want you to FOCUS on the 166 hours.
Let's put things in true perspective ladies.
Are you women just as much a child of God as I am? Answer as
clear as the sun in a cloudless day, Gal.3:26-29; 2 Cor.6:17,18;
Rom.8:14,16,17. All are to live by every word of God. All will
stand before the judgment seat of Christ. God says He is no
respecter of persons. All will be rewarded according to our
works. When it comes to SALVATION and REWARDS both men and women
stand on EQUAL ground.
Are the gifts of the Spirit ONLY for MEN? Oh, not at all!!
Look at 1 Cor.12. Verse one Paul was writing to the BRETHREN, not
just the males. Verse seven from the Greek reads: "But to EACH is
given the manifestation of the Spirit for PROFIT." And verse
11,"But all these things operates the one and the same Spirit,
dividing separately to EACH according as he wills" (from the
Greek by Berry's Interlinear).
So putting aside a small little average of two hours a
week(just forget about the debate on that small crumb of time and
focus on the BIG picture), there are 166 HOURS for you to BE USED
BY THE LORD WITH THE GIFTS HE GIVES YOU! Wow!, I call
that IMPORTANT! I call that BIG TIME USE for the Lord and His
work.
JERUSALEM EXAMPLE
Turn to Acts chapter 8. A persecution arose against the
"church" at Jerusalem, not the men, but the church. All were
scattered abroad except the apostles. All means all, not just the
men, but ALL! Now notice verse FOUR. "Therefore they that were
scattered abroad went every where PREACHING THE WORD."
There it is, read it again. Simple to understand. Men(single
and married), Women(single and married), Widowers and Widows,
male and female teens. They were all scattered and they all went
out teaching and preaching the word to others where they went.
This was NOT the context of a 1 Cor.14. This was PERSONAL
evangelism! And how may it have been done? Perhaps some ladies
stopped to talk about Jesus to the merchants along the roads.
Perhaps some ladies talked about the Kingdom to Inn keepers and
their families. Maybe they went to the markets and spread the
word of Christ there to all who would listen. Then they may have
talked about the Lord after the Synagogue services to those
attending. They may have spread the word through the local PTA
club(if they had any back then). Maybe they stood on the street
corners and asked people if they wanted to hear some "really good
news, the best you've ever heard."
Well you let your imagination run wild for a moment as to how
they ALL spread the word.
NOW FOR TODAY
At least on the average, 166 HOURS (well I know you have to
sleep, if you are like us men, but you get the point) to be used
by the Lord to do His work with the abilities and gifts He has
given you. And for some of you who do not have to work OUTSIDE
the home, that can be quite a bit more than a lot of men are
given or have at their disposal.
Maybe you may want to stand on the corner with literature to hand
out and talk to people about the faith, who may stop(men, women,
teens etc.). Maybe you want to start a neighbourhood Bible
study(with men and women attending) where YOU are the leader
and chair person. Perhaps you prefer to write articles for the
religious page of your local newspaper on Biblical topics. Then
there maybe a religious magazine you may want to write articles
for to teach others the way of the Lord. Perhaps there is some
MAN that could be used mightily of Lord but he needs a little
more instructions in "the way of the God more perfectly"(see Acts
18:24-26), and you can help him find that more perfect way.
Getting the picture? I think so! None of the above are in
a 1 Cor.14 context.
Let's suppose you are teaching a class of men and women in a
community college during the evening hours. It does not matter
what the class is, but many are of a spiritual minded attitude.
They know a little about your "different" religion. One evening
for whatever the reason a conversation comes up about religion.
Most want you to tell them about your faith, the others are
willing also to let you speak. Would you? Oh, I HOPE SO! This is
not a 1 Cor.14 context, no need to hold back! Go for it, ask God
to INSPIRE you, preach forth the oracles of God loud and clear.
Maybe someone will say, "Almost you persuade me to be a
Christian." Perhaps with some personal Bible studies they
will(either men or women).
Say I am invited to conduct lectures at a Bible college on
"The laws of the first five books." I have done it many times
and my wife has been through it all again and again.
She has good notes, knows the course as well as I do. Likes to
attend just to meet others who want to talk about the Bible. One
day she is there with everyone else and I am still to arrive. But
I have a flat tire. I call to tell her I will be late. Now she
knows the course as well as I do. The class must keep on
schedule. There are men and women in the class. I would NOT
hesitate to ask her to take my place and start the class until I
arrive. No hesitation at all! This is NOT a 1 Cor. 14 context.
Writing articles for a religious magazine is personal
evangelism, not a 1 Cor. 14 context. Arranging a neighbourhood
Bible study(with men and women) is NOT a 1 Cor.14 context.
Teaching and instructing over the Internet and through E-mail
clubs is NOT a 1 Cor.14 context. Teaching a religious class in
some college to men as well as women is NOT a 1 Cor.14 context.
Whatever the truth of the matter is concerning 1 Cor.14 and 1
Tim 2 under debate, the above are NOT the context Paul was in.
Let's get things in true perspective, a few little, petite,
itsy-bitsy hours in the week, is like NOTHING to the rest of the
week in which you can be used in so many ways to do the work of
the Lord.
Paul deeply appreciated the ladies that did so much in the
work of the Lord, even calling Priscilla "my helper"(Greek means,
fellow-worker or co-worker), Rom.16:3. Then look at wonderful
Phebe(name means, pure or radiant as the moon), she was a servant
of the church at Cenchrea. Exactly the service she rendered is
not given in detail. But her work was so highly thought of by
Paul that he stated to the Christians at Rome, "That you receive
her in the Lord, as becomes saints, AND that you ASSIST HER in
WHATSOEVER BUSINESS she has NEED OF YOU....."(Rom.16:1-2).
We also need to get the true perspective about Paul and
women. It was the SAME perspective as that which the Lord Himself
had when walking this earth. A perspective of TRUTH, and
COMPASSION, KINDNESS, THANKFULNESS, and LOVE.
Now, why worry or fret(I sure hope you do not) over a few
hours WHEN YOU HAVE AT LEAST ALL THE REST TO WORK THE WORK OF
GOD.
Go to it ladies, the world is just waiting for you to turn
it upside down and right way up. Thank you for your help,
teaching, inspiration and patience towards us men.
Your brother in Christ,
Keith Hunt
Written in Oct. 1996
Head-coverings - 1 Cor.11 ? What is Paul teaching here? by James Hurley This has to be one of the number of passages in the writings of
Paul, that Peter said were "hard to understand." Paul was a every
scholastical fellow in the Word of God, very educated we might
say, and then again he was taught directly by Christ for two or
three years as he tells us in the book of Galatians.
I do believe that Dr. James B. Hurley has come as close to the
truth of the matter on this section of Paul, as anyone I have
ever read. So it is with pleasure I reproduce his writing on this
passage of Scripture from his book "Man and Woman in Biblical
Perspective" a book I highly recommend for all Christians to
read. It is an old book (1981) but your Public Library will
possibly have it or can get it for you via their inter-library
loans department. I will give you all of what he has written but
only on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
WOMAN AND MEN IN WORSHIP
We have seen the minimal role of women in the worship of Judaism
and the greatly enlarged role of women in Christian worship. In
this chapter we must ask further questions about the enlarged
role of Christian women. In the last, chapter we considered
distinctions between husband and wife in the marriage relation.
Does that distinction carry over to the public worship? If so, to
what degree? This problem confronted Pauline churches on a number
of occasions as they tried to work out the meaning of their faith
for conduct during worship. We shall consider two primary texts
in this chapter: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:33-36. The first of
these might have been considered in the previous chapter on
marital relationships but is better included here as it
specifically reflects upon the implications of the marital
relation for worship. First Timothy 2:13 might also be discussed
under the present heading, but will be deferred until our
discussion of church office.
A. HEAD COVERINGS AND AUTHORITY: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16
We have already discussed the various factions which grew up at
Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul addresses a question about
hair and hair coverings raised in a communication from the
Corinthians. We do not have the letter from the Corinthians, but
we are able to discern much of its content from Paul's response.
As we study the passage we shall build up a picture of the
Corinthian question. Paul wrote, "I praise you for remembering me
in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed
them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every
man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head
of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with a
covering [of long hair] dishonours his head. And every woman who
prays or prophesies with no covering [of hair] on her head,
dishonours her head - she is just like a 'shorn woman'. If a
woman has no covering [of long hair], let her clip it short. And
if it is shameful for her to have her hair clipped short or
shaved, let her be covered [by it]. A man ought not to have [long
hair as] a covering on his head, since he is the image and glory
of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man was
not taken out of the woman, but the woman out of the man; neither
was the man created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for
the sake of the man. For this reason a woman ought to have a sign
of authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord,
however, woman is not independent of man. For as woman was taken
out of man, so also the man is born of woman. And everything is
from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray
to God with her head not covered [by her hair]? Does not nature
itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to
him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? Her long hair
is given her instead of a veil. If anyone wants to be
argumentative about this, we have no such practice - nor do the
churches of God (1 Cor. 11:2-16, my own rendering).
Paul's response is complex and raises many different points. We
shall therefore have to look at a series of issues if we are to
derive maximum benefit from it. Patience must be exercised as we
consider each topic. It will be helpful to look back over the
biblical text as a whole whenever attention to detail begins to
to get out of focus.
1. THE MEANING OF HEADSHIP
Paul opens this discussion with a word of praise for his church.
It was very much his practice to offer positive words where he
could, a practice which was no doubt effective in showing his
concern. In this case it has a bit more importance than usual. He
praises the Corinthians for holding his teachings, and wishes to
build upon some of his teachings to persuade them to alter a
practice of theirs. All parties would have agreed that Christ is
the head of every man. It is not as clear what they would have
thought about the man as the head of the woman. Presumably they
would have had little problem with understanding God the Father
as head of Christ. From this series of 'headship' relations Paul
will draw conclusions about head coverings. It is necessary to
examine the meaning 'head' (kephale) in some detail.
In our day, the head is known to be the seat of thinking and the
'executive' of the body. In ancient times, however, this was not
the case. The head was merely the uppermost organ of the body.
Its uppermost position, however, led to its use to identify that
which is most visible, 'on top' 'at the beginning' or 'prior'.
In English we speak of the 'head' of a river to refer to its
point of origin. This was a typical usage of 'head' (kephale) in
classical Greek. By Paul's day, however, a change had occurred.
The Greek versions of the Bible used kephale (head) to translate
the Hebrew word r'osh, which also means 'head'. The Hebrew word,
however, was used to indicate one in a position of authority or
command as well as origin or 'priority'. In Paul's day,
therefore, the Greek word 'head' (kephale) could mean a physical
head, a person with authority, or the source of something. Head
(kephale) was used in first-century Greek as a synonym for the
more common words for 'ruler' (archon) and for 'source' (arche).
To say that a man is head of a woman may thus be to say that
they are intimately connected as parts of a single body, or to
say that he is her origin (i.e. her beginning is in him) or to
say that he is in a position of authority with respect to her.
(The following long paragraph is a foot note in Hurley's book on
the page I have reproduced. the flow of Hurley's writing should
be picked up AFTER this paragraph - Keith Hunt)
{S. Bedale's influential study, 'The Meaning of kephale in the
Pauline Epistles' ( Journal of Theological Studies, 5 (1954),
pp. 211-215), provides careful documentation of the meaning of
kephale. He suggests that the word should be understood as
'origin' in 1 Cor. 11. His conclusion is frequently cited by
persons who do not see 'authority' in Paul's use of 'head' in
thus passage. Indeed, some authors seem to imply that it is
ignorant to take 'head' as pointing to authority because it
really meant 'origin' to the first-century mind. In such cases
Bedale has either been misunderstood, cited at second hand, or
misused. He argued that Paul derived man's authority over woman
from the fact of his priority. Bedale may be allowed to speak for
himself. Having made the point that Paul saw man as kephale
(head) of the woman in the sense of being her arche (beginning,
i.e. the one from whom her being is taken), he goes on to say,
'in St. Paul's view, the female in consequence is "subordinate"
(cf. Eph. 5:23). But this principle of subordination ... rests
upon the order of creation.... That is to say, while the word
kephale (and arche also, for that matter) unquestionably carries
with it the idea of "authority", such authority in social
relationships derives from relative priority (causal rather than
merely temporal) in the order of being. St. Paul makes it plain,
of course (. . . Gal. iii:28), that he is here speaking of men
and women in their respective sexual differentiation and
function, not of their spiritual status or capacities' (pp. 214,
215; italics mine). It is obvious that Bedale offers no support
for the idea that kephale (head) does not imply authority if it
means 'origin' instead of 'head over'. As will be clear from the
ensuing discussion, I think 'head over' is the better translation
in 1 Cor. 11. What should be absolutely clear is that it is an
abuse of Bedale and his point to cite his article to disprove the
idea that authority is inherent in Paul's use of kephale (head)}.
These various meanings are, of course, not mutually exclusive. We
must therefore ask, on each occasion of its use, which sense of
'head' is intended. We must be prepared even to accept the
possibility or two or three meanings being applicable
simultaneously.
Which meaning is to be preferred in 1 Corinthians 11:3? Until
recently, scholars were uniform in preferring 'head over' to
'origin of'. The question cannot, however, be solved by appeal to
numbers of authorities. Nor can it be solved by appeal to
lexicons. It must be answered from the context and from analogy
in other Pauline writings. The following considerations are
relevant:
1) Paul's use of head elsewhere. Our previous study in chapter
6 of Ephesians 5:23 and 1:22-23 showed that Paul used 'head' in
those passages to point to Christ and husbands as possessing
authority and as being ones to whom subjection is due. A second
meaning, head (Christ) united to a body (the church), is also
present in both texts. We have seen that in as much as all things
are said to be under Christ's feet and he is said to be
'appointed' or 'given to be' (edoken) head over all things for
the sake of his body the church (1:22-23), it is difficult to see
room for the 'source' concept to enter the discussion. Paul did
not say that Christ was given to be source of all things, but
ruler over them. Ephesians 1:22-23 builds from the body language
of head and feet to the idea of head as ruler.
A different direction can be discerned at Colossians 2:19 and
Ephesians 4:15. In these passages Paul builds from the body/head
imagery to the idea of Christ as the pattern (full-grown head)
into which his body, the church, is growing. To this he adds the
idea of Christ as the source of strength for its growth. The
concept of authority is not introduced in these two passages
using head (kephale) in the sense of source. In addition it
should be noted that neither passage makes use of marital imagery
alongside the head-as-source imagery.
'Head' (kephale) as 'authority' and 'source' may coalesce with
the idea of union as in Colossians 1:15-20, where Christ is the
source of all things, the head of his body and supreme over all
the things which he has created. As with the other head-as-source
passages, the marital imagery is not brought into play.
Interestingly 'headship' is not even used about the marital
relation in Colossians 3:18-19.
We conclude that Paul used head/body language to describe the
relation of Christ to his church. In Ephesians 1 and 5 'head'
meant 'head over'. In Colossians 1 and 2 and Ephesians 4 it was
related to bodily imagery and to the idea of 'source'. It is
significant that in those passages which clearly use 'head'
(kephale) to mean 'source' Paul does not introduce marital
imagery. In passages in which he does use 'head' as 'head over',
he uses the head language to illustrate the marital relationship.
We concluded that Paul's other usage of 'head' (kephale) would
favour the idea of 'head over' being present at 1 Corinthians 11
where marriage is being discussed.
2) Paul's appeal to man as the 'origin' of woman in other
places. Paul does view the prior creation of Adam and the fact
that Eve was drawn from him as significant in the relation of men
and women. He mentions these facts in 1 Timothy 2:13 and 1
Corinthians 11:8. In these verses he does not say that Adam was
Eve's 'head' (kephale) or even her source (arche). Instead he
speaks of her coming 'out of' (ek) him or of his being 'formed
first'. Paul does not introduce 'head' language when he is
talking about origins.
3) If 'head' means 'source' in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul's
parallelism is poor and he virtually teaches that God made
Christ. This is most clearly seen if we consider the implications
of the head-means-source view for each of the three relationships
sequentially:
a. Man/woman. (i) Adam is the source of Eve in that she was
physically taken out of him. (ii) She had no existence prior to
that time. (iii) Adam had no part in making her.
b. Christ/man. (i) Christ is not the source of Adam if by that we
mean that Adam was physically taken out of him. (ii) Adam did
come into existence through the creative work of Christ. In this
sense Christ is his 'source'.
c. God/Christ. In this case an effort to maintain parallelism
with other parts of the series leads to strange conclusions. (i)
Does Paul wish to say that Christ was physically created from a
piece taken out of God? (ii) Does he mean to indicate that Christ
did not exist before that time? (iii) Does he mean that God was
the Creator of Christ? These conclusions were specifically
rejected by the early church at the time of the Arian
controversy and are not compatible with other Pauline teaching.
There is no way to construct a satisfactory set of parallels if
we take 'head' to mean 'source' in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
If, on the other hand, 'head' means 'head over', a set of
parallels can be established:
a. Man/woman. In the home, the husband is the head over his
wife. In the church, the religious sphere, certain men act as
heads by being elders, teachers and leaders of the worship
(assuming that women elders and teachers are prohibited by 1
Timothy 2-3, which will be discussed later).
b. Christ/man. In the home, Christ is head over all husbands.
They are to model their behaviour after his. In the religious
sphere, Christ is the head over all elders and teachers.
c God/Christ. God the Son became man and acted on behalf of
Adam's race. As 'second Adam' (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45) he was obedient
to God's authority (headship), even to the point of death (Phil.
2:8). In his capacity as the second Adam, the head of a new
mankind, Christ will acknowledge God as 'head over' mankind by
handing over 'the kingdom to God after he has destroyed all
[other] dominion, authority and power' (1 Cor. 15:24).
This set of parallels, in contrast to the set assuming that
'head' (kephale) means 'source', is self-consistent and does not
do violence to either Pauline or other New Testament theology.
Head coverings were at issue in 1 Corinthians 11. In the first
century these were not understood as having anything to do with
woman's origin from man. They were signs of her relation to his
authority. This remains the case whether we conclude that Paul
was talking of veils or the length and style of a woman's hair.
Even the text of 1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that the issue
under debate at Corinth was authority (verse 10). Reading 'head'
(kephale) as 'head over' in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is therefore more
consistent with the central problem at issue in the chapter.
The best conclusion seems to be that in 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul
was teaching that a hierarchy of headship authority exists and
that it is ordered: God, Christ as second Adam, man, woman. Paul
saw this as relevant to the question of head coverings.
Two further comments need to be made: (1) We have noted that, if
Paul taught that God is the origin of Christ, he taught what the
church has condemned as Arian Christology. It has been argued by
some that, if Paul taught that God is head over Christ, he taught
subordinationist Christology, which the church has also
condemned. This charge must be rejected because it is manifestly
Christ as head of mankind who is in view in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
The Corinthian letter itself teaches that it is precisely as such
that he will acknowledge the headship of God by handing over the
kingdom(1 Cor. 15:24).....
In theological jargon, the relation is economic, not ontological.
(2) As we noted above (note 1, p. 164), even if 'head' were taken
to mean 'source' in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the conclusion to be
reached is not that Paul did not teach subordination, but that he
did so by means of such an argument. Thus, although we think it
quite unlikely, the choice of 'source' as the meaning of 'head'
(kephale) in 1 Corinthians 11:3 does not shift the focus of the
chapter from the question of authority in the marriage relation.
WHAT DID PAUL WANT ON WOMEN'S HEADS?
Contemporary Christians have wrestled with the meaning of
obedience to Paul's requirement concerning women's heads. Older
translations have generally understood him to have meant veils,
and have therefore supplied the term in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul
does not in fact mention veils except in verse 15, where he says,
'Her long hair is given her for (anti, instead of) a veil.'
Lifted out of this chapter, this verse would be universally
rendered as teaching that long hair is given instead of or to
take the place of a veil. That is always the force of anti. 'For'
is an adequate translation, if it means '(as a substitute) for'.
Most Bible versions, convinced that Paul taught the necessity of
veiling, have supplied the word 'veil' earlier in the text and
allowed 'anti' to be translated by 'for' or 'as', implying that a
woman's long hair is given her as a veil and that it points to
the necessity of putting another veil on top of her hair, i.e.
that her 'natural' veil shows that she needs another one. It is
easy to understand the motivation for this; it seems unlikely
that Paul would argue strongly for the necessity of veils from
verse 2 to verse 14 and then insist that long hair is really
quite sufficient! A close examination of Paul's language suggests
another way of approaching the problem which does not require
weakening the force of 'anti.'
Throughout the earlier part of the passage, the words usually
translated 'covered with a veil' or 'veiled' are kata kephales
echon (11:4) and katakalyptos (11:6, 7, 13), literally 'having
upon the head' and 'covered'. The word usually translated
'uncovered' or 'unveiled' is akatakalyptos, which literally means
'uncovered'. None of (A more detailed development of the view
about to be presented can be found in J. Hurley, 'Did Paul
Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor.
11:2-16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b-36', Westminster Theological Journal,
35 (1973), pp. 190-220. The exegesis of the passage in this book
is essentially similar, but has a few significant changes)
these words specifies what sort of covering is in view and it
perfectly reasonable to supply a general word such as 'veil'. As
we have seen, however, verse 15 casts doubt on the propriety of
this. Further reflection on verses 4-6 in the light of our
previous study of veiling customs and of a study of akatakalyptos
(uncovered) in the Greek Old Testament suggests a better
alternative.
Our consideration of veiling customs and hair-styles in the Old
Testament and in Judaism noted that veiling was not practised as
a requirement in Old Testament Israel and that it is doubtful
that it was required by Jews at the time of Christ except perhaps
among the wealthy of the large cities. We also noted that hair
length and the way in which it was worn was of significant
importance. Greek, Roman and Jewish women grew their hair long
and wore it put up in various styles. In all three cultures long
hair flying loose, dishevelled hair or hair cut off was a sign
that its wearer was set off from the community.
One particular case of loosed hair is of importance to our
present question: the loosed hair of a suspected adulteress
undergoing the 'bitter-water' rite of Numbers 5:18. Her hair was
publicly loosed to mark her off as one suspected of being
'unclean' by virtue of adultery, of repudiating her relation to
her husband by giving herself physically to another man. If the
rite showed her to be innocent, her hair was once again put up.
This procedure was not assigned for a woman actually accused of
adultery. Such a woman was tried and either acquitted or executed
without undergoing the bitter-water rite. By the New Testament
period, however, the Jews could not execute and the punishment
for an adulteress was the shearing of her hair and expulsion from
the synagogue.
It is against this background that Paul's words to the
Corinthians are best understood. The relevance of the
background can be seen from a look at Paul's discussion and his
particular word choice for 'uncovered'.
Let us consider first Paul's actual discussion. In verse 4 he
indicates that a man who prays or prophesies with long hair or a
veil on his head dishonours his head. Presumably, the second use
(See appendix for a fuller discussion of this point) of 'head'
means Christ and perhaps also the man's own self as well. How
does he dishonour Christ or himself? And how does an uncovered
woman dishonour her 'head' (presumably meaning her husband or men
generally and perhaps herself)? How also does her being
'uncovered' make her like a woman who has had her hair
clipped short or shaven off and bring her shame? Let us assume
for a moment that the covering (whatever it was) is a sign of the
authority of a man in relation to his wife (cf. 11:10). The
removal of the sign by the wife would then constitute a
repudiation of her husband's authority, of his 'headship'. If a
man's wife publicly repudiated his authority, it is easy to see
how this would dishonour him, her 'head'. It is not clear that
her action would dishonour or shame her. In our day it might even
make her a liberated heroine.
Let us move on to consider the dishonour caused by a man with his
head covered. If a man, whose head is Christ, puts on his head
the sign of being under a man's authority, it is easy to see how
Christ is thereby dishonoured; one who should be under Christ
alone publicly announces that he is submissive to another 'head'.
While it is not likely that the Corinthian men were in fact
putting coverings on, it would seem quite likely that the
Corinthian women had concluded that, having been raised with
Christ (1 Cor. 4:8-10), their new position in Christ and their
resultant freedom to participate in the worship by prayer and
prophecy was incompatible with wearing a sign of submission to
their husbands!
Paul defends their right to pray and to prophesy, but does not
see it as doing away with the marital relation. The already
realized aspect of the kingdom leads to women's participation; it
does not do away with marital submission, but rather should
restore it to its proper form. Only at the resurrection will
marital patterns be done away completely (Mt. 22:30). The
Corinthians had not grasped the both/and of the present stage of
the kingdom.
How does all this relate to a woman without a covering being
shamed as a woman who is clipped or shorn? Paul's actual word
choice helps us here. We have noted that he did not specify the
nature of the 'covering.' He spoke instead of 'having on the
head' and of being 'uncovered' (akatakalyptos). It is this word
which provides a help. The suspected adulteress of Numbers 5:18
was accused of repudiating her relation to her husband by giving
herself to another. As a sign of this, her hair, which was done
up on her head, was let loose. The Hebrew word which is used to
describe both the letting loose of the hair and being unveiled
(pr') is translated in the Greek Old Testament by akatakalyptos,
the word which Paul uses for 'uncovered'. Could it be that Paul
was not asking the Corinthian women to put on veils, but was
asking them to continue wearing their hair in the distinctive
fashion of women? Let us follow out the implications of this for
the passage and in particular for the shorn hair.
If the Corinthian women were 'letting their hair down to show
that marital patterns no longer applied, that they were no longer
subordinate to their husbands, the sign of their independence was
also the sign of a woman suspected of adultery. In Jewish
practice of the day, a woman convicted of such a charge had
her hair clipped short or shaved off and was put out of the
synagogue. The clipped or shaven hair thus became a highly
visible sign of her shame, rather like the famous 'scarlet
letter' of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Nester Prynne. We can now
understand Paul's remarks.
If a woman accuses herself by putting on herself the sign of a
suspected adulteress, of a woman who has repudiated her husband's
authority, she should go on to put on the sign of one who has
been convicted. Her long hair is thus itself the sign either of
her dignity as a wife or of her shame. A review of the
translation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16....will show the
implications of this understanding for our text.
This 'long-hair' view has been adopted as an alternative by the
NIV.
................
WOMEN AND ------- LOOKING AT 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15.
I have written in other studies of the past that this section of scripture has to do with the context of "church" and it must be put with 1 Corinthians 14:34-37.
And in 1 Timothy 2:15 we need to keep the definite article "THE" in the word "THE childbearing" referring to CHRIST, as the Savior or all women as He is of all men, no matter their "roles" in the church.
If we isolate this section in 1 Timothy, we could, would, run into some major problems. For then the woman would be always in the "learning" position; always in subjection [and the word here is a military type word - "to rank under"]. Then we would have Paul going still further by saying "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" - this then covering all kinds of areas, for if this section does not just apply to within the church, then it would apply to all kinds of jobs and professions where men and women work [an example could be no woman only a man as "principle" of a grade school]; whatever the working skill where men and women are part of the same company, the man would always have to be the leader or top dog..... Paul going as far as saying she needs to be in silence.
This idea of theology would hardly fit within the context of the whole Bible.
Then we would have Paul saying as he does this subjection in.... whatever..... is because the man was first created THEN the woman; and the man was not deceived but it was the woman who was deceived [verses 13, 14].
Putting this all outside the context of "the church" would I submit have to then be applied in the largest sense of any work, where men and women at part of that work force; Paul gives no exceptions; he just gives some blank statements; which I submit out of the context of "church" is just an up-front statements, and so would have to apply to all working situations where both sexes are employed.
Then if verse 15 does NOT apply to "THE childbirth" meaning CHRIST, we would have to say Paul goes on further yet to state, putting it in my paraphrase, "The woman can be saved by being a mother, which is her main job in life; being saved as mothering children, as long as they remain true to the faith, with love, holiness and sobriety."
This then would be Paul saying a woman is not to be a leader over men; if working with men she is to be in silence to them; and further her main task in life is to be a child-bearer, a mother; all else should be less than this first calling - a mother; the bearer of children.
But some women do not have children; some for various reasons cannot have children; some women never marry.
In my studies on CHURCH GOVERNMENT the idea of this section of 1 Timothy being outside a "church" context, is contradicted by examples we find in the New Testament where women had roles that were above men; even in certain "spiritual" roles where men were involved.
BUT putting this section of Timothy with 1 Corinthians 14: 34-37; in the context of ELDERSHIP/PASTORSHIP in a church congregation; then it all fits with the plain, abundant, examples of the Church of God in the first century AD.
To the contrary of what some women think; what "women's lib" organizations have to say; what even some "church" organizations are now saying and now practicing; you can only find MEN as "elders" "pastors" "leaders" in charge of a church/es in the New Testament.
True some do not want to see this fact of the New Testament; some do not want to see the fact Jesus chose 12 apostles of MEN, in founding the New Testament Church of God; some do not want to see the fact that the apostle Paul only gave instructions to other male leaders on ordaining MEN to the church ministry of "elder" and "pastor" or "shepherd" of a flock of God's children.
I did not write or inspire the New Testament; I did not decide HOW the structure of the New Testament Church of God should be spiritually structured; I did not inspire the apostle Paul [who said he was inspired - 1 Cor. 14: 37, 38] to write and to practice which sex should be the ordained ministers and church shepherds of the New Testament Churches of God.
All I can do is gather all the Scriptures on the subject, and understand the clear truth as to what those Scriptures teach, and also the plain examples we find in the New Testament, as the truth of those Scriptures were practiced by the first century apostles of God.
It is God who is head of this universe; it is Christ who is head of the church He founded, and said the gates of hell - the grave - would never prevail against it.
And so as the apostle Paul finished it; the women accepting that their role in the Church of God is not to be an ordained Elder or Pastor over a flock of God, would like men, be "saved" [to eternal life] in THE childbearing [Jesus the Messiah coming in human form through a woman], like men, if they continue in the faith, and love, with all holiness and sobriety.
On the "BEING SAVED" subject...... men and women are EQUAL!
AND let me add [as I've pointed out in a another study] we shall be REWARDED according to our WORKS..... you do what you have been given to do with, and you will be rewarded in the Kingdom accordingly..... AH YES, and SOME WOMEN will I expect get a greater reward than some men.
BUT THEN in the Kingdom we shall be PERFECT AND HOLY as God the Father and Christ are..... there will be no jealousy. Remember what the humble king David said, "I'd rather be a door keeper in the House of God than the greatest physical human position any man could ever attain" [I'm paraphrasing his words].
IN THE END OF IT ALL, WE SHALL BE GIVEN THE RIGHT AND CORRECT REWARD, FOR OUR WORKS WE HAVE DONE WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO DO.
Keith Hunt (February 2015)
DISFELLOWSHIP !!
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY SAY?
Should people be put out of the Church for disagreeing on the
meaning of a Biblical verse or a policy of administration? Are
Church members allowed by God to think for themselves without the
threat of excommunication? What did Christ mean when He said:
"....If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican?" Why should someone be
disfellowshipped? If someone is excommunicated, are the ministers
and other Church members NEVER to talk to that person again? All
these questions and others will be answered in this in-depth
study article. The truth about the subject that most do not want
to talk about....DISFELLOWSHIPPING, may not be as you have
thought or been taught. But the word of God will make the truth
PLAIN!
by
Keith Hunt
Regrettably, there may be a time when a person has to be
disfellowshipped from having fellowship with the members of the
Church.
Paul speaking to the Church at Corinth wrote: "...and you
are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that has done
this deed might to TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU........But now I
have written unto you NOT TO KEEP COMPANY, if any man that is
called a BROTHER be a.........WITH SUCH A ONE NO NOT TO EAT" (1
Cor.5:2,11).
He goes on to say in verse 13, "....Therefore PUT AWAY from
among yourselves that wicked person."
Writing to the Thessalonians Paul said: "Now we command you,
brethren, that you WITHDRAW YOURSELVES from every BROTHER that
walketh disorderly and if any man obey not our word by this
epistle, note that man, and have NO COMPANY with him....."
(2 Thes.3:6,14).
Writing to Titus, Paul said: "A man that is an heretic after
the first and second admonition REJECT" (Titus 3:10).
Then we have the words of Christ on this matter of putting
someone outside the fellowship of the Church. Speaking about the
person who is obviously walking or living in an unrepentant
manner, Jesus said: ".... If he neglect to hear the Church, let
him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican"(Mat.18:17).
What Christ meant by that statement in specifics we shall
look at in more detail later. Suffice to say now, it does mean
that a person may have to be excommunicated from fellowship with
the Church.
THE METHOD TO DISFELLOWSHIP
Christ did not leave His Church in any doubt about HOW to
disfellowship someone if it was necessary. Anything Paul wrote on
this matter would not have contradicted the outline given by
Jesus.
Paul was taught by Christ (Gal.l:11-12). When Paul wrote on
disfellowshipping of a brother/sister he gave the overview of the
subject NOT the specific details of how it was to be
accomplished.
The one, two, three steps that were to be taken leading up
to disfellowshipping, if the person would not listen to the
Church, was laid down by the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 18. Starting
in verse 15, we read: "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass
against you..." (a one to one, member to member, or minister to
minister, or minister to member, or member to minister),
continuing, "go and tell him his fault between YOU and HIM
alone: IF he shall hear you, you have gained your brother."
When a serious matter, let me emphasize the word serious
(Jesus is not talking about getting upset with your brother
because they do not open the car door for you when you have your
arms full of parcels), when a serious matter arises between
BROTHERS in Christ, it is FIRST of all to be a one to one meeting
to discuss the problem. As God is love(1 John 4:8) and brothers
in Christ are to love each other (1 John 4:7), this meeting
should be carried out in deep Godly love, with humility and
prayer, and remembering the words of Paul, ".....lest that by any
means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway" (1 Cor.9:27).
There can be no lynch mob action, no going behind a person's
back to some supposed higher Church authority to have this or
that other person disfellowshipped - no three or four getting
together to see if someone else will do what you PERSONALLY
should be doing; that is, discussing the matter with the
particular individual involved with you and the problem.
It must first be ONE TO ONE. Any other way is not scriptural
and is not following the way Christ gave us. It is therefore
contrary to the way of the Lord.
In most cases the problem will be solved this way. If it is
not, Christ went on to instruct us: "But if he will NOT hear you,
THEN take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established" (verse 16).
If the person in the wrong, AFTER OBEYING THE ABOVE
INSTRUCTIONS, still will not listen, Jesus said: "tell it unto
the Church...." Bring it before the Church as a whole, the
ministers as a whole, the members, and let them give their
decision on the matter. Christ did not say tell it to the ONE
individual (if there indeed was ever to be one) who is head of
the Church and let him disfellowship this person. Christ said,
"......But if he neglect to hear the CHURCH, let him be unto you
as an heathen man and a publican" (verses 15-17).
Paul said to the CHURCH, not just the ministers at
Corinth(the book of 1 Corinthians was written to the Church -
verse 2) "......Do not YOU judge them that are within" (1
Cor.5:12).
Paul was writing concerning the case of open incest being
done within the Church, and he tells them THEY - the CHURCH - had
the right to decide and disfellowship that person so sinning. As
Christ said, if the sinner will not hear on a one to one basis,
then it must be two or three to one. If he/she still refuses to
hear, then the CHURCH as a whole have the right to speak, and if
he will not hear the Church, then and ONLY THEN can they be
disfellowshipped.
ANY OTHER METHOD IS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. And
remember, all of this is to be done in LOVE.
Disfellowshipping of a person must come finally from the
CHURCH - not from an individual - and only after the correct
procedure given by Jesus has been carried out.
One minister is not the Church. The ministers as a whole are
not the Church. They are only PART OF the Church. The CHURCH(all
called out ones. Every member constitutes the Church of that
particular congregation) must have the case presented before it,
and judgement then made. If the person involved will not listen
to the Church, then he or she can be put out of its fellowship.
How simple it is when one will just BELIEVE and OBEY the
words of Christ. I have known and talked to some leaders of
various religious organizations that follow the instructions of
Jesus regards this subject, for the most part, when done in love,
it brings about the desired repentant attitude from the person
overtaken in a sin.
WHY DISFELLOWSHIP SOMEONE?
Did Christ give the Church the right to put a PERSON out of
its fellowship so the Church could delight in so doing, so it
could have an "holier than thou" attitude?
No! Indeed NO!
For the Church to have to disfellowship someone it should be
a VERY SAD occasion. Deep sorrow should be felt by all.
Why then is it sometimes necessary?
Paul gives us the answer: "To deliver such an one unto Satan
for the destruction
of the flesh" - to put them outside the spiritual protection of
the Church - "that the spirit
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor.5:5).
Hopefully, they will repent and turn again to God and walk
in the right path.
The second reason for disfellowshipping is to keep the
Church from corrupting into
OPEN SIN against God: "......Know you not that a little
leaven(type of sin) leaveneth the
whole lump" (1 Cor.5:6).
In the case in which Paul was talking about in 1 Cor.5, a
member was having sexual intercourse with his father's wife(verse
1). This was directly breaking the law of God. The Church knew
about this man's activity, and by doing or saying nothing they
were then condoning it(verse 2,6). Paul could see that if
something was not done, soon others in the Church would be
practicing open sin, until the whole Church would be corrupted.
The example in 1 Corinthians 5 leads us to our next
question. What would the reasons be for having to disfellowship
someone?
REASONS FOR DISFELLOWSHIPPING
Has the Church the right to disfellowship someone because
he/she humbly disagrees with a point of doctrine or understanding
of a verse of scripture? Should a person be put out of the Church
for not agreeing fully with certain policies or ways of
administration?
When you become part of the Church, do you give up the right
to "think for yourself"? Is your thinking to be all done for you
by the ministers?
Your Bible says you are to be servants of God. You are to
give yourself as a living sacrifice to God(Rom.12:1). You are to
have Christ's MIND in you(Phil.2:5), not the mind of some other
man. You are bought with Christ's blood and are not to become the
servants of MEN(1 Cor.7:23). Your salvation is only answerable to
God(Rom.14:4,10-12).
You do not stop "thinking for yourself" when you become a
Christian. Nobody should ever be disfellowshipped for what he
SINCERELY believes or because he wants to "think." If he has a
genuine disagreement over doctrine, policies, or ideas, he should
always feel that he can, in the right attitude, air his thoughts
and be heard, listened to and considered.
We have already seen an example in 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, an
example of incest in the Church that was not just a private
personal sin(we all have those - Rom.7:13-15; 1 John 1:8-10) but
a sin that could effect the whole Church and lead people into
outright disobedience towards God.
Paul gives us other reasons for having to disfellowship
someone in verse 11. "But now I have written unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is called a brother be a FORNICATOR, or
COVETOUS, or an IDOLATER, or a RAILER, or a DRUNKARD, or an
EXTORTIONER, with such a one no not to eat."
Let's apply the principle of the case of incest we've
already noted to these other sins that Paul mentions.
FORNICATION:
A young man or woman in the Church starts having sexual
relations with another young person of the Church. This
relationship is regular. Word gets out in the manner that
such things do become known by many in the Church, but nobody
says anything to them. Soon the offenders could have set the
example for others to do the same. If the instructions of Mat.18
were not followed, open practice of sexual immorality would
spread through the Church.
If the couple would not repent of "sleeping around" as we
call it today, then the Church as a whole could make the decision
to disfellowship them.
COVETOUS:
An individual starts to covet say the "office" held by
another in the Church. He does not have any office, or not the
one he wants to have. The office of deacon, board member, or
minister that HE WANTS is held by another. So he starts to gossip
and slander the person holding that office. He says ugly lies
about them, starts assassinating their character. He gets others
to listen and poisons their minds. This kind of talk becomes his
life style.
This covetous manner could effect the whole Church, unless
the instructions of Mat.18 were followed.
IDOLATER:
Let's put ourselves back with Paul and the Church at
Corinth. The members had just recently come out of pagan worship
to serve the true God in "spirit and in truth."
One Sabbath in walks someone with a statue of say, DIANA(a
false pagan god, that was really no god) and sets it up in the
meeting place and proceeds to pray before it.
The following Sabbath the original member is joined by
another member in praying before this idol. As the weeks go by
more and more join in with the idol worship.
Can you see where all this would lead? Paul says the Church
does have the right and the authority to judge such a person who
would want to start such idolatry in the Church.
Do you see the principle? Can you understand what Paul is
saying here in 1 Cor.5?
A RAILER
Would be someone who openly wants to stand up in the Church
meetings and argue the word of God in an unbecoming attitude,
shouting at or against other members or the ministry, maybe using
a foul tongue or slander(see the Amplified Bible).
A DRUNKARD
Would be a member who turns up at Church functions drunk,
and does it often as a habit. Maybe they are living as a drunkard
around their home and causing all kinds of trouble.
AN EXTORTIONER
Would be a person who is a swindler or robber or siphoner of
Church funds, or money from his place of employment. It is a way
of life with him, possibly encouraging others to do the same.
Paul is here, in these verses of 1 Cor.5, talking about
persons who LIVE/PRACTICE a lifestyle that is contrary to the
commandments of God, and want to bring it into the Church,
wanting all to allow them to so live. They are not repentant of
their actions.
Paul is NOT talking about people who are loving God with all
their mind and heart, who are wanting to obey God's law, who are
fighting sin within themselves, but honestly and sincerely do not
agree with the Church's teaching on a given doctrine or verse.
Paul is not talking about people who disagree on certain Church
policy or ways of administration, but have the true spirit of God
within them. He is NOT talking about one minister disagreeing
with another minister on how things should be done.
Paul IS talking about a lifestyle - the WAY a person LIVES
contrary to the plain easy to understand COMMANDMENTS of God, and
HOW THAT WAY could effect the whole Church by leading many others
into open sin.
Did Paul ever have any differences of 'administration'
opinions with other ministers?
Oh, indeed he did! If you turn to Acts 15:36-41 you will
read how Paul and Barnabas had a difference of opinion, and,
"......the contention was so sharp between them that they
departed asunder one from the other.." (verse 39).
Now, did Paul try to have Barnabas disfellowshipped? Did
Paul run off to the apostles at Jerusalem to get them to put
Barnabas "out of the Church"? Or, did Barnabas run to Peter with
a few other ministers and try to have Paul excommunicated? NO!
There is not one word anywhere that even suggests they tried to
do any of that.
Both men knew they were called to do the work of the Lord.
This heated difference was not over basic fundamental doctrines
of God, or the practice of unrepentant sins on someone's part. It
was a difference of opinion on "who should go with them to do the
work" - a difference in the area of Church Administration in
which there is no "thus says the Lord."
On another occasion Paul DISAGREED with what Peter was DOING
- PRACTICING in his life. Paul had the God given right and
freedom to stand up to Peter and tell him he was
WRONG(Gal.2:11-14)!
Notice two things about this incident:
FIRST - Paul obeyed Mat.18:15. He went to Peter directly and
withstood him in his wrong way. He did not "gang up" on him and
go to someone else to have him corrected or put out of
fellowship.
SECOND - Peter did not condemn Paul for doing what he did.
Peter knew it was Paul's given right to exercise correction when
needed. Peter did not try to have Paul disfellowshipped over what
he did.
It is also interesting to note and remember that Peter was
with the Church from its beginning. Peter was one of the Church's
founding members and prominent persons. And here was Paul, a
relative newcomer to the ministry, standing up to Peter's face
and declaring he was wrong - and he WAS!
None claimed that anyone got in a "bad attitude" or had
"disrespect for authority," or "disrespect for one of the
original apostles" and so should be disfellowshipped.
Putting someone out of the Church because an INDIVIDUAL
claims that some member is in a "wrong attitude" (when they are
probably not), or is reading literature from another church
group, or not "agreeing" with all the fine print of
administration, is not following the teachings of the head of the
Church - Jesus Christ.
This kind of disfellowshipping is from the doctrines of
demons. It is Satanic - it is not of God.
There are churches that teach and practice this cultic
dictatorial way of correction and disfellowshipping.
Further, the idea that when someone has been
disfellowshipped, the ministers/elders and congregational members
are NEVER to speak to or have any communication whatsoever with
that person, is also just as Satanic, as we shall now proceed to
see.
"AS A HEATHEN MAN" AND LOGIC
Some groups take the words of Christ and Paul, such as:
"....if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an
heathen man and a publican.......that he that has done this deed
must be taken away from among you.......with such a one no not to
eat .......that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walks disorderly.......and have no company with him...." to mean
that the Church members are not only to not keep company in ANY
WAY with the disfellowshipped, but they are not even to SPEAK to
or have any communication at any time with that person.
Members of such groups that teach this form of
excommunication will even avoid the meeting of former members on
the street by quickly walking the other way, or crossing the
street. Disfellowshipped members are treated as if they were
carrying the death plague itself, a plague that would kill
instantly upon coming within twenty feet of the one time member.
Is this how you should treat the disfellowshipped member?
Was this the way Christ and Paul wanted you to act towards those
the Church had to correct and discipline?
God says to us, " Come let us reason together "(Isa.1:18).
So, let's first use our logical reasoning powers God gave us to
apply this teaching of some to everyday circumstances.
A wife finds herself married to a disfellowshipped husband
one day. Her church teaches that you are not to eat with, keep
company with, or speak to such a person any more. God still says
you are one flesh and his wife. What a dilemma! What a PARADOX!
I have known of instances where this has happened. The
church group involved will usually allow their teaching at this
point to change. Yet the same allowance may, or may not, be
applied to a father-son, or mother-daughter SITUATION.
Let's take another example. Two families live next door to
each other. One family is "put out of the church" (we shall
assume in this example it is for correct and just reasons). The
other family now finds itself in the most uncomfortable situation
of avoiding, not speaking to the other family. Maybe they have
children who play together, or to make it a little more
complicated, a son and daughter of each family are engaged to be
married. Still add another twist - only the husband of one family
is disfellowshipped. The church will allow his wife to
communicate with him but the church neighbors cannot. They must
avoid and not speak to the one, while showing brotherly
fellowship with the other.
Two men work alongside each other in a factory, shop, or
what have you. They are members of the same church, until one is
disfellowshipped. For the job to be done both men have to work as
a team and communicate together. According to the teaching of the
church, the man in good standing is not to have company with, or
talk to, or eat meals together in the lunch room, with the
disfellowshipped man. You figure that one out!
Maybe the one disfellowshipped is the owner or foreman of
the company the other member works for, or the church member is
the right-hand man of the man excommunicated. Maybe the man "put
out" is the right-hand man of the church member.
The situations are endless! Reason and logic should tell you
that such understanding of Christ's statement "let him be unto
you as a heathen" is erroneous.
But God's word leaves us in no doubt about how to treat the
disfellowshipped.
The groups who preach the "avoiding, not speaking to"
doctrine have THREE scriptures they find very hard to explain, if
not impossible. Here they are from the AMPLIFIED BIBLE.
THREE IMPORTANT VERSES
"Brethren, if any person is overtaken in misconduct or sin
of any sort, you who are spiritual - who are responsive to and
controlled by the spirit - should set him right and restore and
reinstate him, without any sense of superiority and with all
gentleness, keeping an attentive eye on yourself, lest you should
be tempted also" (Gal.6:1).
Paul is NOT here talking about brethren going about prying
into each other's misconduct or personal sins, so we can set each
other right. The word of God nowhere teaches that idea. The
"faults" we are to confess to each other spoken about in James
5:16 are physical faults - sickness or physical infirmities - so
we can pray for each other and be healed (v.13-15). Our spiritual
sins we confess to God(Heb.4:15-16; 1 John 1:8-9; Mat. 6:9-12).
Sins, errors, offenses, we commit against each other should
be dealt with personally and individually as Jesus gave us
instruction in Matthew 18:15.
We are certainly not to "go looking for" the speck of dirt
in our brother's eye, as there could very well be a huge plank in
our own - Mat.7:3.
Paul IS here teaching about a brother who is overtaken
(becomes taken over by a life of misconduct) - as the person
practicing incest in 1 Cor.5, which may lead to the Church having
to put them out of its fellowship, or his voluntary leaving the
Church, and what WE (ministers and/or members) should then try to
do to restore them to repentance and the Church.
The compilers of the AMPLIFIED Bible understood what Paul
was saying. The CHURCH'S responsibility is, with humility and
gentleness, to try to set him right and RESTORE and REINSTATE him
to the fellowship again. This then requires that the Church WORK
WITH and still COMMUNICATE WITH such an individual.
The idea to "avoid and never speak to" a disfellowshipped or
former brother/sister is the complete antithesis of Paul's
teaching to the Christians in Galatia.
The noted MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY on the Bible has this
to say on Galatians 6:1.
"We here are taught to deal tenderly with those who are overtaken
in a fault. THEY WHO ARE SPIRITUAL; by whom is meant, not only
the ministers (as if none but they were to be called spiritual
persons), but other Christians too; especially those of the
higher form in Christianity. These must RESTORE SUCH AN ONE WITH
THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS. Here observe:
1. The duty we are directed to - to restore such. We should
labor, by faithful reproofs and pertinent and seasonable
counsels, to bring them to repentance. The original word
'katarizo' signifies TO SET IN JOINT - as a dislocated bone is.
Accordingly, we should endeavor to set them in joint again, to
bring them to themselves, by convincing them of their sin and
error, persuading them to return to their duty, comforting them
in a sense of pardoning mercy thereupon, and - having thus
recovered them - confirming our love to them.
2. The manner wherein this is to be done - WITH THE SPIRIT OF
MEEKNESS; not in wrath and passion, as those who triumph in a
brother's fall, but with meekness - as those who rather mourn for
them. Many needful reproofs lose their efficacy by being given in
wrath; but when they are managed with calmness and tenderness,
and appear to proceed from a sincere affection for them(and
concern for their welfare) they are likely to make due
impression.
3. A very good reason why this should be done with meekness -
CONSIDERING THYSELF, LEST THOU ALSO BE TEMPTED. We ought to deal
very tenderly with those who are overtaken in sin, because we
none of us know but it may sometime be our own case."
The SECOND TEXT we need to study and understand is 2
Thessalonians 3: 6,14-15. The Amplified Bible translates these
verses as:
"Now we charge you, brethren, in the name and on the
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, that you
withdraw and keep away from every brother (fellow believer)
who is slack in the PERFORMANCE OF DUTY and is DISORDERLY, LIVING
as a shirker and not walking in accord with the traditions and
instructions that you have received from us But if anyone (in the
church) refuses to obey what we say in this letter, take NOTE of
that person, and do not associate with him; that he may be
ashamed. DO NOT REGARD HIM AS AN ENEMY, but simply ADMONISH and
WARN him as (being
still) a brother" (emphasis mine).
Now there are possibly TWO explanations of what Paul is here
saying to the Church at Thessalonia:
1. A self-imposed censorship by the people of the Church
towards those whom Paul says to note - a censorship then WITHIN
the Church.
2. A censorship by the Church - a DISFELLOWSHIP.
Possibly BOTH views are here meant to be understood, BUT
whichever we want to side with, the CONCLUSION as to what the
Church must DO is the SAME for either case.
Let us note what KIND of individual Paul is telling us to
censure.
The Matthew Henry's Commentary says: "There were some who
walked disorderly, not after the traditions they received from
the apostles (v.6). Note, the King James version says 'received
of US' - not just Paul, but others also. Paul did not set himself
up as chief apostle or pope of the Church of God They did not
live regularly, or govern themselves according to the rules of
Christianity in particular, there were among them IDLE PERSONS
AND BUSYBODIES (v.11). This the apostle was so credibly informed
of that he had sufficient reason to give commands and directions
with relation to such persons, how they ought to behave, and how
the Church should act towards them. There were some among them
who were IDLE, NOT WORKING AT ALL, or doing nothing. It is a
great error, or abuse of religion to make it a cloak for
idleness, or any other sin. There were BUSYBODIES among them: and
it would seem, by the connection, that the same persons who were
idle were busybodies also, most commonly, those persons who
have no business of their own to do, or neglect that and busy
themselves in other men's matters.......Busybodies are disorderly
walkers. The apostle warns Timothy(1 Tim.5:13) 'to beware of such
as learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and are
not only idle, but tattlers also, and busybodies, speaking things
which they ought not.' "
The persons Paul was telling the Church to censor were
LIVING, PRACTICING, a life style WITHIN the Church that would
have profoundly bad influence on the membership. It was a corrupt
way of LIVING they were promulgating. It was a lifestyle that
could be put alongside the fornication, covetous, idolater,
drunkard, extortioner, of 1 Corinthians 5.
TWO FORMS OF CENSORSHIP
1. Censorship within the Church
This view is taken from verse 14 as to be understood that
what is said does not necessarily mean to disfellowship. The
language used by Paul is not as strong as he used in 1
Cor.5:1-13. The words "note that man" is NOT synonymous with
"disfellowship that man" or "put him away." The Greek word here
used for "note" means simply to DISTINGUISH, become acquainted,
recognize who the idle busybodies are, and once you have
recognized them - STAY OUT OF THEIR WAY - do not be a
"buddy-buddy" with them, do not have them as close friends.
2. Censorship with-out the Church - disfellowship
If verse 14 is taken to mean Paul is here saying to
disfellowship these persons, there is still NO CONTRADICTION with
the rest of God's word and Christ's instruction of Matthew 18.
Paul is writing to the brethren (v.6) - the CHURCH, not to a man
or men as head of the Church. The brethren as a WHOLE - the
CHURCH at Thessalonia would have to follow Jesus' instructions of
Matthew 18 to disfellowship such as noted here by Paul.
At times point number 1 above is often naturally taken by
the members of a congregation, until the outline of Matthew 18 is
followed in dealing with the offender. Most of the time an
offender such as here described will repent upon one or more
persons lovingly correcting them for their lifestyle sin. If they
do not repent after the first and second admonition, then the
Church as a whole would have to take corrective action, even to
the point of disfellowshipping them until repentance was
forthcoming.
THE CONCLUSION BY PAUL
Whichever of the above views you want to take, Paul has only
ONE conclusion: "Yet count him not as an ENEMY, but ADMONISH HIM
AS A BROTHER."
He is not to be shunned as you would an enemy - as you would
someone who is out to kill you. The Greek word here used for
enemy is echthros. Strong's Concordance says on this word: " from
the prim. echtho (to hate); hateful (pass. odidus, or act.
hostile); usually as a noun, an adversary (especially Satan): -
enemy, foe."
This Greek word is used as referring to the Devil in
Mat.13:39. Christians are to get as far away from Satan - our
enemy - and his works as possible. The brothers here noted by
Paul are NOT to be counted as ENEMIES, but they are to be
admonished - be worked with as BEING STILL (as the Amplified
Bible puts it) a BROTHER!
Now, those who hold that Paul is telling the Thessalonians
to disfellowship such persons, and that excommunication means to
avoid and never speak to that person, can hardly reconcile verse
15 with verse 14. It would then be plainly a contradiction.
Again, we quote some pertinent passages from the Matthew
Henry's Bible Commentary:
"His commands and directions to the WHOLE CHURCH - regard,
their behavior toward the disorderly persons who were among
them......The directions of the apostle are carefully to be
observed in this matter. We must be very cautious in Church
censures and Church discipline. We must, FIRST, NOTE that man who
is.......charged.......this is, we must have sufficient PROOF of
his fault before we proceed further. We must, SECONDLY, admonish
him in a friendly manner.......and this should be DONE PRIVATELY
(Mat.18:15). Then, if he will not hear, we must, THIRDLY,
WITHDRAW from him. That is, we must avoid FAMILIAR CONVERSE and
society with such; for two reasons - namely, that we may not
learn his evil ways (for he who follows vain and idle persons,
and keeps company with such, is in danger of becoming like them).
Another reason is - for the shaming and so the reforming, of them
that offend: that when idle and disorderly persons see how their
loose practices are disliked by all wise and good people, they
may be ashamed of them, and walk more orderly. Love, therefore,
to the persons of our offending brethren........should be the
motive of our withdrawing from them; and yet those who are under
the censure of the Church must not be ACCOUNTED AS ENEMIES
(v.15)" (emphasis his and mine).
There is, I venture to say, a great deal of truth in those
comments of Matthew Henry.
The THIRD TEXT as to what our attitude and work should be
towards those who have either left the Church because of sin in
their lives, or have been put out of its fellowship by the Church
for their open unrepentant practice of sin, is found in James
5:19,20.
The Amplified Bible reads: "(My) brethren, if anyone among
you strays from the truth and falls into error, and
another(person) BRINGS HIM BACK (to God), let the (latter)
one be sure that whoever turns a sinner from his evil course will
save (that one's) soul from death and will cover a multitude of
sins (that is, procure the pardon of many sins committed by the
convert)" (emphasis mine).
Note carefully verse 19 - "BRETHREN, if any of YOU...."
James is writing to converted Christians. He says that if any
true Christian "err from the truth" - God's word is truth(John
17:17) and one who converts him brings him back to God's truth,
many sins will have been forgiven.
What kind of a person is James talking about? Is it just
someone who has "slipped'' along life's Christian road? Or is it
not someone who has known the truth, has lived in it, walked in
it, practiced the true way as a lifestyle, but has now in the
present TURNED AWAY, turned to living a life that is contrary to
the commandments of the Lord?
This person has rejected the truth. They had to know it
before they could turn from it. They have chosen to practice a
life of sin, living as the unconverted. The passage talks about
the sinner being again converted from the error of his way - his
life, his living, and being saved from death because he will
again find mercy and his sins forgiven.
Once you have become a truly converted person, your sins
forgiven by the blood of Christ - once you have received God's
Spirit and your heart and mind is wanting to do God's will,
living by His every word, once you are in a constant attitude of
humility and repentance, not wanting to sin but to live as God
and Christ live, you are not under the death sentence but under
the grace of God. Your mind set is to obey God, to say as Jesus
said: "not my will be done but your(the Father's) will be done."
You may slip up and fall at times, miss the mark and sin, but you
are not deliberately and willfully rebelling against the way of
the Lord, so you have passed from death to life, the second death
can not touch you.
The only way you can come under the sentence of death again
is to set your mind to knowingly, deliberately, with clear intent
and purpose, turn your back on the truths revealed to you, set
your course to walk away from the pathway of righteousness, leave
holding the hand of God, and walk in the lifestyle of Satan, the
unconverted world and carnal human nature.
This basic truth is what Paul spent so much time explaining
to the Church at Rome in his letter to them (see Romans chapters
three to eight).
James is saying that if a Christian BRINGS BACK to God a
brother, who has again become a slave to sin (has come under the
sentence of death), he does a great work. He will be partly
responsible for saving a sinner from death.
The type of sinner here understood must be someone who has
turned his back on God - left the Church and truths of the Lord;
or someone whose life in the Church was such that the membership
had no choice but to impose correction and censorship from their
fellowship.
Whichever the case, to CONVERT someone back to God requires
a certain amount of contact!
You will never bring a person back to the way of the Lord if
you avoid them at all costs, never write or speak to them again.
THE KIND OF DISFELLOWSHIPPING TAUGHT BY SOME RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THESE VERSES IN THE BOOK
OF JAMES!
WHAT JESUS REALLY TAUGHT
"....... but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." This is what Jesus
said in Mat.18:17. The RSV translates the last phrase
as......"let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector."
A footnote in the LIVING BIBLE says: "Literally, 'let him be
to you as the gentile and publican.' "
THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE AT THE TIME OF CHRIST
In the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary(page 835) we
read this:
"Entering the temple area one came to four successive walled
courts, which surrounded the temple, each more exclusive than the
one outside it. The first was the court of the GENTILES. It was
not holy ground and non-Jews were permitted there. Here buying
and selling went on; it was here that Jesus cleansed the temple
(John 2:14-17). Within the court of the Gentiles were situated
the Temple and Inner Courts, built on a platform 22 feet above
the floor of the outer court. Stairways led up to this platform.
A stone wall surrounded it, on which wall were placed stones with
inscriptions in Greek and Latin FORBIDDING NON-JEWS FROM ENTERING
ON PAIN OF DEATH. Several of these stones have been found "
Most Bible Commentaries have taken Matthew 18:17, together
with how the temple was constructed, regarding the keeping of
Gentiles OUT of the temple area proper, to say that the Church
does have the right to excommunicate undesirable persons (we have
already seen what types of sins they would be openly practicing
and promulgating) that would not repent of living in open sin.
AND THIS IS TRUE - the CHURCH as a congregation, does have
this power. Paul makes that plain in 1 Cor.5 regarding the man
practicing incest. He told them, THEY, had the right to judge
that matter (v.l-2) and put that person out of their fellowship
(v.5-13).
This they apparently did, as most commentators agree is thus
stated in 2 Cor.2:5-8 (see the Amplified Bible). The punishment
of disfellowshipping that person was of MANY, not just a few or
of one man.
The FIRST truth Jesus is giving is that the Church does have
the authority to exercise excommunication as warranted.
The SECOND truth is that only the CHURCH has this right. It
was never given to only ONE man. The CHURCH as a collective local
congregation of members is the only authority that can impose
disfellowshipment on any person. Here we see checks and balances,
and the acting out of the proverb that says, "in the multitude of
counsellors there is safety."
Here is what the Interpreter's Bible Commentary has to say
in part on this:
" This is one of the two passages in the gospels where the
word CHURCH is used, and here it denotes the local
congregation.......It is also clear that as yet in the average
congregation there is NO OFFICIAL who wields FULL DISCIPLINARY
POWER" (emphasis mine).
Commenting as a whole on this passage in Matthew 18, the
same commentary says:
"....... Robert Louis Stevenson has written of our quarrels
- ' With a little more patience and a little less temper, a
gentler and wiser method might be found in almost every case.'
Here Christian patience is described in gentleness and wisdom. A
friend is to go to the offender, thus making the first advance.
He is to point out the fault, but PRIVATELY and in lowly
friendship. His purpose is not to humiliate or condemn, but to
GAIN A BROTHER - to gain him for friendship and for the Church of
Christ. Even if the private plea fails, the culprit is not to be
branded publicly; but two or three men, chosen for Christian
grace, are to be told of the failure, in order that their urgings
may be added. Only if they fail is the WHOLE congregation to
know; and even then they must not thrust the sinner from their
comradeship except in his continued obduracy. We gain thus a
glimpse into the problems of the early Church. There were, even
then, careless and wayward members; and sometimes there was OPEN
SCANDAL. The epistles confirm this picture " (emphasis mine).
Now, let us ask ourselves: How did Jesus treat GENTILES and
PUBLICANS? Did He completely avoid them? Did He never speak to a
gentile or publican? Did Christ look upon them as enemies - to
avoid at all costs?
Jesus Christ is our EXAMPLE. We are to follow His steps (1
Peter 2:21). We can do no better than to see how He regarded the
Gentile and tax collector.
Jesus TALKED about salvation to a Samaritan woman (John
4:3-26). He SPOKE to, did good to a Gentile centurion (Matthew
8:5-13). He CONVERSED with a Gentile woman and healed her
daughter (Mat.15:21-28). One of Jesus' 12 disciples was a tax
collector - a publican (Mark 2:13). He at times ATE MEALS with
publicans and sinners (Luke 5:29-32).
Christ did NOT AVOID AT ALL COSTS the Gentile. He did at
times have CONVERSATIONS with and do GOOD to the Gentile and
publicans. Why, it is recorded that He was a FRIEND of publicans
and sinners. He was not their ENEMY!
This same Jesus said we were to LOVE and DO GOOD to even our
enemies.
Oh, how could we read these accounts of Jesus' friendship,
conversing with and helping Gentiles and publicans, and then use
Christ's own statement in Matthew 18:17 to say that He is there
teaching a doctrine of "avoid completely, never talk or speak to
a disfellowshipped member of the Church of God."
HOW MISUNDERSTOOD HAS THAT STATEMENT BY JESUS BECOME TO
SOME RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS!
The Gentiles in Christ's day were, as Paul put it: "At that
time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no
hope, and without God in the world" (Eph.2:12).
In today's Christian language the Gentiles would have been
called the "unconverted of the world."
How are Christians to treat the unconverted? Are they to
avoid them? Are they to shun them, never speak to them, never
write to them?
Paul gives us the answer: "I wrote unto you in an epistle
not to company with fornicators: yet NOT ALTOGETHER with the
fornicators of THIS WORLD, or with the covetous, or extortioners,
or with idolaters; for then must you needs go out of this world"
(1 Cor.5:9,10).
A Christian must not COMPLETELY cut himself off to the
people of this world - to the unconverted - or he would have to
become a hermit dwelling in some cave in the earth.
Jesus said that those who would not listen to the Church and
repent, should be treated as the unconverted Gentile and
publican. Paul was inspired to say that we should not cut
ourselves off completely to the unconverted world.
Obviously the company we should not keep with open
rebellious sinners within the context of the Church of God, is a
"buddy-buddy" relationship, where you spend hours with them just
"shooting the breez"' or going to social functions with them,
thus giving the impression to all that you allow their life-style
of sin as no "big deal" and okay with God.
This "company" keeping was going on by the members of the
Church at Corinth towards the man guilty of practicing incest, so
his open sin was not being rebuked. Maybe they thought that by
showing grace to him, he would be redeemed out of his sin, but
Paul was inspired to instruct that was not the way to handle the
situation.
Christ taught we were to be the LIGHT to the world. We were
to do good to those who did us evil, to pray for those who
despitefully used us, to LOVE our enemies. And those whom the
Church had to discipline were to be looked upon as the Gentile -
the unconverted.
And the unconverted are prospective members of the family of
God, if and when they repent; SO HOW MUCH MORE someone who has
known the truth and way of God, but is for the moment taken by
the wiles of Satan and sin.
Are we just to forget about them, hang them out to dry and
wither up to die? Some would teach so. Is that what Paul taught?
He answers us with words concerning the man put out of the
Church for incest: "But if someone (the one among you who
committed incest) has caused (all this) grief and pain, he has
caused it not to me, but in some measure, not to put it too
severely (has distressed) all of you. For such a one this censure
by the majority (which he has received is) sufficient
(punishment). So, (instead of further rebuke now) you should
rather turn and (graciously) forgive and comfort and encourage
(him), to keep him from being overwhelmed by excessive sorrow and
despair. I therefore beg you to reinstate him in your affections
and assure him by your love for him" (2 Cor. 2:5-8 Amplified
Bible).
This does not sound like Paul is teaching any "avoid and
never speak to" doctrine of disfellowshipping. It certainly does
not sound like Paul had the attitude of "let him hang out,
shrivel up and die."
But it does show that AFTER the censorship by the MAJORITY
has been applied to someone, the Church should do all it can to
show him affection, encouragement, and assure him of their love.
Oh, indeed, the teachings of Paul are not at variance with
the greatest of all teachers, the one who said: "..... you pay
tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have OMITTED the
WEIGHTIER matter of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; THESE
OUGHT YOU TO HAVE DONE, and not to leave the other undone"
(Mat.23:23).
Some have seen that the Church has the power and authority
to exercise censorship at times (though most do not understand
for what and how it should be done) and do so, but OMIT the most
important part of this law - LOVE! Love when applying it and the
assurance of love after it is applied.
You cannot show love if you NEVER speak or write to the
disfellowshipped; or if you avoid them at all costs.
The Spirit of the Lord inspired Paul to write: "If a man be
overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual, restore such an
one....... count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a
brother."
The Spirit of the Lord inspired James to say: "....he which
converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul
from death..."
THE LOST SHEEP
Jesus taught us the parable of the lost sheep - Luke 15:4-7.
I will give you an explanation of this parable that is not the
common one usually given, but an explanation that is backed up by
an Old Testament prophecy.
Sheep are often used as a type and representation of the
righteous children of God, and goats as a type of the wicked or
unconverted, see Matthew 25:31-46. The "sheep" then in Luke
15:4-6 are the righteous - the children of God, ones already
filled with the Spirit of God. But some along the way get lost,
wander away from the truth and the fold of the Church, they are
overcome by Satan, and sin. Does the shepherd just forget about
them or say he'll leave them alone until they find THEIR way back
to the fold and THEN receive them?
No! The shepherd goes to SEEK for them! So the Church is to
patiently seek for those who have wandered away into open sin, to
find and try to bring them back into the fold of God. The Church
must speak to and communicate with the lost sheep. And what great
rejoicing there is in heaven when just one sinner repents and
returns to the fold.
There is no teaching in this parable of letting the
disfellowshipped or those who have turned again back into the
world of habitual sin, just "wither up and die." But there is the
example of LOVE, CONCERN, and a desire to FIND and SEEK the lost
sheep.
There is a prophecy in Ezekiel 34 that the Church of God
needs to heed, needs to apply to the Church, needs to listen to
and be correct by.
The Church of God has not always in its history, understood
correctly the doctrine of "Church Disfellowshipping" and so much
harm as been the result. Some at times have been excommunicated
when they should not have been, for the wrong reasons, performed
in the wrong manner, with a hateful or holier than thou attitude.
Many were left to dry up and die spiritually, without any thought
given to restoring them. Shame on the Church of God!
It is time to REPENT of such wrong doings and heed the
warning of God from the mouth of Ezekiel.
"Son of man, prophecy against the shepherds of Israel (the
leaders of the Church of God, for our lesson) prophecy, and say
unto them, thus says the Lord God unto the shepherds; woe be to
the shepherds of Israel that do FEED THEMSELVES! Should not the
shepherds feed the flock? The DISEASED have you not strengthened,
neither have you HEALED that which was SICK, neither have you
BOUND UP that which was BROKEN, neither have you BROUGHT AGAIN
that which was DRIVEN AWAY, neither have you SOUGHT that which
was LOST; but with force and with cruelty have you ruled them"
(Ezekiel 34:2-4 emphasis mine).
Truly, on this topic we have studied, the time is now when
"he that has an ear to hear with, should hear."
May all ministers and members of the Church work together to
ensure that this doctrine of the word of the Lord is correctly
taught and is not abused, so the Church of God can go forward in
holiness unto the coming of our Savior Christ Jesus, Amen.
.................
Written first in 1980. Slightly revised in 1995
To be continued with more in-depth study from the writings
Paul.
DISFELLOWSHIP !!
PART 2
by
Keith Hunt
DID PAUL CONTRADICT CHRIST?
A Christian is told by Paul not to "keep company........NO,
NOT TO EAT WITH" a brother who is a fornicator, covetous,
idolater, railer, drunkard, extortioner - 1 Cor.5:11. We have
discussed earlier the type of person who would be doing these
things(a person who practices openly, as a way of life with no
remorse or sorrow or attempt to overcome these practices) and
that the church may have no choice but to dis- fellowship them.
Yet, is Paul saying here that the church brethren should not
attempt to bring this person back to Christ and Godliness - that
they should never speak to or write to such a person in Christian
love and concern?
Let's look at what Paul said. He told the brethren "not to
keep company" but he did NOT SAY, "Do not keep company and NEVER
SPEAK to such brothers." He did not say, "NEVER WRITE to them."
He did not say, "You must leave them alone - neither write or
speak to them, even in an attempt to win them back to Christ."
OF COURSE HE DID NOT SAY THESE THINGS to the Corinthians,
because Paul KNEW we should endeavour to restore such persons to
the brotherhood of Christ. He wrote so, as we have seen in
Galatians 6:1 and 2 Thes.3:6,11,14-15. The apostle James also
taught this truth(James 5:19,20).
Paul did not contradict James or Christ.
Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians that they should
not have CLOSE FAMILIAR contact with such people. They were no
longer to be BUDDY - BUDDIES. They were not to associate with
them as they once did. They were not to SOCIALIZE with them -
attend parties, cookouts, weekend campouts, backyard barbecues.
The church was to censure them from its social functions,
picnics, dances, and feasts.
BUT NOWHERE in this verse or any other writings of Paul,
does he teach that the church is to treat these brothers or
sisters as ENEMIES - which must be shunned and never spoken to.
On the contrary, Paul taught Christian brethren to try to
win back the wayward brother, just as James taught, just as
Christ taught in the parable of the Lost Sheep. And just as God
inspired Ezekiel to write to the shepherds of Israel(Ezek.34).
To DO THIS will necessitate, AT TIMES, a certain amount of
speaking to, or writing to, the brother you want to see back in
the fold and true way of the Lord.
ROMANS 16:17-18
Paul says to MARK those which cause the church troubles and
avoid them. The Greek word for "mark" simply means - regard,
consider, take heed, look at. It is the same Greek word used in
Phil.3:17, where Paul tells us to MARK those who follow Christ
and use them as your example. The Greek word itself does NOT mean
"disfellowship."
Paul does say to AVOID them.
But HOW?
This instruction by Paul can be rightly taken in TWO ways.
1. Censorship WITHIN the church. Such troublemakers you will
soon discern by their spirit of dissention and division in
conversations and life style. They will be ever trying to divide
and destroy unity. From such Paul says WITHDRAW - stay out of
their way, do not be a buddy-buddy of theirs. Then, God willing,
they may come to see the error of their tongue and ways. Kind
loving correction will often solve the problem as others withdraw
from them.
2. Censorship OUTSIDE the church. The problem these
troublemakers bring may become so large and offensive to all the
members of the church that they may have(in order not to fall
into confusion and disarray) no choice but to put these people
out of its fellowship. If this be the case, then we are to avoid
them as previously stated under 1 Cor.5:11. But using love,
endeavour to bring them to the unity that is in Christ.
If the number 2 way be the only course of action left for
the church, HOW is it to be done?
We have already seen Christ's instruction in Mat.18. Does
Paul here say any differently? Does Paul here give the local
minister - one man - as many congregations only have one minister
or Elder - the right and authority to disfellowship these
persons? Does Paul say it is only the elders(plural) who have
this right? Did he say Peter or James or some HEAD apostle(who
claims headship and/or is put as head by others) only had this
authority?
Let us notice carefully what Paul said:
"Now I beseech YOU, BRETHREN. Mark them...."(verse 17).
He did NOT say: "I beseech you, minister" or "I beseech you,
elders" or "I beseech you head elder."
He said: ".....You, BRETHREN."
Yes, he addressed ALL the brethren to whom he was writing.
We read in chapter one, verse 7, that Paul was writing to ALL the
Christians at Rome; and he says this MARKING of certain ones must
be done by all.
The word of God does not contradict itself. Paul does not
oppose what Christ taught. If these verses are used to say we
must disfellowship those who cause divisions and walk contrary to
Christ, then it must be the BRETHREN(THE MAJORITY DECISION OF THE
CHURCH CONCERNED) WHO ARE TO EXERCISE THIS CENSORSHIP!
Not one man! Not one minister or elder! Not even a
collection of elders! It is the church as a WHOLE that have this
authority!
This is clearly what Christ taught, and this is what Paul
taught!
1 COR.16:22 "IF ANY MAN LOVE NOT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST LET
HIM BE ANATHEMA MARANATHA."
The Greek word for ANATHEMA is, as Strong's Concordance
says: "a (religious) ban or(concr.) excommunication(thing or
person) :- accursed, anathema, curse, x great."
The LIVING BIBLE translates: ".....That person is
cursed...." The RSV says: ".....Let him be accursed...."
The MODERN LANGUAGE renders it: ".....He shall be accursed...."
The one Greek word for the English "Let him be" is in the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE tense.
The present tense denotes action now going on or a state now
existing. The imperative denotes the mood of a verb that
expresses a command, request, or advice.
The Greek word is in the command, request or advice mood,
and in the present (not past or future) continuous tense.
How we translate the Greek word "anathema" will give us a
few alternatives as to how to understand what Paul is saying. If
we translate it as ACCURSED or CURSED, then we go with how the
LIVING BIBLE renders it: "....that person IS cursed."
Paul is giving advice. Those who do not love Christ are NOW
presently under a curse. To love Christ is to accept Him as your
saviour and keep His commandments. Then we are not under the
penalty of the law - death. We are not cursed to die as sinners,
but free from death to life. Those who do not love Christ(and His
word) are presently under a curse of death until they repent of
their sins and accept Christ as their saviour.
Those who once loved Christ but have made shipwreck their
faith, who now no longer love Jesus and His way of life, are
again presently cursed by the penalty of sin - death.
Paul is thus advising them that LOVE is the important thing.
To love Christ is to love what He taught, to love to obey Him,
to love to serve Him, love to follow in His steps. As Paul had
already said in chapter 13, though a person has great gifts and
deeds, if he did not have love it was to no avail. His gifts and
deeds would not save him without love. A true sincere humble
attitude and motivation towards Christ, and loving concern for
fellow man, is an essential for not being under the curse of
death.
If we translate "anathema" as meaning BAN or EXCOMMUNICATE,
then we stay with the KJV of "Let him be(advice, command - now
be, present action) anathema(banned, excommunicated).
So then we have another verse which would teach that the
church has power to censure certain individuals.
But nothing in this verse gives ONE man this right or
authority, not even a group of elders.
Nothing contradicts what Christ taught in Matthew 18:15-17
(or anything else Paul wrote) that the CHURCH(the collective
members as a whole) ONLY HAVE THIS POWER.
Who would be the ones so censured? Why, only those who do
not love Christ. The expression "love not" is in the present
tense. Paul is talking about persons who LOVE NOT Jesus as a
present continuous way of life. We have already seen the types of
persons and life styles that could come under "not loving the
Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul finishes by saying "Maranatha" - which is a Syriac
phrase, and signifies "THE LORD COMETH."
The very Lord they do not love, is coming - coming to
execute judgment, and to say to the wicked, those who will not
repent: "Depart from me you workers of iniquity." For if you
never come to love Christ you must be censured to the eternal
curse of eternal death.
GAL.5:10,12. "HE THAT TROUBLES YOU SHALL BEAR HIS JUDGMENT,
whosoever he be ...... I would they were even cut off which
trouble you."
Is there anything in these verses that gives ONE minister,
or a group of ministers, the power to excommunicate? Does Paul
say: "These troublemakers I will PERSONALLY disfellowship" or
"When I find out who these people are that trouble you, I will
put them out of the church" or "Find out who these persons are
and have your Elder/s disfellowship them." ?
No! There is nothing said to contradict what has been
already said by Jesus, that only the CHURCH as a whole has the
authority to disfellowship anyone. Paul did not even know WHO
these troublemakers were. He said they would bear their
punishment, "WHOSOEVER he be." And verse 12 should be better
translated from the Greek to read: "I wish those who unsettle and
confuse you would(go all the way and) CUT THEMSELVES
OFF"(Amplified Bible).
The INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH also gives the sense as Paul
WISHING that these troublemakers would cut THEMSELVES OFF. See
also the PHILLIPS translation.
If you wanted to stay with the translation of the KJV, at
best, Paul is only giving the churches of Galatia(the book was
written to churches of Galatia - chapter 1:2), his WISHES, his
desires, his advice - that the churches themselves would bear the
responsibility of ACTION.
This is the understanding taken by most Bible commentaries.
1 THES. 5:14. "NOW WE EXHORT YOU, BRETHREN, WARN THEM THAT
ARE UNRULY..."
Here Paul and others (now WE exhort) did not immediately
cast out those who were unruly, but told the brethren to warn
them. Paul obviously did not take it upon himself. He probably
did not even know who these unruly people were. He gave the
BRETHREN the power to warn them, which is exactly what Jesus
Christ Himself taught, as recorded in Matthew 18:17.
TITUS 3:10,11. "A MAN THAT IS AN HERETIC AFTER THE FIRST AND
SECOND ADMONITION, REJECT; knowing that he that is such is
subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
The Greek for "heretic" used here denotes "to take for
oneself, a schismatic" (see Strong's Concordance). A person then
who causes DIVISION, who has a mind set on dividing, whose
purpose and aim is to divide and conquer. The Greek for
"subverted" is correctly translated PERVERT. The Greek word for
"sinneth" is in the present tense.
The men(could be a Christian brother or could be just an
outsider wanting to cause trouble) here spoken of are HABITUAL
sinners. They live a life style of this sin. They are perverted
as a present continuous action in this sin. What is their sin?
Why, constantly working to disunite and divide the church.
These verses and Romans 16:17-18 are related.
Notice! Paul is teaching Titus exactly the same thing as
Christ taught His disciples - one admonition, two admonitions,
third admonition (by the whole church - Mat.18:17) - reject.
There is no conflict between Paul and Christ - only HARMONY!
1 TIM. 6:3-5. "IF ANY MAN TEACH OTHERWISE, AND consent not
to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
to the doctrine which is according to Godliness, he is proud -
knowing nothing - but doting about questions and strifes of
words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the
truth, supposing that gain is Godliness. FROM SUCH WITHDRAW
YOURSELF."
It should be evident from the plain language Paul uses here
as to the character and lifestyle of the people here described.
It does NOT describe a person who loves God and his fellow man
with sincerity and humility, but has a few differences of opinion
on church administration, policy or understanding of some Bible
verses.
The person Paul describes is DESTITUTE OF THE TRUTH! These
refuse God'sword and will not live by it!
What does Paul say to Timothy(a minister of God)? Does he
tell him to use his PERSONAL authority to cast them out of the
church - to disfellowship them? Does Paul instruct Timothy to
get some other ministers and together censure these people? Does
he tell Timothy to go to a higher ranking elder(maybe Peter,
James, or Paul himself) with their names and evil deeds, and
obtain authority from them to excommunicate these fellows?
No! He tells Timothy none of these things. He does tell
him to do a PERSONAL thing, something all true followers of
Christ should do. When confronted with these types of
individuals - FROM SUCH WITHDRAW YOURSELF! Do not be a buddy of
theirs. Stay out of their way. Don't be a close friend of such
persons.
Such people here described by Paul to Timothy may very well
come under the verses of Romans 16:17-18 and Titus 3:10,11. And
so the instructions of Matthew 18:15- 17 would need apply.
1 TIM.5:19,20. "AGAINST AN ELDER RECEIVE NOT AN ACCUSATION,
BUT BEFORE TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. THEM THAT SIN REBUKE BEFORE
ALL, THAT OTHERS ALSO MAY FEAR."
If Timothy did not have any PERSONAL power to disfellowship
anyone, then what authority did he have in regard to other
ministers or elders?
The letters to Timothy are known as PASTORAL letters -
instructions to a minister or elder.
It is evident from these verses that an elder can act as a
mediator between problems within the eldership itself and that of
the membership of the church.
Paul was instructed by Christ. He knew the teachings of
Jesus as given in Mat.18:15-17. Paul would have instructed
Timothy likewise. If a minister had aught against another
minister he should go to him alone and try to solve the problem.
If that doesn't work, then two or three can go together to the
one involved in the dispute. Now, if no satisfaction can be
reached between these ministers, then Paul would ADD ONE MORE
STEP to be taken in eldership problems: bring in a MEDIATOR.
Paul is instructing Timothy that he should not be a mediator in
eldership problems until the first TWO STEPS of Matthew 18 have
been taken.
If it is a member of the church having a problem with an
elder, then the same rule of Matthew 18 still applies - personal
talk first to try and solve the problem, then if not rectified,
two or three go to the elder involved. If still no satisfaction,
then another elder/s brought in to mediate.
If the Elder is in the wrong, does Paul then say Timothy had
the power to "disfellowship" or "cast out" or "excommunicate"
these sinning ministers? No! All the PERSONAL authority that
Timothy is given is to REBUKE the sinning minister before all -
to rebuke those who are clearly to be blamed and will not repent.
This is the power that is given to the servants of God - a power
that Paul himself had to use against Peter when Peter was clearly
and obviously in the wrong for racial prejudice at one time in
his life(see Gal.2:11-14).
If the Elder would continue in the sin with no repentance
then the final actions of Mat.18 would need be applied by the
whole church - disfellowship.
Nothing here in 1 Tim 5. gives any minister the personal
power to mark and disfellowship another minister.
1 TIM.1:19-20. "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which
some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of
whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto
Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."
Here at last (some will say) we have a passage which says
Paul himself PERSONALLY marked and cast out of the church two
individuals.
If this is so, then truly we have found a contradiction in
the scriptures. But Christ said the scriptures CAN NOT BE BROKEN!
God does not contradict Himself! So let us carefully and humbly
search for the truth as to what Paul is saying here. Remember
also what Peter said about some of the writings of Paul(2 Peter
3:16).
Paul is talking in verse 19 about individuals who have CAST
OFF or REJECTED (as the Greek word for "having put away"
signifies) THE faith (the word "the" is in the original Greek,
see the Greek-English NT by Berry). They had turned away from
Christ, from following in His steps. These two named individuals
had made ship wreck their faith in Christ. The tense for the
Greek word translated in English as "have made shipwreck" is in
the AORIST INDICATIVE, which signifies an action taken in the
PAST.
Paul says SOME(even more than those named) - indicating that
they, of their OWN will and determination, have already(at some
point in the past) cast away the faith - no longer walking with
Christ. Paul does not say that he himself cast away their faith
by putting them out of the church. He does not say that he
"marked" and disfellowshipped them and by so doing has caused
their faith to be broken and rejected. After all, can ANY MAN by
his decree nullify your faith - claim you are no longer a child
of God? Or is it YOU ONLY, by your own mind and life, who can
terminate your relationship with God and Christ?
These people of their OWN SELVES - their own deliberate,
willful determination, decided to turn the other way and no
longer follow the faith of Jesus. They were not "put out" by some
MAN. They turned away from Christ by their OWN choosing.
The MATTHEW HENRY COMMENTARY says: "As for those who had
made shipwreck of the faith - he specifies two.....who had made a
profession of the Christian religion, but had quitted that
profession."
Now let us study verse 20.
Paul singles out two individuals who had quit the faith. As
this letter is written to a minister, it would not be wrong to
deduct that the two men named were also ministers, and were well
known by Paul and Timothy, hence he mentions them by name.
The Greek for "I have delivered" is in the first person
singular aorist indicative. Here is what the ANALYTICAL GREEK
LEXICON says about the aorist tense: "The Aorist is strictly the
expression of a momentary or transient single action.....and in
the indicative mood it ordinarily signifies past time. It is,
however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need
to make a direct expression of the circumstance. It is thus of
constant use in the narrative of past transactions."
We could paraphrase this statement by Paul to read:
"I personally on an occasion in the past delivered them over
to Satan."
The tense of the word is a single action done in the past.
But what about the MEANING of this Greek word?
Strong's Concordance says: "To surrender, yield up, entrust,
transmit, betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver, give,
hazard, put in prison, recommend."
Matthew Henry comments: "Paul had delivered them to Satan,
and DECLARED them to belong to the Kingdom of Satan."
Paraphrased, we could render this: "Whom I have entrusted,
committed - RECOMMENDED to Satan."
Does this action of Paul - recommending someone to the power
of Satan, seem UN-Christian? We must remember that God does
chasten every son He loves(Heb.12:3- 11). And He may, if He
chooses, use the power of the Satanic world to fulfil His
purpose. God did use and allow Satan to bring much trouble on Job
in order to humble him to real repentance.
Paul is not out of order in asking God to deliver these two
men(he knew as one time servants in the work of the Lord) over to
Satan and his power. Why? Paul goes on to tell us: "That they
may be DISCIPLINED(as the Greek is better translated) not to
blaspheme."
He wanted them to come back to the faith - to repent - to
walk again with God. So, even in this Paul shows CONCERN and
LOVE.
Paul knew and obeyed the teaching of Christ, to LOVE your
enemies, PRAY for and do GOOD to those who persecute,
despitefully use, and hate you. Paul prayed now that these two
men who had left the faith and were now a part of Satan's world,
would be disciplined by the evil that Satan could bring upon them
so they would again be restored - converted back to God and the
faith of Christ.
A HUMAN MAN - HEAD AND DECISION MAKER OF THE CHURCH?
Some teach that Peter was made head of the church by Christ.
Others say that the true church today is headed by one man who is
able to make binding decisions, even to the casting out of the
church those he will.
Those who teach this idea use Matthew 16:18-19 to give proof
to the supremacy of ONE authoritarian man as head of the church.
But what is the real truth? Let us examine these verses
very closely.
Jesus said: "And I say unto you, that you are Peter(Greek
word - petros; meaning a "stone"), and upon this rock(Greek word
- petra; meaning a "ledge" or "shelf of rock" or "huge boulder")
I will build my church (Mat.16:18).
Now, since some claim that the rock on which the church was
founded refers to Peter - and not Christ - notice the true
meaning, as originally written by Matthew in the Greek language.
Peter was also called Cephas(Greek Kephas - from the Aramaic
Kepha). In John 1:40-42 it is related how Andrew(Simon Peter's
brother) found Peter and brought him to Jesus.
"And when Jesus beheld him he said: You are Simon, the son
of Jona. You shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation,
a stone"(verse 42).
The English word "stone" is translated from the Greek word
petros, meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek
word "kephas" means such a stone, and Jesus used it when
referring to a human man - Peter.
But when Jesus said: "upon this rock I will build my church"
the Greek word, as written by Matthew, was neither kephas or
petros, but P E T R A - which means a LARGE MASSIVE ROCK!
The Greek PETRA can not mean the human Peter, but the
glorified Christ! Speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the
wilderness, Paul wrote: "....For they drank of that spiritual
rock that followed them; and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST"(1 Cor.10:4).
The church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as "being built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets(including Old
Testament prophets), JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF
CORNERSTONE."
Here Christ is plainly said to be the chief, or the HEAD!
The real foundation of the church is Christ. "For other
foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS
CHRIST"(1 Cor.3:11).
He is shown in Revelation 1:13,18, to be the living HEAD,
spiritually in the midst of the church.
Read it also in Eph.5:23; 4:15; 1:22-23; Col.1:18,19; 2:19.
Now, what about Peter being given the power to make BINDING
DECISIONS for the church? Was he given authority to decide
DOCTRINE - the change of doctrine - make binding decisions as to
what the church members were to read, who to listen to, who was
to be IN the church or who was to be CAST out?
The AMPLIFIED BIBLE translates Matthew 16:19 as follows:
"I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
whatever you bind(that is, declare to be improper, and unlawful)
- on earth MUST BE ALREADY BOUND IN HEAVEN; and whatever you
loose on earth(declare lawful) MUST BE WHAT IS ALREADY LOOSED IN
HEAVEN" (emphasis mine).
A footnote gives you the reason why the compilers of the
Amplified Bible so translates verse 19. "Williams:'perfect
passive participle; so things in a state of having been already
forbidden(or permitted)."
The ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON says this: "The PERFECT
conveys the double notion of an action terminated in the past
time, and of its effects existing in the present."
So, contrary to popular teaching, Christ was NOT telling
Peter that he would be the head of the church with power to
decide great issues and make binding proclamations on the
brethren, BUT that HE, Christ, would be the foundation and head
of the church, and that Peter or any other disciple, minister,
elder, apostle, prophet, teacher, could only bind or unbind on
the brethren that which God had already declared to be lawful or
unlawful.
And how can anyone know what God has made lawful or not?
Why, only by a study of God's revelation to man - the BIBLE!
God does not leave man to decide for himself what is right
or what is wrong, what are the true doctrines of God, what
practices and customs to observe. What is SIN, and what is
RIGHTEOUSNESS. He does not leave mankind without instruction on
the LARGE, IMPORTANT issues of life. Such doctrines as "church
government" or the doctrine about "church disfellowshipping" and
how to settle disputes among brethren are all plainly revealed to
us in the word of truth - the Bible.
Man, woman, elders, deacons, can only search the scriptures
to find out what God has already laid down as to the truth of the
matter on these and other subjects that are given to us to
understand.
Christ was telling Peter that he did NOT have the authority
to rule the church with an iron hand or bind things of his OWN
choosing on the people of God.
CAN A GROUP OF MINISTERS MAKE BINDING DECISION?
If ONE man was not given this power to make binding
decisions, then surely a GROUP of God's servants can do so, is
what some will argue, giving Matthew 18:18 as proof. And so the
Roman Catholic church has, to name one organization, used this
teaching to establish Sunday, the first day of the week, in place
of the 7th. Also , it has been used to establish Christ-mass,
Easter, and other festivals from paganism, to dogmatize celibacy,
to prohibit the use of contraceptives in marriage, and other
doctrines.
Can a group of men therefore decide to ADD to doctrine,
change doctrine, or make up doctrines and BIND THEM on the rest
of the church? Can a group of ministers get together and decide
WHO can be in the church or who they can throw out? Can some
elders decide to disfellowship another elder?
The AMPLIFIED BIBLE translates Matthew 18:18 as:
"Truly, I tell you, whatever you forbid and declare to be
improper and unlawful on earth must be what is already forbidden
in Heaven; and whatever you permit and declare proper and lawful
on earth must be already permitted in Heaven."
The GREEK TENSE is again perfect passive - just as in
chapter 16:19.
Surely, there are many decisions to be made as far as
administration, evangelism, spreading of the gospel via print and
TV etc., youth activities, church socials, office supplies, and
other day to day things in the life of a church. BUT binding laws
can only come from God - for only God is the lawgiver - James
4:12.
All that man can do is humbly and diligently search the word
of the Lord to find what He has made lawful or unlawful.
There is a certain area where elders do have some authority
regarding people and sins.
After Jesus was resurrected He appeared to His disciples and
in the context of the Holy Spirit, He said to them: "Whose soever
sins you remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever
sins you retain they are retained"(John 20:23).
One clear area God's servants must use this power and
judgment is when an elder is counselling someone for baptism.
Room does not permit me to go into this subject of water baptism
here, needless to say it is a very important topic in the New
Testament. I have written on it in detail for those who want to
request the study.
Water Baptism is a serious undertaking, with great spiritual
meaning. A minister/saint must be sure(as sure as an elder/saint
can be with the Spirit of God, allowing that he is still human
and can not see the depths of the heart) the person requesting
baptism is in an attitude of repentance and wanting to turn away
from sin. Usually through a number of counselling sessions an
elder or elders or saints can ascertain if someone is ready to
truly yield and follow in the steps of Christ.
I have known some situations where the person was wanting
baptism only because their friend was going to be baptized, or
their mate was ready for baptism but they were not really
repentant or wanting to forsake sin. So the elders/saints refused
to baptize them, and in so doing their sins were retained until
they fully came to know what accepting Christ as their personal
saviour was in truth and righteousness.
There are, now and again, circumstances where an individual
comes in contact with the church, wants some of the things that
the church can offer, desires to have some of the great blessings
and gifts that come by being a true member of the true church,
yet their attitude of heart is FAR from the true God and His way
of life. Elders will often be able to see the truth of the matter
and may have to finally rebuke or correct such an attitude in
those persons.
We have an example in the NT during the life of the apostles
Peter and John. It is found in Acts chapter 8, and beginning with
verse 14.
Let me comment on verse 13 first. Simon it is said
"believed" and was "baptized." His real deep attitude of heart
was soon to be manifested. The leaders and elders in the
church are human, and can from time to time be fooled by some
people who look and sound and act for a while as if they are
truly converted. But time and situations prove otherwise.
Simon became a follower of "the work." Looking and wondering
at all the things being done - the miracles and signs.
Now starting in verse 14, Simon begins to see one way in
which people receive the Holy Spirit.
He offers the apostles money to buy this gift of being able
to give the Spirit to others. His attitude was ALL WRONG! He
wanted to use the Holy Spirit for his own ends, to feather his
own nest and fame. Peter could see through Simon's glass house
and paper walls.
Look at the words from Peter,verses 20 through to 23!
Simon's heart was FAR from the righteousness and purity of
God. Peter could see it and responded accordingly. Simon's sins
were RETAINED, and could only be blotted out from the record by
true humble repentance.
So, the servant's of the Lord do have some power, some
authority, when it comes to sin, but this is a separate and
different subject than the topic we are studying in this
exposition.
Nothing is stated in Acts 8 that Simon was disfellowshipped
by Peter or John, both of them or any group of persons. Peter
tells Simon his sin and admonishes him to repent. We are given no
further information about Simon, his attitude after this incident
- nothing - the NT is silent on the matter.
The elders of the church do have some authority in matters
of sin as we have seen. They also have authority in some other
areas. Please read Matthew the 10th chapter and Luke chapter 10.
You will find the disciples called and sent forth to preach
and teach the word of God given authority or power over a number
of things, but not one or a collection of them as leaders and
elders, are given power/authority to cast out of the church
anyone - to disfellowship!
As stated before in this study, the elders are PART OF the
church, but are NOT "the church" that Jesus said only had the
power to disfellowship(Mat.18:17). The elders can be part of the
body of believers, part of the process, leading to someone being
disfellowshipped, but only a part, not the whole.
A SERIOUS MATTER
For the church to disfellowship anyone is a serious
undertaking. It should be done only when all else has failed, and
they had better make sure, with fear and trembling, that God's
word justifies their decision. For the Eternal God will
".....have judgment without mercy, that has shown no mercy; and
mercy rejoices against judgment"(James 2:13). So the church had
better speak and DO as, ".....They that shall be judged by the
law of liberty"(James 2:12).
The Church of God should be filled with the fruits of God's
Spirit, which are: "....LOVE, joy(gladness), peace, PATIENCE(an
even temper, forbearance), kindness, goodness, self-control
(self-restraint, continence)......" (Galatians 5:22,23, Amplified
Bible).
Let us show love, patience, tolerance, to our fellow man.
Let us give the "benefit of the doubt" to our brother.
For love, ".....is not easily provoked, thinks no evil....."
and ".....is ready to believe the best of every person...." (KJV
and Amplified Bible - 1 Cor.13:5,7).
Let the members of the Church of God get on their knees, and
pray that the church will never have to exercise its power and
authority to disfellowship anyone!
....................
Written first in 1980. Slightly revised in 1995.
Footnote
It was after the first writing of this study that I became
personally familiar with a number of church organizations that
employed in practice the truths given in the word of the Lord
regarding the doctrine of disfellowshipping an unrepentant
sinner. One such church organization was the Seventh Day
Adventist church. In learning from them how they went about
applying Matthew 18:15-17, I was pleasantly surprised to find it
was as written in this study of mine.
The eventual decision to disfellowship a person from their
church is made by the WHOLE membership of that particular
congregation involved. Only the actual members of that
congregation have voting power - no outside members of another
congregation, no visiting members from another congregation, can
participate in the judging and decision.
Such an event is very rare in the SDA churches,and is taken
very seriously, with much soul searching, deep sorrow, with
spiritual pain and even heartfelt literal crying on the part of
many. It brings the whole congregation very close together in
humility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment