Grace and Truth to You

Every Believer a Witness - A Personal Testimony

2009-07-17T00:00:00.002-03:00

This past Sunday morning through Wednesday night our church hosted Dennis Nunn and Every Believer a Witness. Hands down, in twenty-five years of ministry, this past week did more to encourage our church family to be faithful in witnessing to others than anything I have ever before experienced. From 1500 people on Sunday morning, to the several hundred people who came back for each evening 6:30 session, there has developed within our church family this past week a culture of excitement about sharing Jesus. Dennis was funny and engaging, our people were captivated, and by Wednesday night they had learned how to naturally and easily share Christ with others - by simply relating their own story of being touched by Christ Himself. The blind man in the gospels declared, "This one thing I know, I once was blind but now I see." The believers that make up our church family are acting like that blind man.

Rather than give details of what we learned through Every Believer a Witness, allow me to tell you of three spiritually blind people who came to see their need of Christ and publicly shared with our church this past week their own stories.

The San Diego Police Officer

On Sunday night after we learned how to tell others our personal story of our life before Christ, how we came to meet Christ, and our life after Christ, Dennis asked for someone who had never spoken publicly in a church setting to share his or her story.

A fifty year old woman about midway back stood and told us her story. It is impossible for me to write down all she said and to do justice to what we heard that night. We all sat transfixed as this woman named Cheryl, who had just recently begun attending Emmanuel Baptist Church, explained to us how she had met Christ in February of this year. For years she had worked as a San Diego "cop" and had grown hard, cynical and bitter. She saw so much evil, so many wicked things, that she had closed her heart and mind to any concept of God. How could there be a God? - there was just too much evil in the world. Yet, after a medical retirement from the SDPD, she had moved to Oklahoma with her husband to work in the oil fields and God had pursued her. After hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ through the testimony of other believers she had come under conviction herself. She surrendered her life to Jesus Christ and her placed her faith in His death and resurrection. There were many tears as she shared the specifics of her story and how her life had changed since meeting Christ, and at one time she apologized for being so emotional. It was then that Dennis said something I'll never forget - "When God squeezes the heart, the juice comes out the eyes." God was squeezing a ton of hearts that night.

The Wealthy Businessman

On Tuesday night a man who owns his own business that employs three hundred people, and who himself had attended Sunday morning's service, stood and told us his story. He shared how he had allowed money to become his god, how he had been unfaithful to his wife, was going through a divorce, but his own 14 year old son had been talking to his father about repenting of his lifestyle and trusting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Through many tears, the businessman father shared with our church that just a few hours earlier he had given his life to Jesus Christ. He asked his 14 year old son to stand and publicly thanked him for being a faithful witness of what Christ could do for his father. The businessman will be baptized at our baptismal service at Ski Lake next month.

The Single Young Lady

On the very back row of one of our evening services, a young lady stood and described how she had longed for somebody to love her, and absent the kind of love that satisfies the soul, she had turned to alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Through the faithful testimony of a believer, the young lady had come to discover that her needs could only be met through a personal faith relationship with Jesus Christ. She described how she had placed her faith in His death and resurrection and how her life had changed since believing in Christ. Again, I cannot give her story justice in this blog, but what I want you to understand is that people like this stood before hundreds of people during worship services and shared their faith in Christ because they had been taught how to share their stories - "This one thing I know, I once was blind but now I see."

Throughout the week we learned practical ways of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with servers at restaurants, neighbors on the block, co-workers, friends and complete strangers. During the evening services we had testimonies of how God was moving through witnessing to others. Every Believer a Witness is not a new program. It's not a new "method." It is simply getting God's people excited about bragging on Jesus.

And it works.

Two things I wish to encourage those who read this blog to consider:

(1). First, if you are in a position to invite Dennis Nunn to come to your church to lead out in Every Believer a Witness - do it. Contact him at 1.866.888.8589. Your church will never be as excited about witnessing as they will be by the end of the week - and it's not something they have to do - it is something they are EXCITED and WANT to do. Dennis is a staff evangelist for FBC, Woodstock, the church that is pastored by the President of the Southern Baptist Convention President - Johnny Hunt. He will help your church whether it is big or small, metro or rural, traditional or contemporary. Sharing Jesus transcends all those things.

(2). Second, a few have remarked on other blogs that I am moving "leftward" theologically - at least in one case it was because they learned I am the Friday night keynote speaker at the New Baptist Covenant Conference in Norman, Oklahoma on Friday, August 7th, following Jimmy Carter's keynote address on Thursday night. Rather than defend myself against the "leftward leaning" accusations, just let me simply say that after I have spent one week observing the Spirit of God producing some incredible conversions to faith in Jesus Christ through the faithful sharing of the gospel by my church members at Emmanuel - I no longer care that others may accuse me of leaning "leftward."

I know my heart, and if the excitement I feel in seeing so many conversions to Christ- and knowing that we will be baptizing between 50 and 100 people at our baptismal service on August 9th - if that is what it means for my heart to "lean leftward," then give me more leftward leanings! :)

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

A Sincere Question for My Inerrantist Friends

2009-07-15T00:00:00.008-03:00

As most of you know, I consider myself an inerrantist. I have no problem believing the sacred text is inspired, infallible and inerrant. However, I have long told the people who hear me teach that we worship the Christ the Scriptures reveal, not the Scriptures themselves. For this reason, I have no problem with textual criticism. In other words, in those few passages of Scripture where Greek scholars believe a later scribe added words to the Bible, it neither shakes my faith nor causes me to doubt the veracity of Scripture to agree with the scholars' conclusions.

For example, this Sunday I am preaching from I John 5:6-12. The text reads from the King James Version as follows.

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

The emboldened words above (in vs 7-8) are considered by Greek scholars to be an addition to the original text. They believe that because of the controversies in the early church over the deity of Jesus Christ, scribes in the 4th century added the words - words not originally written by John - to help make a stronger case for the deity of Christ and put down the heretics of their day.

Frankly, the text itself seems to confirm the Greek scholars' conclusions. Verses 6-8 speak of the testimonies of man regarding the person of Christ. The water refers to His baptism in the Jordan and what those who witnessed it reported to others about it (God said 'this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased' Matthew 3:16). The blood speaks of Calvary and what those who observed the cross, the earthquake, the eclipse, etc... reported to others it all ('surely this man was the Son of God' Mark 15:39). The spirit (Greek has no capitalization), is "the gospel of truth" (at least according to John Gill), but it also could be a reference to the Holy Spirit which empowers men to proclaim the message of the gospel to others. Regardless, the water (Jesus' baptism), the blood (Jesus' death at Calvary), and the spirit (either the gospel or the Spirit's empowerment to share Christ with others), is the recounting of the history of Jesus Christ - and we believe the testimony. We don't believe a fairy tell. We believe a story that is confirmed by eyewitnesses of actual events. The scribal addition in verses 7-8 seems out of place with the context because it brings in the testimony of heaven, not earth.

It is only beginning in verse 9 that the transition from the testimony of people on earth to the testimony of God takes place. The testimony of God regarding the person of His Son is found in 'life.' He that has the Son has 'life' (an inner divine life). This is, of course, the life that comes from what John calls 'the new birth.' So, the testimony of man is the sharing of Christ's ministry and death with others. The testimony of God is the life that God implants in the person who believes on Christ.

The Greek scholars leave out the emboldened words in verses 7-8 because they don't show up in Greek texts until the 4th Century. For this reason the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New International Version and other modern English translations of the Bible leave out almost all of verse 7 and the first portion of verse 8. For example, the popular English Standard Version translates I John 5:6-12 as follows:

6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Notice how short in length verse 7 in the English Standard Version is compared to the King James Version. In addition, the ESV in vs 7-8 reads completely different than vs 7-8 in the King James Version. Bluntly, almost an entire verse (vs. 7) is left out of the ESV, NIV, NASB, and other translations. An entire statement on the deity of Christ is excluded from our modern English translations.

The question to my inerrantist friends is simple and two fold:

(1). Is your faith in Jesus Christ or in a "perfect" English text (or Greek manuscript)?

(2). Do you talk more to others about your faith in Jesus or your belief in a perfect English text (or Greek manuscript)?

We inerrantist need to realize that the belief in the veracity of the Scriptures does not exclude textual criticisms of our English translations.

We worship the Christ the Bible reveals, not the Bible itself.

In His Grace,

Wade

David Sanders: A Fresh, Conservative Thinker

2009-07-14T00:00:00.002-03:00

My wife and I have the privilege of calling David and Becca Sanders from Little Rock, Arkansas our friends. David is a political columnist with a wide readership in dozens of major newspapers. Of all the newspaper columnists I intentionally read, David Sanders and Cal Thomas are two of my favorites. The Wall Street Journal will once again be carrying a 1,000 word article by David in this Friday's editorial section. Politicians seek his advice, people seek his opinion, political parties seek his favor. David is the featured host of a popular political television show in Arkansas, and on the few occasions when Rachelle and I have had the opportunity of sharing meals with David and Becca Sanders in restaurants within Arkansas, he is almost universally recognized by the patrons. David is young, conservative, articulate, highly connected, and quite influential.

He is also an evangelical Christian.

The Associated Baptist Press is now running regular opinion pieces by David Sanders. Two things that can be said about David's writing for ABP. First, the fact that he is writing for Associated Baptist Press means I will be reading ABP on a more regular basis. Second, the fact that ABP has asked a man the stature of David, conservative in his faith and cooperative in his nature, is an indication that ideological lines may be blurring just a tad for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ and cooperation among all Baptists.

My prayers is that David Sanders and his wife Becca are representing the new, fresh faces of Southern Baptist leadership (they are members of FBC Little Rock) and that Baptists in general will be seen by the world at large as the Sanders represent us -intelligent, Bible-believing, and cooperative with all Christians.

In His Grace,

Wade

An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head:" Are Women Really Free To Function Freely?

2009-07-13T00:00:00.004-03:00

My friend, Dr. Sam Storms, sent me a couple of articles last week in response to my statement that the Greek word translated head, as in the verse "The husband shall be the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" ((Eph. 5:23), means "source" and not "authority or authority over." He suggested if I read the articles, written by Dr. Wayne Grudem, I would change my mind. I was familiar with Dr. Grudem's research, having read it before, but read the articles again - without changing my mind.

The following post is rather lengthy, but I have reprinted Dr. Grudem's short article where he proposes that "head" means authority (and that no biblical scholar can refute this position), and then immediately following, I am posting one of the finest articles I've come across that takes the position that "head" means "source." The second article is written by Laurie Fasullo. In the closing two paragraphs there are a couple of mentions of Grudem's respect, showing respect for, but disagreement with, the conclusions of Dr. Grudem.

Someone might ask, "What's the big deal?" Well, in practical terms, if one holds to Grudem's view, women can not have any type of "authority" over men. Whereas, if one holds that "head" means source, then there is no problem with a woman "teaching" a man, holding a position of "authority" over men, and women being considered equal to men. In my opinion, this is a subject over which evangelical conservative Christians should simply agree to disagree and not divide in fellowship over.

Regardless of your position, after reading both articles below, it should be very apparant that both views take a very high view of the sacred text. This issue is not "liberal" vs. "conservative" but "conservative interpretation" vs. "conservative interpretation."

________________________________________

The Meaning Of “Head” In The Bible
by Wayne Grudem

If you ever meet an egalitarian (an evangelical feminist) claiming that the word "head" in the Bible doesn't mean "authority" but means "source," you may wonder how to answer. Their purpose, of course, is to get rid of the idea of authority in the family in verses like, "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" (Eph. 5:23). So they claim that the word "head" (the Greek word kephalē) meant "source" rather than "authority" in the ancient world. Sometimes they quote some ancient Greek texts which, they say, show Zeus to be the "source" of all things, or Esau to be the "source" of his clan, or which mention the "head" of a river. For a verse about husbands and wives, even this idea makes no sense (I am not the source of my wife!), but they will usually then suggest a more specific meaning like "source of encouragement."

At this point in the discussion there is something that can be done. There is a simple question which they have never been able to answer. It is this:

You claim that the Greek word for "head" means "source without the idea of authority." Will you please show me one example in all of ancient Greek where this word (kephal¯e) is used to refer to a person and means what you claim, namely, "non-authoritative source"?

I asked this of both Catherine Kroeger and Gilbert Bilezikian in public debate in Atlanta in 1986 and they gave me no example. I asked this question in an academic article published in Trinity Journal in 1990 and received no example. I asked this question in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1991 and received no example. That is because no example has ever been found.

The reason is simple: In the Greek speaking world, to be the head of a group of people always meant to have authority over those people. Notice the egalitarian examples: Zeus is the chief of the Greek gods! Esau was the leader of the clan descended from him. These examples don't disprove the idea of authority; they confirm it.

The example of "head of a river "doesn't prove "source without authority," because (1) this usage is not referring to a person at all, and (2) the example is misquoted for Eph. 5:23, because there "head" is singular, and "head" in the singular is in fact used to refer to the other end of the river, the "mouth" while only in the plural is it used of the "source" of the river (see the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon, p. 945), and (3) in both cases it just means "end point," in the same way that it can refer to the "head of a column" or "head of a pole," and these examples have nothing to do with the ideas of "source" or "authority."

I once looked up over 2,300 examples of the word "head" (kephal¯e) in ancient Greek. In these texts the word kephal¯e is applied to many people in authority, but to none without governing authority:
• the king of Egypt is called "head" of the nation
• the general of an army is called the "head" of the army
• the Roman emperor is called the "head" of the people
• the god Zeus is called the "head" of all things
• David as king of Israel is called the "head" of the people
• the leaders of the tribes of Israel are called "heads" of the tribes
• the husband is the "head" of the wife
• Christ is the "head" of the church
• God the Father is the "head" of Christ
(For details, see my 35-page article available under reprints on page 15, or see pages 425-468 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).

No one in a non-leadership position is called "head"-ever. The egalitarian assertion that a person who is called the kephal¯e can be the "source without governing authority" is simply false.

Therefore I would encourage you, in discussing these matters with egalitarian friends, to ask this simple question: May I see an example to support your claim that there is no authority implied in the word "head" in the statement, "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church"?

Can egalitarians find even one example out of millions of words of ancient Greek literature where a person is called "head" and it means "non-authoritative source"? If even one example could be found, then of course we could go on to discuss whether that meaning might be the one that best fits the context of Ephesians 5.

But if they cannot find one example of this meaning, then their proposed sense of the word in Ephesians 5:23 is a theory without one hard fact to support it. Of course, people can still believe in theories that have no facts to support them if they wish, but such belief can no longer be thought to be reasonable or academically responsible. And such unsupported theories should certainly not be used in debates, or written in commentaries and reference books, or thought to be true.

_______________________________________

The Word Kephale ("Head") in the New Testament
Revisiting The Tradition That “Head” Means “Authority Over”
by Laurie Fasullo

The purpose of this paper is to show that neither Paul nor his first century readers would have understood the Greek word for “head,” kephale, to have the meaning given it by many church leaders, e.g., “authority” or “ruler.” I intend to show why that it is certain, and for sure highly improbable, for Paul to have used this word with the traditional notion of “authority over.”

There are two reasons for this paper. The first is that we are to be diligent so that we won’t be ashamed, handling God’s Word accurately (2 Timothy 2:15). The second reason is to show that there can be another valid and more likely meaning for this word other than the one read into it in the past.

Concerning the first reason, if our goal is to glorify God, no matter what, we will not be afraid to discuss different views to see what He is communicating to us. We have all too often seen people (or even ourselves) mishandle the Bible to make a point rather than to find the point the Word is making. We should all strive to be careful to learn what is being taught. It’s easy to read our preconceived ideas into a passage. Because this is a view which is different from the traditional view which most people are accustomed to hearing, I would encourage each reader to have the same teachableness that they would hope to see in someone when they are sharing something which is nontraditional to that person. It can be as heartbreaking, as it was for Luther and the early martyrs, to try to reason from God ‘s Word to share a truth which won’t be heard because it doesn’t fit with what is already traditionally believed. Most of us have experienced this at sometime or another in sharing what we have learned about these things with someone who seems more intent on keeping his original position than on hearing what the Bible actually says about the subject. So please evaluate the following material with this in mind.

The second part of the reason is linked to the first part. In the traditional view, I have consistently seen the English (and Hebrew) meanings of the word “head” brought into passages which were written in Greek. This can cause a wrong emphasis, if not a wrong meaning, to be taken from passages containing this word. The danger of this is that the right emphasis can be missed altogether. Because I believe this is widely practiced in the case of this word (often having far-reaching effects) I feel the need to present another viewpoint. It is vital to understand how this word was used, and what it meant in the first century.

I will give reasons why I do not think Paul meant for the word kephale to convey the meaning “authority.”

I. It does not seem to be a normal meaning of the word in his day:

A. as shown by the definitions we find of this word during that time,

B. as shown by the Septuagint,

C. as shown by the other words Paul used to convey the concept of “authority,”

D. due to a different understanding of the function of the head/brain than we have, and Paul‘s other references regarding them.

II. The contexts of the Bible passages using this word sometimes show a different meaning, and all allow for an alternative rendering.

I. A. In showing that “authority” or “superior rank” was not a normal meaning of the Greek word kephale in Paul’s day, I will rely on the work of others more knowledgeable in this area than I. To begin with I have not found any lexicon which gives that meaning (unless they use the very passages we are trying to understand with the meaning of “authority” already read into them). The following are excellent sources listed by Berkley and Alvera MIickelsen which show no such meaning for the readers of Paul’s day:

The most complete Greek-English lexicon (covering Homeric, classical and koine Greek) in current existence is a two-volume work of more than 2,000 pages compiled by .Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, published first in 1843. It is based on examination of thousands of Greek writings from the period of Homer (about 1000 B.C.) to about A.D. 600 -- a period of nearly 1600 years, including the Septuagint and New Testament times. This lexicon lists, with examples, the common meanings of kephale. The list includes more than 25 possible figurative meanings in addition to the literal meaning of physical head of man or beast. The list does not include “authority,” “superior rank,” “leader,” “director,” or anything similar as a meaning. There is an older Greek-Latin thesaurus published in 1851, but written primarily in the sixteenth century. It also gives no meanings such as “authority” or “supreme over.” Apparently, ordinary readers of Greek literature during New Testament times would not think of “final authority,” “superior rank” or “director” as common meanings for the word translated “head.”

The entry looks somewhat like this in the 1940 edition of Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie lexicon:

I. a. Physical head of man or beast. Frequently used with preposition such as “down over the head,” or “above the head” or “from head to foot” or “head foremost” or “thrust headlong.” [In our day we would say “head first.”]

b. As the noblest part, periphrasis for the whole person.

c. Life, as in “staking their heads on...”

d.. In imprecation, as in “on my head be it!” [Or Paul’s response in Acts 18:6 to the Jews who opposed him in Macedonia, “Your blood be upon your own heads!”]

II. Of things, extremity.

a. In botany, head of garlic, tubers.

b. In anatomy, base of heart, but also apex; of muscles, origin.

c. Generally, top, brim of vessel; coping of a wall; capital of a column.

d. In plural, source, origin of a river, but singular, mouth; generally, source, origin, starting point.

e. Extremity of a plot of land.

III. A bust of Homer.

IV. Wig, head-dress.

V. Metaphorical

a. Piece de resistance [i.e. main dish of a meal]

b. Crown, completion, consummation.

c. Sum, total.

d. Hand of men; right hand of phalanx

e. Astronomy, Aries [as the gable of the world]

The lexicon gives references to Greek literature for each of these meanings. The lexicographers (with various editions spanning more than 100 years, from 1836 to 1940) apparently found no examples in their study of Greek literature where kephale could have the meaning “one having authority,” “supreme over” or anything similar. (Where other recognized meanings are possible, one cannot assume that the word kephale means chief, authority or superior rank.) These scholars living in 1800s and early 1900s surely could not be accused of being blinded by the “feminist movement,” and thus ignoring references in Greek that supported kephale as meaning “authority.” [1]

What follows is more research concerning the usual meanings for the Greek word kephale:

Including its 1968 supplement, the Liddell and Scott lexicon lists forty-eight separate English equivalents of figurative meanings of kephale. None of them implies leader, authority, first or supreme. To confirm that “authority” was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent specialists in ancient Greek literature. They all agreed that the idea of “authority” was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

An examination of other Greek lexicons further supports the Mickelsen’s thesis. None of the following lexicons lists any examples related to “leader” or “authority”: Moulton and Milligan, Friedrich Preisigke, Pierre Chantraine, and E. A. Sophocles gives only one such example from A.D. 952. S.C. Woodhouse lists twenty Greek equivalents for “chief” (p. 129) and twenty-six Greek equivalents for “authority” (p. 54), but kephale is not listed as an equivalent for either of these or for “leader.” [2]

One can certainly find an abundance of sources that impute the meaning of “authority over” to the Greek word kephale. However, it would appear that they do this in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. All the sources I could find used the passages containing the word kephale with their own definition of “authority” assumed and thus read into it to prove their definition. Some even went against the meaning of the word in context to give it the definition they desired. The following is an example:

The most common lexicon used by pastors and teachers of the Bible in our day is the koine Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, commonly known as Bauer’s. This lexicon is less than half the size of Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie. The following is a basic condensation of the entry for kephale in Bauer:

[kephale, es, he,] (Homer,+ inscriptions, papyri, Septuagint, Enoch, Epistle of Aristotle, Philo, Josephus)

1 . lit.- a. actually of the head of man or beast [followed by thirty-six lines of entry giving examples of this obvious meaning, ranging from the New Testament to Aesop’s fables]….h. metaph... Christ the [kephale] of the [church] thought of as a [soma (“body”)] Col. 1:18;cf. Col. 2:19.

2. fig- a. In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank. (cf. Artem. 4:24. p.218 where [kephale] is the symbol of the father; Judg 11:11; 2 [Sam] 22:44) head (Zosimus of Ashkelon[500 A.D.] hails Demosth. as his master: [“0h, divine head”] [Biogr. p. 297]; of the husband in relation to his wife I Cor 11:3b; Eph 5:23a. Of Christ in relation to the church Eph 4:15; 5:23b. But Christ is he head not only of the church but of the universe as a whole, [“head over all things”] Eph 1:22, and of every cosmic power... the head of all might and power or all rule & authority]. Col. 2:10. The divine influence on the world results in the series (for the growing distance from God with corresponding results);...God the [kephale] of Christ, Christ the [kephale] of the man, the man the [kephale] of the woman, I Cor 11:3c,a,b.

B. of things the uppermost part, extremity, end, point... [kephale gonias] the cornerstone (forming the farthest extension... of the corner, though Joachim Jeremias... thinks of it as the keystone or capstone above the door;... Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17,...Ac 4:11; I Pt 2:7 B[arnahas] 6:4 (all [quoting] Psalm 118:22 [LXX Ps 117:22]).” [3]

The following are some criticisms of Bauer’s definition:

Under section two, where Bauer gives “superior rank” as a meaning for kephale, he cites only two references from secular Greek. One comes from Zosimus and is dated A.D. 500 -- at least 400 years after the New Testament was written. (Our question is not what kephale meant in A.D. 500 but rather what Paul meant when he used kephale when writing his letters to the churches in the first century.) Bauer’s only other reference to secular Greek to support the meaning of “superior rank” is to Artemidorus in the second century, where kephale is used as a symbol of the father. What Artemidorus said (Lib K, Capt 2, Para 6,) was “He [the father] was the cause (aitos) of the life and of the light for the dreamer [the son] just as the head (kephale) is the cause of the life and the light of all the body.” He also said: “the head is to be likened to parents because the head is the cause [source] of life.” Bauer’s reference may be an example of a lexicographer reading his own cultural understanding (i.e., fathers have “superior rank”) into the text.”[4]

Phillip Payne rightly comments:

The Mickelsen’s criticism of Bauer’s treatment of kephale is well founded. The inappropriateness of citing the Zosimus statement as an example of kephale denoting “superior rank” is not due only to its late date. It is virtually certain that this passage does not imply a position of authority over anyone. Stanford classicist Mark Edwards stated that ho theia kephale in the Zosirnus document is a salutation implying dignity, not authority. Presumably the Demosthenes referred to is the great Athenian orator (384-22 B.C.), who could not have had a position of authority over Zosimus since Demosthenes had died over 800 years earlier. [5]

The appendix has a list of other lexicons and dictionaries who assume the meaning of “authority over.”. They all, however, use the passages which contain this word with this meaning already assumed to prove this meaning of the word. We will refer to them in Part 2 where we deal with the actual passages and look at the contexts where the word occurs.

B. Many of these sources used Old Testament passages from the Septuagint to support their definition. Let’s examine the evidence from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament done before Christ’s time. For many people who spoke mainly or only Greek, it was the only Old Testament scriptures they knew. Although the passages containing “head” from the Septuagint are used to prove that kephale meant “authority” in the traditional sense, the opposite is actually true. Let’s look at how kephale is translated in the Septuagint.

From this we see that when rosh (the Hebrew word for “head”) referred to a literal head it was almost always directly translated kephale. However, when rosh had the meaning “ruler, commander, leader or chief” the word kephale is rarely used and so appears to be avoided. If it were a normal meaning, why would it not have been directly translated as it was for literal head? Of the 180 times that rosh was used in this sense, only 10 times it was translated with the Greek word for “head,” kephale. Of these, 6 have variant readings (4 in a single manuscript), 4 others involve head-tail metaphors (where the word could not be avoided). That leaves 8 of the 180 times where kephale was used with an unusual Greek meaning. Let’s look at them individually:

Jeremiah 31:7-- Since Israel did not rule or have authority over the nations, this probably refers to her exalted position in God’s eyes.

Judges 11:11 -- The Hebrew text follows rosh with another word qatzyn, meaning chief or ruler. The Greek text followed suit and used hegeomai or archegos, meaning leader. This would have made it clear to Greek readers the meaning of the passage even with a normal Greek usage of “top” or “crown” for kephale.

Psalm 18:43, Isa.7:8-9 (3 times), Lam.1:5, 2 Sam.22:44 (which is the same as Ps.18:43). All of these passages could be read with the meaning of “top” or “crown” and the meaning of the passage would not be lost.

So we can see that “when the Old Testament meaning of rosh was ‘leader’ the Septuagint translators realized quite clearly that this would not be conveyed by kephale, so they resorted to some other translation in 171 cases out of 180. This occurred in spite of the strong tendency in the Septuagint for ‘Greek words to extend to their range of meaning in an un-Greek way after the Hebrew word which they render.’ Thus we have strong evidence of the high degree to which ‘head’ meaning ‘leader’ was recognized by these translators to be foreign to Greek.”[6]

At this point I will mention that there is list in the Appendix of works that critique Wayne Grudem’s work dealing with kephale.. He has been associated with proving that kephale carried the meaning of “authority over.” This critique is here to deal with his assertions, but also to show that it is easy to ignore facts to make our point. As I have read on this subject, and women’s roles in general, I will freely admit seeing this done on different sides of the issue. I don’t claim to be free from preconceived ideas and perceptions myself. That is why I write this and invite scrutiny of what I propose. If I’m shown to be in error, I want to change what I think. Let us all dialogue to find truth that we may please our Lord.

C. Let’s look at how Paul communicated elsewhere and see if he would have used kephale to express the idea of “authority.”

“The apostle Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew (he grew up in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus); indeed, Greek was his native language. He knew both Hebrew and Greek, but he wrote his epistles to Greek-speaking churches in areas where most of the converts (including Jews of the dispersion) knew only Greek. A man of his superb intellectual ability and intense passion to spread the gospel would likely use Greek words with Greek meanings that his readers clearly understood.”(7) In Romans 13:12 he used exousia (”authority”) and in Romans 13:3 he used archon (”leader”). When Paul does use exousia (“authority”) in a husband-wife context, it is definitely in a mutual sense (1 Cor. 7:4). “If Paul does use kephale with the meaning ‘leader,’ he is the only New Testament writer to do so, even though most of the New Testament writers use more Hebraic Greek than he does. For example, “head of the house” is a very common expression throughout the Gospels, but kephale is never used to convey this meaning.”[8] (See Matthew 10:25; 13:52; 24:43; Luke 12:39; 13:25; 14:21. The Greek word oikodespotes is used. This word comes from two words meaning “master” and “house.”). In addition, the term for the “head of the synagogue” (which was the leading office) did not employ kephale, but was called the archisynagogus. [9]

D. Let’s look further at what Paul and his readers would have understood about the head so that we won’t also read our understanding into their understanding. This will have an effect on how the word could be used metaphorically. “The ancient Greek world through the time of Paul commonly believed that the heart, not the head, was the center of emotions and spirit, the ‘central governing place of the body.’ Aristotle held that the heart was not only the seat of control but also the seat of intelligence. Classicist Michael Wigodsky of Stanford is probably correct that many, even the doctors with the most advanced anatomical understanding of the brain, did not really believe that the brain exerted more control over the body than the heart. Such a notion seemed to contradict the nearly universal belief that, since the life is in the blood, the heart must be the center of life. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the idea of authority was not normally associated with the word for ‘head’ in Greek thought.”[l0] Although this information may be debatable, we do know that know that neither Paul nor his readers would have known what we know about how the brain controls the body. Regardless of their knowledge, or lack thereof, Paul “seems to associate intelligence and control of the body with the heart in such expressions as ‘their foolish heart was darkened’ (Rom. 1:21), ‘the law written in their hearts’(Rom. 2:15), ‘it is with your heart you believe’(Rom 10:9-10), ‘no heart has conceived God’s plans’(1 Cor. 2:9), ‘he who has decided in his own heart’(1 Cor 7:37), and ‘may the eyes of your heart be enlightened to know’ (Eph 1:18). Nowhere does he associate the mind with the head.”[11] (This last reference is in the immediate context of one of the passages where kephale is used [Eph. 1:18-23] which we will look at in section II.) Gordon Clark’s work on head knowledge/heart knowledge will also bear witness to this.

Let me restate why I believe we can come to these passages without assuming “authority” is a normal meaning of the Greek word kephale for Paul and his readers. It does not seem to be a normal usage for Paul given: 1 ) his choice of other words for authority, 2) his expression of control of the body by the heart verses the brain or head (and his lack of association of the mind with the head), and 3) the context of the passages where kephale is used -- which we’ll look at next. It does not seem to be a normal meaning his readers would have understood given: 1) the avoidance of the word with this meaning in the Septuagint, and 2) the Greek meanings of this word in dictionaries and lexicons. The only reasons I would believe it could be a possible definition are: 1) Grudem’s study and 2) the definitions in some dictionaries and lexicons. Neither of these carry much weight, in light of the other factors, because they come with the meaning of “authority” read into the word to prove it’s meaning. And I will apply Grudem’s own judgment to his study. He said (concerning one of the criticisms of his study), “the major point of his article...is disproved by his use of improper methodology and several inconsistencies in his argument, and it is contradicted by an abundance of evidence. It must therefore be rejected.”[12] (See the Appendix for a critique of Grudem’s study). As we go through the passages it will be evident that the writers of the dictionaries and lexicons with a meaning of “authority” for kephale had to give the meaning to the word in order to find this meaning (e.g., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and Theological Dictionary of the New Testament).

II. So now let’s go to the second part and look at the actual passages containing kephale and see what Paul was saying to his readers.

I did Part I first so that we could try to come without the English (or even Hebrew) meaning of “authority” for head or rosh read into the Greek word for head, kephale. If we can come to these passages with the Greek meanings of the word, we can let the context determine the meaning Paul and his readers were most likely to have understood. If in reading the Scripture, we find Paul is giving the word a new meaning (or flavor), such as “authority,” that is fine. But let us look at the passages to determine this instead of us assuming what the passage means today by inserting something into it. Let the context speak.

We’ll first look at 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. This is probably the most commonly cited passage (next to Ephesians 5) to show that kephale means “authority.” Yet given the full context of the passage and comparisons of verses in chapter 15, I see it to be not only an improbable meaning, but maybe even an implausible meaning in this passage. To get the full context of this passage we need to go back further. As Walter Liefield points out, “Paul has just urged limitation of one’s freedom in order not to hinder others from accepting the gospel (chapters 8-10). He is apparently modifying the principle of liberty in Galatians in certain respects: (1) In Galatians he affirmed freedom regarding table fellowship, but in 1 Corinthians he restricts certain associations and foods. Even what is ‘permissible’ may not he ‘beneficial’ (10:23-30). (2) Although in Galatians he insisted on his status as an apostle and on his freedom from the law, in I Corinthians he is willing to ‘become as a Jew’ and as ‘under the law’ to ‘win some’ (9:22). (3) He taught in Galatians that there is ‘neither male nor female, but in 1 Corinthians he introduces certain limitations on women. We may reasonably ask whether this last modification also involves avoiding something that might obstruct the gospel. There are two reasons to suppose this: (1) Immediately before the passage under consideration Paul reaffirms that what he does is for the glory of God and for the good of others (10:31-11:1). (2) 11:2-16 is connected with the preceding discussion and theme by the Greek conjunction de, which is seldom used to introduce a totally new topic.”[13]

As we get into the passage, we see several concepts repeated throughout it: 1. the word head appears nine times -- some referring to a physical head and some in another sense; 2. the idea of a covered or uncovered head appears seven times; 3. the words shame, shameful, glory, dishonor and becoming appear eight times; 4. the idea of source or origination appears nine times.

It would seem, then, that these words/concepts would be an integral part of the message of this passage. Since this passage is used quite often to show the authority of the man (husband?) over the woman (wife?) because of the word head used in verse 3, it is interesting to note that, unless one comes to this passage with this meaning of the word read into it, the idea of authority is only mentioned once and refers to the woman’s authority on her own head. Verse 10 says, “Because of this the woman ought to have authority on her head because of the angels.” ‘A sign (or symbol) ‘ is often inserted in translations before the word ‘authority’ without justification. This would give the word for ‘authority’ a passive sense for the woman. “In 1907 W.M. Ramsey called this passive sense ‘a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the New Testament, where (as they seem to think) Greek words may mean anything that commentators choose.’” [14] Paul uses the same word for ‘authority’ (in the active sense) that he uses a few chapters earlier (chapter 9) in referring to his own rights, or authority, in his ordering of his life as an apostle. So not only does this verse not support that the word kephale in referring to the man means the ‘authority’ of the woman, but instead would be a support for the woman’s right to function as a female priest.

Before we go further into the passage to see what the context may tell us about the meaning of kephale in verse 3, let’s look at what we may need to rule out based on another passage. I have yet to find any among those that contend that the word kephale has the meaning “authority,” who reconcile this with 1 Corinthians 15:28. Verses 20-28 tell of the risen Christ. We read of His being the first-fruit, of everything being put under His rule and of how He will turn all things over to God, the Father. Although the incarnate Christ made it clear that He was doing what His Father wanted Him to do, the aspects of being a first-fruit and ruling over all are recurring when the risen, exalted Christ is spoken of. Verse 23 says, “And when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” This is in the future tense, and refers to that last day when we are raised, clothed with immortality and death is no more (1 Corinthians 15:51-55; Revelation 20:12-15; 21:1-4). 1 Corinthians 11:3c is in the present tense: God is (estin) the head of Christ. If God is the ‘authority’ of Christ in this time of His glory and reign, then Christ would have be subject to Him. Why will He be made subject in the future, when He turns everything over, if He already is subject now in the present? I believe this question should he addressed before we can even consider reading the meaning of ‘authority’ into kephale in chapter 11, much less using it as proof of this meaning.

As we get into this controversial passage, I will freely admit that I don’t have all the answers. But I will ask questions regarding a traditional view of it, and will present another possible interpretation (and invite questions regarding my view). Although few people who read this passage with a traditional interpretation require head coverings for women in this culture, in this day, most would still maintain that the abiding principle of this passage is male headship (i.e. male’s authority over women and a woman’s display of submission to that authority). Although they will allow for a different display of that submission, they will say that Paul’s call is for a culturally effective display based on headship (using their definition of authority) and on the order of creation. Aside from the questions I already have regarding their definition of headship and their use of this to insert the words “a symbol” to change the reading (and meaning) of verse 10, I have other questions regarding this interpretation.

1. If Paul’s point for all time is this abiding principle of a women’s display of submission to a man’s authority, why does he then in 1 Cor.11:11 use the word plen and give what seems to be contradictory statements and tell the Corinthians to judge for themselves? Liefeld comments: “The introductory word, ‘nevertheless’ (plen), is a strong adversative. It can also have the sense of “only,”“but,”“however.” In our text, it appears without any accompanying word of further modification, which makes it stronger than a mere limitation or exception. It could range from a complete reversal of the previous argument to simply indicating that the freedom of the woman expressed in verse 10 does not mean complete independence from her husband.” [15] Then Paul goes on to make points different from the points made in the first section. In the first part the point is made that the source of the woman is the man (and that the source of the man is not woman) and woman was made for the man. In the second section Paul stresses that neither sex is independent of the other, and each has the other as a source. The first part says that if a woman is uncovered, she should be shaved. Paul then says that her hair is her covering in the second section.

2. If this submission of women to men being displayed is Paul’s point, does this mean that all women are to display submission to all men? Are all women under the authority of all men because Eve came from Adam and was made for him, or is that an application to be made to husbands and wives only?

3. If Paul is agreeing with the first part, instead of questioning it, then I would like to know how does nature teach that long hair is a disgrace for men. If it is a naturally understood disgrace, then how is this disgrace reconciled with men such as Absolom, and Samson and other Nazarites (who had long hair because of God’s instruction and/or to show their commitment to God)?

4. A crucial question could he asked concerning the phrase “in the Lord” in verse 11. Isn’t this how we are to view ourselves -- “in the Lord”? The emphasis in this section seems to be one of mutuality and discernment of what is becoming, rather than of a hierarchy and a fixed display of it (as is the case in the first section).

This leads me to offer another reading and emphasis of this passage than the traditional one. I would agree that we are not bound by a cultural practice stated here, but should look for the abiding principle. I would disagree with the traditional view of what the abiding principle is. I would say that given the context of this passage (as laid out earlier in chapters 8-10 and continuing in the following chapters) Paul is continuing the theme of calling the Corinthians to be aware of what they do always remembering their liberty in their faith in Christ, yet never forgetting the effect their actions have on others and the glory of God. In the immediately preceding verses he states, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may he saved. Be followers of me, just as I also am of Christ.” This along with his statement of mutuality, and yet his admonition to judge the properness of coverings (or the lack thereof) would fit well with an admonition to consider their actions knowing not only the truth (“everything is permissible” -- but not everything is beneficial, 10:23), but also how others will perceive things (nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others [10:24]). The first section, then, could have been a quote or belief of “Jews . . .or Greeks.. .or (some in) the church of God.” So although Paul is not agreeing with it, he does not dismiss it because what the Corinthians do will have an effect on others and their perception of the Gospel. He tells them to judge themselves whether it is becoming of a woman to pray uncovered. The abiding principle for us is the same and is covered in the previous verses, “Do all for God’s glory.. .give no offense.. .not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

In evaluating the meaning of the word kephale, these things need to be considered:

1) “Authority” does not seem to be a well known metaphorical meaning for this Greek word in this day.

2) The meaning “authority” would be hard to reconcile with 1 Corinthians 15:28 and would raise questions about whether this is to be applied to men-women or husbands-wives.

3) Another metaphorical meaning of the word seems to be “source” (see quote by Artemidorus on page --- of this article, Ephesians 4:15-16, Colossians 1:18). We know that Christ said He “came” from the Father (John 7:29; John 8). We know that every man comes from God. This would help the connection between verse 3 and verses 8-9. I would say, then, that there would be more weight for the word kephale, when used metaphorically in this passage, to have the connotation of “source” than of “authority.” But regardless of the meaning of the word in verse 3, it seems the abiding principle is not a fixed particular, but an emphasis on what we do to further the gospel being aware of our liberty which can be given up if needed.

The next passage we will deal with is Ephesians 5:22-33. Ephesians 5:23 is also frequently used to show that the word kephale has the meaning “authority.” Because this passage is so clear in what it is says to husbands and wives, it is not only surprising but also disheartening to see that what is written there is often de-emphasized (if not ignored) in order to stress a concept which may not even be inherent in the text. This happens when people use this text to show what a husband’s role is using kephale -- meaning “authority” -- instead of using what God directly spells out for the husband. This passage gives instructions to husbands and wives in how they are to act toward one another based on the example of Christ and the church. Although some on opposite ends of the spectrum of ideas may try to deny one or the other, most would have to agree that wives are to submit to and respect their husbands, and husbands are to love and lay down their lives for their wives (this is partially repeated in the twin passage in Colossians 3:18-19). Even though God apparently found this to be enough instruction for husbands and wives in order to live lives glorifying to Him, I have heard and read very few representing the traditional view who not only go further, but will even make their point (of male headship [authority]) the central theme around which they relate all other aspects of the passage. “The wife’s submission is based on his authority; he is to exercise his authority through love and self-sacrifice.” I would not dispute the fact that in many husband-wife relationships the husband is in a position of authority over the wife, and was probably the case in marriages of Paul’s day. But is it an inherent part of marriage and the duty required of the husband in this passage? I would submit that it is not; but rather it is the mutual submission expressed in these ways (wives submitting and respecting, and husbands loving and sacrificing) which are required and will promote and show unity and love. This is the picture of the relationship between Christ and His church which a marriage is to he. I would submit that that this word (kephale) is used to show the unity of Christ and His church because of the sacrifice He made for her, and the unity of the husband and wife (like the unity of a head and a body). That unity will be shown and maintained as the wife submits and respects (like the church) and as the husband loves and sacrifices (like Christ).

We will first look at the passage to see if the emphasis on unity or hierarchy is most fitting; then we will look at other passages using this word to see if the context of those passages shed more light on how Paul would use this word (especially in relation to Christ and His body).

As we look at Ephesians 5, one thing that stands out are the parallels between Christ/husband as head and the church/wife as the body. Since the husband is to mirror Christ as head, let’s see what the passage says that Christ does, or is, as head. Starting in verse 23 we see that when Paul comments on Christ as head of the church, his parallel is (using the same grammatical construction) that He is the Savior of the body. If we don’t come reading the Hebrew or English meaning of the word ‘head’ into the Greek word, but let the text speak, we can see that not only is this metaphor clearly stated, but is carried throughout the passage when dealing with the husband’s role. Verse 25 tells the husband to love his wife the way Christ loved the church -- He gave himself up for her. Verses 28-30 tell the husband to love his wife as he loves and takes care of his own body, just as Christ loves and takes care of the church -- his body. If these verses were not enough to show the relationship of unity and the role of self-sacrifice the husband is to follow in emulating Christ, verses 31-33 emphasize the example of unity that is to he followed in marriage (“be united,” “the two will become one flesh,” and “love his wife as he loves himself”). It is interesting to note that some versions read in verse 30, “For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.” This is the same thing Adam said about Eve, and is now said about Christ and the church; and the same pronouncement of unity is made about both: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is the conclusion God draws from this head-body relationship. Any mention of ‘authority’ is absent. It is not only puzzling, then, but disturbing to see that most people holding the traditional view feel the need to use this passage to give the husband a duty which God is not giving to him as He tells him his duties. Other arguments for requiring husbands to have authority which are mentioned in relation to this passage are covered in the Notes for this passage in the Appendix.

Now that we have looked through this passage and have found that it neither gives this Greek word, kephale, a new meaning for that day, a meaning of “authority,” nor have we found this passage giving the husband a duty or role of taking authority; we are now ready to look at other Scriptures written by Paul using this same language (head-body metaphor) to help us understand what concept he was expressing. Since “authority” was not a usual meaning for kephale in Paul’s day, we will look for the answer to two questions as we look at the other occurrences of kephale in reference to Christ. They are:

1. Does the word kephale have the meaning of “authority” in this passage? (Related to this are: Is it a necessary meaning? Is it even a possible meaning?) and

2. Is this head-body metaphor used to show the authority aspect of the relationship? If the answers are “yes, then there is more justification for making that an inherent part of the relationship between a husband and a wife. If the answers are “no,” then those who would make it a duty for husbands to have authority over their wives will need to either rethink their position or find some other basis for it. Other than the verses we have already looked at in I Corinthians 11, the only times kephale is used metaphorically (rather than literally—-a physical head of a body) are in Ephesians and Colossians. [Note: when ‘head’ is used to refer to “head of the house” a different Greek word is always used, oikodespotes (from “a house” and “master”). Kephale is never used. (see Mt 10:25, Mt 13:52, Mt 24:43, Lk 12:39, Lk 13:25, Lk 14:21). We’ll first look at the other verses in Ephesians since they are the closest to this passage.

The verses in Ephesians using head (kephale) in reference to Christ and body (soma) in reference to the church are:

Chapter 1:22-23 -- and he put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all, and

Chapter 4:15-16 -- but speaking the truth in love we are to grow in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

As we look more closely at these passages we will be looking for Paul’s use of the word ‘head’ to see if that would show that he and his reader’s would have understood it according to the traditional interpretation.

In the first chapter of Ephesians Paul is encouraging the saints by speaking of the blessings of redemption. In verses 18-23, he is focusing on our hope, riches, and His power toward us; along with Christ’s position. His position in relationship to the Father is that He is at His right hand. His position in relationship to all powers is that, as He is in the heavenly places, He is far above. Also everything is under His feet and He is head over all. His position in relationship to the church is that she is His body. This passage clearly speaks of Christ’s unsurpassed power and authority. And what a comfort it is to us who believe that He is. The same principalities (arche) and authorities (exousia) that we are told we struggle against in chapter 6 of this book, we are told in Chapter 1 are far below Him! His power toward us is measured by the power God used to raise Christ from the dead and make Him “head over all things to the church.”

But enough of this encouragement, we are here to answer questions about the meaning of the word ‘head’ in this passage. Does the word kephale have the meaning “authority” in this passage? It is definitely a possible meaning given the context. If all things are in subjection under His feet and He has been given head over all things, then the word head could mean “authority” and the passage could be understood correctly. But is it a necessary meaning of the word? Could the passage be understood correctly with a more usual Greek meaning of the word such as “top” or “crown” (or “source”, see definitions in Appendix and pages --- and --- of this article)? We see that “authority” is not a necessary meaning of the word since the context tells us that he is in authority because all these things are under Him and are in subjection to Him. If we say that someone is the head of his swimming class we are not saying that he is the authority of the class. We are saying he is the best swimmer. Now the word head is not given a new meaning of “best swimmer.” It still means “top,” but the context shows us what he is the top of -- the swimmers. Similarly, if Christ is the “top” of all authorities and all things are in subjection to Him, then we can fully understand this passage using this meaning.

So “authority” is not a necessary meaning.

To help us understand how Paul uses this word, kephale, we are looking to see if the context shows us that he uses it to express a relationship of authority between the head and the body. Although this is a part of our relationship to Christ, we do not see Paul using the head-body image in this passage to express that aspect of the relationship. It is for us that all things are in subjection to Him, but this passage is not speaking of our subjection to Him. In fact, if we wanted to carry the metaphor through consistently, it says all things are in subjection “under his feet.” If we are His body, then everything would be in subjection to us too, since the feet are at the bottom of the body. I wouldn’t say that this is the intent of the passage, but we can see that our subjection to Christ is not the topic in view.

We will now move to Ephesians 4:11-16. The answer to the first question about the meaning of the word head being “authority” in this passage is “no,” even to most who hold the traditional view. Aside from the obvious references to the physical body (head, joints, growth), this passage shows the head as causing the growth of the body dependent on the union they share. This is paralleled in Colossians 2:19 which says, “and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.” We see that not only is it not necessary, but would not be beneficial to give this word the meaning of “authority” in these passages. Even commentators holding a traditional view tend to speak of Christ as our “source” of life and growth in these verses. The analogy here of head-body is not being use to show a hierarchal relationship, although it exists between Christ and the church.

The next set verses are Colossians 1:16-18. “For by Him all things were created, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He himself might come to have first place in everything.”

This, too, has a lot of parallels to the verses in Ephesians. We see again His surpassing supremeness in all things. He is before all things and He is the beginning. “The word is arche, ‘the origin, the beginning,’ this in relation to the Church. The word arche here involves priority in time our Lord was the first-fruits from among the dead; and originating power He was also the source of life.” [16] To give the meaning of “authority” to the word ‘head’ here is not necessary and would not go with the flow of the passage as much as “source” would. There is nothing in the context to show that Paul was using the head-body metaphor to show the hierarchal relationship between Christ and the church.

The last passage containing the word kephale in reference to Christ is Colossians 2:9-10: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”

This use of kephale is much like the verses in the first chapter of Ephesians. The necessity of understanding the meaning of the word to be “authority” is not warranted due to the context. Since the church is not referred to as the body in this passage, we would have to say that Paul is not here using the head-body metaphor to show a relationship of authority between Christ and the church.

In summary, we were not able to come up with definite affirmative answers to these two questions for any of the passages where Paul uses kephale in reference to Christ in Ephesians and Colossians. We cannot, then, use these as support for applying this meaning to this word and/or metaphor used in Ephesians 5.

In conclusion of section II, when looking at all the passages containing the word kephale in a metaphorical sense, none of the contexts necessitated giving the word a meaning of “authority.” Some, in fact, would be better understood with a different meaning. And all allowed for a more usual Greek meaning than the one traditionally read into it.

Further, in this paper I have shown why I don’t believe Paul or his readers would have understood the Greek word for ‘head’ (kephale) to have the meaning “authority” because:

1) it does not seem to be a usual meaning for that word for that day, and

2) the context of the passages containing kephale do not necessitate this meaning (in fact, some would be better read with a different meaning). Unanswered questions linger when this word is interpreted in these passages in the traditional way. Maybe others can give me answers for these questions and raise questions concerning my view which I haven’t thought of. I welcome input from anyone who is willing to dialogue on this issue. I am not interested in dogma from anyone who is not interested in an exchange of information and thoughts. I am interested in true dialogue toward truth.

by Lauren Fasullo
Baton Rouge, LA

NOTES ON EPHESIANS 5

Other than inserting our assumed meaning for the word ‘head’ into this passage, the common arguments I have heard for this duty for the husband are:

1) This is the way it should be because God set up this authority structure in the beginning, and so in a Christian marriage we should practice what God has ordained,

2) Because the wife is told to submit to the husband, it shows that he is to have authority over her (and to support this are the statements that the husband is never told to submit to his wife and the wife is never told to take authority over her husband), and

3) Since Christ is the head of the church and is in authority over her, then this same aspect carries over into the husband-wife relationship since he is her ‘head.’

There may be other arguments I haven’t heard, but these are the ones I have consistently heard from many sources. We will deal with each argument to see if it is valid enough to ascribe something to this passage which isn’t clearly given.

I see the first argument to be similar to building on a foundation made of sand. If we look back to the beginning, we find the case of people so often saying something is there, that we assume that it is. Let’s look back to see if an authority relationship is established, or if once again it is a relationship of unity (not necessarily including, or excluding, an authority structure). What we find in creation is that God made all the animals, and then made man in his image.

Some pertinent facts relating to this discussion are:

—The order of creation (man and then woman) is not enough to suggest, much less deduce, that since the man was made first he is placed in authority over the woman. We cannot assume this since it is not stated. In fact, if we want to read something into the passage which God didn’t make plain, there would be more weight for the opposite conclusion (that the woman is to have authority over the man) using traditional reasoning. The clear pattern in the creation of living things thus far has been an ascending, not descending, order. First plants are made, then animals, then humans. Since we don’t have any stated change of direction it would seem logical to see the upward progression continue. See article on I Tim. 2 in the Appendix for discussion on how this passage relates to this argument.

—The fact that Eve was created as Adam’s helpmeet (suitable helper) also does not warrant establishing an “inequality” of the sexes since God fails to do so. If one were intent on inserting a hierarchy into the picture, once again, the facts would not show a traditional one. The Scriptures do not show the creation of a being (the man) followed by the creation of another being (the woman) who was made in order to follow him and help him whenever he told her to. Rather we see, in the creation of man, a being standing in need. God says, for the first time during creation, that something is not good. The Hebrew word used for helper in this passage [ezer] is used most often in to describe the helping activity of God. God is above those He helps, as a parent is over the child he or she helps. So if an inequality is assumed in this relationship based on this word, it would be more likely (although less traditional) to put the woman above the man.

We also are not told of a leading role for the man being established by God at creation. If we wanted to force a leading-following from the passage, the only movement we see ordained is that the man is to leave his home and cleave to his wife. If it were stated the other way (that the woman was to leave her parents and cleave to her husband) it would have been used as a proof text by traditionalists that the man is to lead and the woman is to follow. However, since the Word makes no mention of inequality or leadership, I think it best to stay with what it does say.

—The need the man had was for a companion, not a servant, aide or follower. God provided such a perfect companion that they could be like one. The relationship established was one of unity, with no mention of hierarchy or inequality. This is not to say that there were no differences. A male and a female are like a nut and a bolt, each different, but not one above the other. In fact, this unity can only be achieved because of the differences between the two. This is also why any divergence from the marriage that God ordained will be a perversion.

— So where does this idea of rule come in? The two places where rule is mentioned are listed as support for the man’s authority:

1) God makes man in His image to rule over the animals and tells him to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over the living creatures (Genesis 1:26-28), and

2) God announces to Eve after the fall that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her (Genesis 3:16).

The problem with the first “proof” is that it is misquoted. It actually says: “Let us make man [Adam] in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over (all the creatures). So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over (all the creatures).’” The command to rule was given to “them” (plural) not “him” (singular).

The second proof raises some questions if it is to be considered as valid. Is this something God instituted in the pre-fall creation which was all declared as being good; or is this a result of the fall and so is declared as predictable in light of sin’s effects? I think the answer is obvious to all. Some would still contend that it is still a part of God’s design that the husband should rule over his wife, that this is a good thing. Since there is no mention of a hierarchy before this, it would have to be asked of these proponents if they would also say that other parts of the curse are also good and should be maintained. Would they advocate, as some religious men in the past (and even some today) have advocated, that pain medication be withheld from women in labor? Would they forbid men to use air conditioning when they are earning money so they will be sure to sweat? Although men have ruled over women through the ages, does this fit anywhere with the New Testament teachings on the relationship between a husband and a wife? There has also been slavery through the ages and was not forbidden. Instructions were given on how to function in that position in order to glorify God and live peacefully. Does that mean we should also advocate slavery in the Western world in our day? Would this be a good way to live out the command: Love your neighbor as yourself? Beside the overall message of servanthood, the specific teachings of mutuality (1 Cor. 7) and submission and self-sacrifice (Eph. 5) between a husband and wife don’t support one person ruling over another. So we don’t find support in Genesis for the first point that the hierarchy was set up there. [Note: for objections using I Cor. 11, please see discussion above. For objections using I Tim. 2, please see Notes On I Tim.2 in the Appendix.].

We will now deal with the second argument for the necessity of giving husbands the duty of being in authority. Although it is traditionally assumed that because a wife is told to submit to her husband, therefore he is to have authority over her; a closer look at what this would also assume, shows that this is not valid. If it is insisted that because a wife is told to submit, then the husband should have authority over her; wouldn’t it also be consistent to say that because a husband is told to lay down his life for his wife, then she should demand that he do so and tell him what she needs him to do for her and he must do it? Is it necessary for a husband to have authority, for a wife to submit? What will lead to better submission -- one based on the authority of the other person, or one based on the resolve of the person doing the submitting because of Christ? Wouldn’t the latter better encourage the wife to not only do what the husband requires, but to go beyond, to seek to please him as much as she can in whatever he merely desires? In Eph.6, this is the basis for Paul’s call to slaves to he obedient to masters. This relationship would inherently involve an aspect of authority. Although many marriages of that day would also involve the husband having authority over his wife (and would also today in other cultures that are based on something other than the Bible) it does not have to be required in our marriages today in our Western culture. Paul does not require it. I’m not saying Christ doesn’t have authority over the church. He does! He has all authority. But is that the aspect of Christ that the husband is told to emulate? Even though this passage clearly shows that the self-sacrificing aspect of Christ is what the husband is to follow, some will dismiss this in favor of the authority aspect which isn’t even mentioned for the husband (see The International Critical Commentary and the Translators Handbook in the list of reference materials). Ephesians 5:15-21 tells us how to live as children of the light. Verse 21 says, “and be subject to one another in the fear of the Lord.” If we are going to assume that because the wife is told o submit to her husband that it is because he does have and/or should have authority over her, would we then also say that we have authority over each other because we are told to submit to one another? When we admonish one another, does the authority lie in us or in the Scripture we use? The word ‘submit’ (or be subject) is the same in both places. In fact, it doesn’t actually appear in verse 22, but is brought down from verse 21. So most would agree that one person submitting to another doesn’t necessitate the other person having authority over them.

The support beyond this, then, for the husband-wife hierarchy is that the husband is never told to submit to his wife and the wife is never told to take authority over her husband. (Even if these statements were accurate, would that be a basis for the husband to have an authority over a wife that a wife is forbidden to have? If so, then following the same reasoning, wives should be forbidden to lay down their lives for their husbands! Neither of these statements are valid support for several reasons. Given the concept of mutual submission in verse 21, if a husband and wife are believers, then a husband is told here to submit to his wife. Once again, the verb in verse 21 is assumed (but not actually stated), so it would be presumptuous to say it is a different kind of submission. Even so some would say that submission “is the essence of femininity.” But as we look at the whole New Testament, from the Sermon on the Mount to the epistles, we see that submission is more the essence of Christianity. Verse 22 tells a wife to submit herself to her own husband. We see the unity of the relationship being stressed and preserved again. Just as the church is not to put any other before pleasing Christ, so a wife is to submit to her husband, not to what another man may want instead. This is the way to keep unity and peace in the relationship. This fits well with other passages dealing with the head-body metaphor in relation to Christ and his church:

The church is Christ’s body and he is her head (Eph 4:l6ff.), the two cannot be severed. In this unity of head and body, Christ directs the growth of the body to himself; he is not merely the source of being of the body (1 Cor 10:16ff.) but also the consummation of its life (Eph 4:l6ff.). Hence to give allegiance to any other spiritual mediator, as was being done at Colossae, cuts the vital link between the limbs and Christ the head, who is the source of all their being (Col 2:18ff.) [see the comments from The Illustrated Bible Dictionary in the reference materials]. The alternative will bring division and strife. Verse 24 points out that this must be in everything to be complete, just as it must be to the Lord.

The last support for this hierarchy is that the wife is never told to take authority over her husband. This, too, is not valid because 1) the husband is also never told to take authority over his wife, and 2) the only place where a husband is specifically given authority over (exousia) his wife, is the same place where the wife is given authority over her husband (I Cor. 7:4)! We see once again, things which lead to a unity between two individuals: two people created for a side-by-side companionship, which has been marred by sin and the curse resulting from it.

The last argument, that because Christ has authority over the church so the husband has authority over the wife, was dealt with above. Beside the fact that we would not ascribe all aspects of Christ’s relationship to the church also to the husband in relationship to his wife (e.g. perfect love, knowledge, strength, etc.) we have seen that the parallel given relates to love and self-sacrifice without mention, much less requirement of, authority.

Note: None of this lessens the wife’s submission (in fact, it only broadens it, if anything). If a husband and wife, or even just the husband, want a marriage with the husband in authority over the wife, the wife is called to submit. This is what she will be held accountable for. In a Christian marriage, the husband will be held accountable for sacrificing for and loving his wife. If his conscience is clearest by having authority over his wife in order to do this and to be one with her, then it is not explicitly forbidden here. It is a liberty issue, not a mandate and is subject to all the other qualifications a liberty is subject to: is it wise, is it expedient, will it minister/edify, is it done to serve or as an occasion for the flesh, etc.

NOTES

1. Berkeley & Alvera Mickelsen, “What Does Kephale Mean in he New Testament?,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Micklesen (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 97-99.

2. Phillip Payne, “Response,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, pp. 118-119.

3. Mickelsen & Mickelsen, “What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Micklesen, pp. 99-100.

4. Ibid., p. 100.

5. Phillip Payne, “Response,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, p. 120.

6. Ibid., p.123.

7. Mickelsen & Micicelsen, “What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Micklesen, p. 104.

8. Phillip Payne, “Response,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, pp. 123-124.

9. Ross Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings (New York, N.Y.:Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 118.

10. Philip Payne, “Response,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. AIvera Mickeisen, pp. 119-120.

11. Ibid., p. 121.

12.. Wayne Grudem, “Appendix I: The Meaning of Kephale,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1091), p. 449.

13. Walter L. Liefeid, “Women, Submission and Ministry in I Corinthians,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen, p. 136.

14. Ibid., p.145.

.15. Ibid., p.146.

16. Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdnans Publishing Co, 1983), p. 185.

APPENDIX

List of Reference Materials

Encyclopedia of the Bible, Walter Elwell (1980) Greek philosophers used the image of the body to represent

the universe. The head of this body -- called Zeus or Reason -- was considered responsible for the creation and sustenance of the remaining members (celestial beings, humans, animals, plants and inanimate objects). The universe or ”body” owed its existence to the “head.”

The apostle Paul drew from the Old Testament metaphorical understanding of the term to express the authority of God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman (I Cor. 11:3-16, Eph. 5:23).

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962)

A characteristic biblical usage, apparently unknown to secular Greek, is that of the term “head” for the leading member of a family (Ex 6:14) or community (Deut 33:5). Consequently it can be used to mean simply “source of authority” as in depicting the superiority of man to woman in marriage (Eph 5:23).

Greek & English Lexicon Edward Robinson pp. 397-398

THE HEAD. 1. Pr. of man - as the principal part, put emphatically for the whole person Acts 18:6

Trop. of persons the head, the foremost, chief, e.g. the head of the corner the chief cornerstone, the main foundation. 2. Trop. of persons i.e. the head, the chief one to whom others are subordinate

e.g.-- a husband in relation to a wife I Cor 11:3 Eph 5:23 -- of Christ in relation to the church, which is his body 1 Cor 11:3 -- of God in relation to Christ I Cor 11:3.

An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vine

HEAD: 1. natural significance 2. figuratively — your blood be on your own heads

3. metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to his wife (I Cor 11:3) -- of Christ in relation to the church Eph 1:22, 4:15; Col. 1:18, 2:19 -- of Christ in relation to principalities and powers Col 2:10. As to 1 Cor 11:10, taken in connection with the context, the word “authority” probably stands, by metonymy, for a sign of authority

-- is used of Christ as foundation of the spiritual building with its cornerstone Matt 21:42.

The International Critical Commentary, Driver, Plummer and Briggs

Special injunctions to husbands and wives. Wives to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives. This relationship is illustrated by that of Christ and the Church. As Christ is the Head of the Church, which is subject to Christ, so the husband is head of the wife, who is to be subject to the husband; and Christ’s love for the Church is to be the pattern of the man’s love for his wife. The analogy, indeed, is not perfect, for Christ is not only the Head of the Church which is His body, but is also the Savior of it; but this does not affect the purpose of the comparison here.

Translator’s Handbook, Bratcher and Nida 1982

For a husband “has authority” -- Christ’s authority derives from His love for the church and his self-sacrifice in its behalf. This aspect of the relationship of the Christ to the church has no counterpart in the relationship of the husband to the wife; the analogy between the two relationships is not exact.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel 1965 p. 673

A. outside the N T first, supreme or extreme “head” of a man, point, top, end or point of departure the mouth of a river also its source -- 2nd aspect prominent, outstanding or determinative head is first and chief member of body -- 3rd whole man. “It will be see in secular usage kephale is not employed for the head of society. This is 1st found in the sphere of the Greek OT. 2. The LXX adopts the Greek use. The implied element of what is superior or determinative is expressed in the LXX along with the sense of “man” or “person.” To be sure, there is no express reference to Israel as the kephale over others….

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 615

The head is not regarded as the seat of intellect, but as the source of life (Matt 14:8, 18; Jn 19:30) -- lift up head, grant life in the sense of success (Judges 8:28 Ps 27:6 Gen 40:13) -- to cover head -- mourn loss of life (2 Sam 13:19, La 2:10). Figuratively, headship denotes superiority of rank and authority over another (Judges 11:11; 2 Sam 22:44) though when Christ is spoken of as head of this body the church (Eph 5:23;Col 2:19), of every man ( I Cor 11:3) of the entire universe (Eph 1:22) and of every cosmic power (Col 2:10) and when man is spoken of as the head of the woman (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23; cf Gen 2:21f) the basic meaning of head as the source of life and energy is predominate. The church is Christ’s body and he is her head (Eph 4:15f), the two cannot be severed. In this unity of head and body, Christ the head directs the growth of the body to himself; he is not merely the source of being of the body (1 Cor 10:16f) but also the consummation of its life (Eph 4:15f). Hence to give allegiance to any other spiritual mediator, as was being done at Colossae, cuts the vital link between the limbs and Christ the head, who is the source of all their being (Col 2:18f).

CRITICISM OF WAYNE GRUDEM’S WORK

The following is a list of critiques of Grudem’s article, “Does Kephale (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples” published in the Trinity Journal. 6 NS (1985): 38-59:

Gordon Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament, I Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) pp. 502-503, footnotes 42-46.

Richard S. Cervin, “Does Kephale Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority’ in Greek Literature? A Rebuttal,” Trinity Journal 10 NS (1989), pp. 85-112.

Berkeley and Alvera Micklesen, “What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?” and Philip Payne, “Response,” Women, Authority and the Bible (Downer’s Grove,IL: Intervarsity Press, 1985), pp. 97-110 and pp.118-132.

Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), pp.215-252.

"Me Padre Me Ama" by Juan Luis Guerra

2009-07-10T12:29:00.004-03:00

The most recent post on the subject of tears compelled a missionary friend of mine who speaks Spanish to send me a link to the above music video. Singer Juan Luis Guerra is a hugely popular musician in Latin America, Spain and much of Western Europe too. At some point prior to 2004 Juan Luis Guerra came to faith in Jesus Christ. He released an album shortly thereafter entitled "Para Ti" - For You. The album is the artists expression of gratitude for His Heavenly Father. One of the most popular songs on the album is called "Mi Padre Mi Ama" and was produced with the intention of depicting the Father's love through an earthly father who carries his son to the finish line. Get a box of kleenex's and watch the video. Courtesy of my friend Brian the words of the song are translated into English below.

"Me Padre Me Ama" (My Father Loves Me)

Me Padre me ama tanto que
My Father loves me so much that
su hijo dio por mi
He gave His son for me
por siempre las gracias le dare
For ever I will give Him thanks
Me ha dado su Espiritu y verdad
He has given me His Spirit and truth
bendito mi Senor
Blessed be my Lord
a su lado nada temere
By His side I will not fear anything
Y cantare...
And I will sing

Coro:
Mi padre me ama tanto (JLG: el me ama tanto)
My father loves me so much (He loves me so much)
su amor es eterno y santo (JLG: eterno y santo)
His love is eternal and holy (eternal and holy)
tan grande que no peudo entender (JLG: no peudo entenderlo)
So great that I cannot understand (can't understand)
no puedo entenderlo
I can't understand
Me viste de ropa fina
He dresses me in fine clothes
me anhela y me dio su vida
He longs for me and He gave me his life
gloria, aleluya, Padre fiel
Glory, Hallelujah, faithful Father

Mi Padre me ama tanto que
My Father loves me so much that
soy su heredero
I am His heir
me ha dado su nombre y su poder
He has given me his name and his power
Me viste de gloria y de bondad
He clothes me with glory and goodness
bendito mi Senor
Blessed be my Lord
a mi Dios por siempre exaltare, siempre
I will exalt my God for ever, ever
Y cantere
And I will sing

Coro:
Mi padre me ama tanto (JLG: el me ama tanto)
My father loves me so much (He loves me so much)
su amor es eterno y santo (JLG: eterno y santo)
His love is eternal and holy (eternal and holy)
tan grande que no puedo entender (JLG: no peudo entenderlo)
So great that I cannot understand (can't understand)
no peudo entenderlo
I can't understand
Me viste de ropa fina
He dresses me in fine clothes
me anhela y me dio su vida
He longs for me and He gave me his life
gloria, aleluya, Padre fiel
Glory, Hallelujah, faithful Father
Oh gracias Rey
Oh thank you my King

Coro:
Su amor nunca cambia (nunca cambia) (JLG: nunca cambia)
His love never changes (never changes)
su amor es benigno y tierno (es benigno y tierno)
His love is gracious and tender (is gracious and tender)
su amor todo puede y es eterno (JLG: eterno)
His love can do all things and is eternal (eternal)
gloria, amen
Glory, amen
Mi Padre me ama tanto (JLG: el me ama tanto)
My Father loves me so much (he loves me so much)
su amor es eterno y santo (JLG: eterno y santo)
His love is eternal and holy (eternal and holy)
tan grande que no puedo entender (JLG: no peudo entenderlo)
So great that I can't understand (I can't understand it)
no puedo entender
I can't understand
Me viste de ropa fina
He dresses me in fine clothes
me anhela y me dio su vida

The Reign of God in the Rain of Eyes: The Movement of God in the Midst of Our Tears

2009-07-09T00:00:00.000-03:00

I am rapidly moving toward the conclusion of our I John series in the Sunday morning worship services at Emmanuel. I am currently working on a new Sunday Morning series entitled The Reign of God in the Rain of Eyes: The Movement of God in the Midst of Our Tears. Scientists can tell us the physiology of tears, but little is known about the spirituality behind our tears. It's interesting to note that no other creature in God's universe sheds tears - only humans. It is my intention to show through this new series that this "singular pecularity of humans," as Freud called it, is in reality closely connected to a movement of God in the soul.

A poet once wrote "The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears," and the Bible seems to posit similar thoughts. There are 697 places in our Bible where the tears, weeping, and crying of people are mentioned, and in almost every single case there is a movement of God associated with the tears.

The series will begin in the middle of August, and if any of Grace and Truth readers have thoughts, anecdotes or comments about human tears, feel free to offer them! It could very well show up in the new series - with credit of course!

Blessings,

Wade

I Believe Is Not the Same Thing as I Know

2009-07-08T00:00:00.009-03:00

My goal in this post is to spark within the reader a thought process that leads to greater fellowship and dialogue among Christians with different beliefs. It is expected that this post will cause reactions within some, but it is written with the simple goal of fostering beneficial responses. For the purpose of illustration I will be open and honest about what I personally believe. My fellowship and relationship with you, at least in my mind, is not dependent upon our mutual beliefs. Rather I am your brother in Christ because of our personal, intimate and experiential knowledge of God - which we hold in common. In other words, my fellowship with you is based upon what we both know, not what we believe.

When we read the New Testament we find that the Apostles John, Paul, James and others made a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. There were just a few things which they "knew" and were absolutely persuaded about by God. The best synopsis of this knowledge is found in Paul's letter to young Timothy when he said,

Nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed" (II Timothy 1:12).

In short, I know what Paul knows. I know God is God and I am not. I know that God is able, and I am incapable. I know that the salvation of my soul is due to His love for me as revealed in the work of His Son on my behalf. These things I know.

But I believe so much more.

The atheist, agnostic and avoider of Christ would deny that I could even "know" the above. They say that at most, what Paul told Timothy he "knew," and what I declare to know, is a matter of faith, not knowledge. To some degree the atheist would be correct. The writer of Hebrews says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6).

But on the other hand, the atheist is simply missing the key blessing of coming to God through faith in Jesus Christ - the knowledge that God actually exists. Those who seek God will meet God, and will be rewarded with an intimate relationship with their Creator through Jesus Christ our Lord. The atheist has no "gnosis" or personal knowledge of this one true God. Therefore, the intellectually honest atheist can only say, "Atheism is my BELIEF that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability." He is a man of belief. His belief has also led him to a personal and experiential knowledge - there is no God. He knows this as his reality, because the atheist hasn't met God. Yet the prophet declares, "Prepare to meet thy God."

As for us, we would say we know there is a God, for we have met Him. We were trapped in our own failures and inabilities when we heard the good news. We came to faith in the God who made provision for us through His Son, Jesus the Anointed One. Having trusted Him, we have found God true, faithful and able - just like Paul told Timothy.

I know this to be true!

But, again, I believe so much more.

In my ministry I live what I know and I teach what I believe. I teach what I believe with passion. I teach what I believe with conviction. But there is a difference between knowing and believing. My brothers and sisters in Christ who know God can "believe" differently than I and we shall continue in fellowship, for our fellowship is around the Person we know, not the things we believe.

Illustrations of that Which I Believe

(1). I believe Jesus died for a particular people - God's 'elect,' or Christ's 'bride,' or His 'church,' or 'believers,' or however else one wishes to describe the people from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue who have an inheritance in heaven.

But I don't know Jesus died just for the elect. I have a friend, Paul Young, who believes Jesus died for every single human being who has ever lived, those in hell and in heaven, and as a result, he is a hopeful universalist - holding out hope that somehow, someway, someday, Jesus will empty hell and all of the universe will be redeemed because everyone will see the glory of the Son who actually redeemed them.

I teach what I believe (particular redemption), but I don't "know" that what I believe about particular redemption is true - one day I will find out. My belief in particular redemption is not shaken by those who oppose it. My belief in particular redemption does not form my identity. My fellowship with other believers is not defined by our mutual faith in particular redemption. I don't know that particular redemption is true - but I believe it. I just happen to know that what binds me with others is our mutual knowledge of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

(2). I believe that the earth is a young earth - but I don't know that the earth is young. When I teach through Genesis expositionally, as I have done three times, I teach that God created the earth at most 10,000 years ago - because that is what i believe. However, I don't "know" that God created the earth 10,000 years ago.

I wasn't there.

The Scriptures can be interpreted in various ways regarding the age of the earth. My belief in a young earth is not threatened by those brothers in Christ who believe in an old earth. My fellowship with those who know God through Jesus Christ is not limited to those who believe in a young earth. I am firm in my personal belief in a young earth, but I am honest enough to say I don't "know" the earth is young. One of these days I will "know."

We have teachers in our church who believe in a young earth, we have teachers in our church who believe in an old earth. They are free to teach whatever they believe, they are simply reminded to acknowledge that what they teach is a matter of faith.

(3). I believe that most, if not all, of the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled - I am what some would call a partial preterist. Preterism is from the Latin word meaning "having been fulfilled." I believe the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 A.D., thus I believe in an early dating of the writing of Revelation. I believe the prophecies of Jesus in Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 A.D - within a generation of when they were given. I believe that the prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled through Alexander the Great, the birth of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

But I don't "know" that the prophecies of Scripture have all been fulfilled completely. I teach what I believe about eschatology and allow others in our church to teach what they believe about eschatology. In fact, I have taught all four major eschatological positions (premillenialism, amillienialism, post-millenialism, preterism) to the people of Emmanuel - and then I asked them to choose what they believe.

Our fellowship is around our personal knowledge of Christ, not our mutual beliefs in other matters.

(4). I believe that God made women equal to men in authority - and so I see the prophetesses in Scripture prophesying, Priscilla teaching Apollo theology, Deborah reigning over Israel and judging God's people, and I have no problem with women teaching men today, or women holding positions of authority over men today, or believing women are gifted by the Spirit of God just the same as the Spirit gifts men today. Sure, there are different roles for men and women (women give birth, men don't), but the idea that a woman cannot have equal "authority to a man" is completely foreign to my understanding of the Bible and the purposes of God.

But here is where it gets sticky. Unlike my belief in a young earth, particular redemption, and partial preterism, belief in the equality of women has a corresponding action with it - it affects how the believer in gender equality treats women. Am I open for women to be in positions of spiritual leadership? Yes. Can women teach the Bible to men in our church? Yes, and they do. Do I believe women can teach Hebrew to future preachers? Yes.

Again, my view of equality is not based on experience, but on what I believe Scripture teaches. But my interpretation of Scripture is also consistent with my experience. So in some aspects I am like the apostle Paul when he said I am "fully persuaded" by God. My belief has become my personal knowledge.

Could I be wrong? Of course. God may not have given to women equal authority or equal spiritual abilities to men. If that is the case, then my interpretation of Scripture is leading me to place women in a very compromising, uncomfortable and possibly untenable positions. But, again, my actual experience has been just the opposite. Every teacher, every leader, every proclaimer of Jesus Christ who happens to be female seems to me to be just as capable and equal to men.

By the way, it is my desire to maintain fellowship and relationship with my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me on this belief. But I have found that sometimes it is difficult for other Christians to fellowship with me around differing beliefs that lead to opposite, and uncomfortable actions. In other words, one can debate ecclesiology, eschatology, creation, and atonement - but serve the Lord's supper to a non-church member in front of a Landmarker, or put a woman as a teacher to men in front of a patriarch, or do something else that corresponds to, and is consistent with, your Christian beliefs, then the fireworks begin. That is, unless Christians understand the difference between believing something and knowing something.

Our church has been trained to be comfortable fellowshipping with various Christians that have differing beliefs, and in many instances, fellowshipping with Christians whose beliefs have led them to actions or activities that some in our church would refrain from participating in. There is in our church, for lack of a better word, soul freedom.

I freely confess that it would be difficult for me to be a part of a church where men treated women as inferior, or where men were allowed to speak down to women as if they were children, or where women were taught that their places in life were reserved to be a servants to the men. Yet, in no form or fashion would I ever urge a Convention to disfellowship from, or cease to cooperate with, a patriarchal church. Patriarchs are simply living out their beliefs, and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We just believe differently than they.

(5). I believe that God is absolutely sovereign - and not one atom, not one molecule, not one event, not one person, not one devil is allowed to move or act without his permission, prohibition, persuasion, or providence. There is nothing that is hidden from God or too hard for God. He does as He pleases, always as He pleases, only as He pleases. His purposes shall be fulfilled, and he shall accomplish everything according to His purposes.

But I could be wrong. God could not know the future because the things of the future do not yet exist and thus are not knowable, as Greg Boyd teaches. God could be dependent upon the will of man as Arminius taught.

But I teach what I believe, so I teach He is sovereign over all things, even the will of man and the future events of the world.

But it doesn't bother me to fellowship with someone who knows God but believes differently regarding His providence. One of these days I am hopeful that those of us who have very specific beliefs will come to the place where we are neither threatened by, nor seek to separate from, those Christians who believe differently than we.

There are so many other illustrations that could be given to show the difference between what we believe and what we know, but I think you get the point.

In His Grace,

Wade

God Made For Man One Equal in Power, Strength and Authority: An Exegesis of Gen. 2:18

2009-07-06T00:00:00.002-03:00

The article below is from the brilliant Biblical scholar Dr. Walter C. Kaiser. It was forwarded to me by Pastor Chuck Andrews and reproduced below in its entirety. The article is an exegesis of Genesis 2:18 and proves, definitively in my opinion, that God designed and created women with full equality to men. It should also answer several questions from the previous comment stream.

"Are women inferior to men, merely designed to be their helpers? Is it consistent with the biblical text to view men as the initiators and women as their assistants? Is this what makes women suitable matches for men?

The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without community or a proper counterpart. The Creator judged Adam’s situation quite negatively: “It is not good.”

Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 expresses this same opinion about aloneness. The wise writer Solomon advised: Two are better than one. … If one falls down, his friend can help him up. … Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.

True, in Jeremiah 16:1–9 the prophet Jeremiah is commanded by God to remain alone, but this is meant to be a sign that God’s judgment on the people is so near that it will not be worthwhile to get married. Nevertheless, the full life is a life that finds its fulfillment in community with another person or group of persons.

In the Genesis story we find that God created a woman after he had created the man. This would end Adam’s loneliness and the state that God judged to be “not good.” She was to be his “helper”—at least that is how most of the translations have interpreted this word. A sample of the translations reads as follows: “I shall make a helper fit for him” (RSV); “I will make a fitting helper for him” (New Jewish Publication Society); “I will make an aid fit for him” (AB); “I will make him a helpmate” (JB); “I will make a suitable partner for him” (NAB); “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (NKJV).

However, the customary translation of the two words ˓ēzer keneḡdô as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong. Recently R. David Freedman has pointed out that the Hebrew word ˓ēzer is a combination of two roots: ˓-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and ǵ-z-r, meaning “to be strong.” The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew. Today that letter is silent in Hebrew, but in ancient times it was a guttural sound formed in the back of the throat. The ǵ was a ghayyin, and it came to use the same Hebrew symbol as the other sound, ˓ayin. But the fact that they were pronounced differently is clear from such place names which preserve the g sound, such as Gaza or Gomorrah. Some Semitic languages distinguished between these two signs and others did not; for example, Ugaritic did make a distinction between the ˓ayin and the ghayyin; Hebrew did not (R. David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to a Man,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9 [1983]: 56–58).

It would appear that sometime around 1500 B.C. these two signs began to be represented by one sign in Phoenician. Consequently the two phonemes merged into one grapheme and what had been two different roots merged into one, much as in English the one word fast can refer to a person’s speed, abstinence from food, his or her slyness in a “fast deal” or the adamant way in which someone holds “fast” to positions. The noun ˓ēzer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Some examples are:

There is none like the God of Jeshurun, The Rider of the Heavens in your strength (˓-z-r), and on the clouds in his majesty. (Deut 33:26, my translation)

Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is the shield of your strength (˓-z-r) and the sword of your majesty. (Deut 33:29, my translation)

The case that begins to build is that we can be sure that ˓ezer means “strength” or “power” whenever it is used in parallelism with words for majesty or other words for power such as ˓oz or ˓uzzo. In fact, the presence of two names for one king, Azariah and Uzziah (both referring to God’s strength), makes it abundantly clear that the root ˓ēzer meaning “strength” was known in Hebrew.

Therefore I suggest that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.” Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. If this is so, then God makes for the man a woman fully his equal and fully his match. In this way, the man’s loneliness will be assuaged.

The same line of reasoning occurs in the apostle Paul. He urged in 1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this reason, a woman must have power [or authority] on her head [that is to say, invested in her].”

This line of reasoning which stresses full equality is continued in Genesis 2:23, where Adam says of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” The idiomatic sense of this phrase “bone of my bones” is a “very close relative,” “one of us” or in effect “our equal.”

The woman was never meant to be an assistant or “helpmate” to the man. The word mate slipped into English since it was so close to Old English meet, which means “fit to” or “corresponding to” the man. That all comes from the phrase that I have suggested likely means “equal to.”

What God had intended then was to make a “power” or “strength” for the man who would in every way correspond to him or even be his equal."

Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (92). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

God Calls Patriarchal Headship A Sinful Desire

2009-07-02T00:00:00.005-03:00

We live in a day when the basic family unit is disintegrating. Divorces are rampant. Live-in relationships are the norm, and homosexual unions are being recognized by governments. It is right and necessary for the Christian church to both teach and model the Biblical concept of "family" in this age when the Biblical concept of family is seldom understood. However, one of the problems we face as Christians is misinterpreting what God calls the ideal home. There is a growing patriarchal movement among conservative Christian churches, a movement where men are taught that they should have complete "authority" in the home, and that they should "rule" over their wives and children. Many of these conservative Bible-believing Christians who advocate patriarchy honestly believe they are teaching Biblical truth. It is my intention in this post to show that patriarchy is not God's ideal, but rather, patriarchy is the result of God's curse on Adam and Eve. When God's grace appears in the home, patriarchy is expelled.

When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, God pronounced judgment on them in Genesis 3:16-19. God first began with Eve:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).

Some conservative Bible scholars take the last phrase of v.16 to mean (1). The wife shall have a “sexual desire” for her husband (i.e. “your desire shall be for your husband”), and (2). The husband is to be the head, authority and ruler of the home (i.e. “and he shall rule over you”). These conservative scholars declare that God’s statement in v. 16 is how the husband and wife “should” relate to each other in the home, and how the home ought to be in terms of headship and governance. The man, they say, is to rule over his home; there should be no equality of authority since God established this patriarchal system from the very beginning.

However, other conservative Bible scholars rightly point out that the woman’s “desire” for her husband in Genesis 3:16 is not, at least linguistically and contextually, a sexual desire. One only needs to turn one chapter over to find the same word teshuqah, in Genesis 4:7, where it is also translated “desire." In the context of Genesis 4:7, teshuqah is used to refer to sin’s “desire” to control Cain. Thus, letting the Bible interpret itself, the word “desire” in both both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 means “a desire to control.”

Likewise, the same Hebrew verb mashal, which means “to rule,” is also used in Genesis 4:7, just as it was in Genesis 3:16. Mashal is used in Genesis 4:7 to describe Cain’s efforts to rule over or dominate the sin that is “crouching at his door.” Again, when you let the Bible interpret itself, mashal is used in both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 to describe someone who is having to fend off an attack; it carries the idea of warring for control or domination; a battle to see who will be ultimate "ruler."

Using basic principles of interpretation, one comes up with a very simple explanation of the consequence of God's curse on Adam and Eve - a consequence that has infiltrated every home since the beginning of time. Simply put, the woman will desire to dominate or control the man, but the man, perhaps even with superior strength, will fight hard to rule over and dominate the woman. Where the curse is present there is a constant battle for control. This is how things are because of sin, not how things in the home ought to be. The patriarchal societies of the world express the reality of male domination, and in certain western Christian cultures, patriarchy is often said to be ordered by God - as if God designed the home to be this way.

Likewise, in some cultures, such as the Kanu of South America, the women "rule" the home, and the men are the "servants." These women explain their domination of men in the home with the simple phrase - "the gods have made it this way." What both matriarchal and patriachal proponents need to understand, regardless of the culture from which they come, is that any system designed for "domination" or "control" of the other spouse is the result of sin and the curse on sin.

When the God of all grace gets a hold of a man and a woman in a marriage relationship, no longer will there be a fight to see who dominates and controls the other. Rather, there will be mutual submission between husband and wife (i.e. Ephesians 5:21 – “submitting to one another in reverence to Christ”). Mutual submission, with no thought of "control," is God's design for the home. It should be the effort of every Bible-believing church, pastor and teacher to instruct husbands and wives on the sinful nature of any husband or wife seeking to dominate the other spouse.

In fact, I like what Dr. Richard Hess, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Theological Seminary says in his comments on Genesis 3:16. Dr. Hess said all Christians should attempt to pull down any patriarchal (or matriarchal) system of domination and control in the Christian home, and then responds to those who object to any attempt to end patriarchy:

It is no more a sin to end this consequence of the fall than it is to use weed killer to end the promised weeds and thorns in the following verses. No, the emphasis (in Genesis 3:16) is on the terrible effects of sin, and the destruction of a harmonious relationship that once existed. In its place comes a harmful struggle of wills.

I trust that conservative, evangelical churches will continue to proclaim and model God's design for the home. I just pray that we do a good job of understanding the subject ourselves first. Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs.

In His Grace,

Wade

Loving as Christ Loves Me: An Astonishing Truth

2009-07-01T00:00:00.002-03:00

As a follow-up to Monday's post on New Covenant living, I would like to point out an excellent comment given by my father in yesterday's comment stream. The premise of my post Monday was that New Covenant believers are known for our obedience to a "new" commandment from Jesus to "love one another." My father points out just exactly how this commandment in John 13:34 is "new."

The law of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" was the old law given in the Old Covenant as recorded various places including Lev. 19:18. When Jesus said "A new commandment give I you..." [John 13:34] He was NOT giving a new commandment to love, which was already given, but rather (He was giving a new commandment in) HOW to love someone --- " As I have loved you." [Not as you love yourself.]

Think about what Jesus is saying. We have always been commanded to love others - from the very beginning. But in the New Covenant our standard or measurement of loving others is no longer "love people like I love myself," but rather, "love people as Christ has loved me."

The question one should ponder as we think about how we are to love others is clear: How is the love of Christ for my soul different than my own love for my own soul? There many, major differences between self-love and Christ's love for me. But there is one major difference I would like to point out in today's post.

Self-love is powerful and deep - but expected; Christ's love for me is so much more powerful, so much deeper - and unexpected! Thus, my love for others in the New Covenant ought to astonish, amaze and cause people to scratch their head in wonderment and surprise - just as I am astonished, amazed and surprised by Christ's love for me.

Psychologists tell us that self-love is universal. Even those with "low self-esteem" love themselves - or they wouldn't be bothered by whatever problems they perceive they have. Again, self-love is easily understood and explained.

But Christ's love for me hard to explain and understand. His love is so much stronger, and so much more powerful - and unexpected!. Thus, loving people the way Christ loved me is so much deeper, stronger and incredibly more powerful than we imagine. It is also surprising to those being loved! In other words, New Covenant love for others is "astonishing," just as Christ's love for me astonishes me!

Could it be the reason there is so little love among Christians today is because we have ceased to be astonished at Christ's love for us?

Too often we pastors and church leaders want to focus people on "their love for God," but when I read the Scriptures and the prayers of the apostles, their concern was not so much that believers increase in their love for God as it was that believers grow in their comprehension of God's love for them.

"For this reason I bow my knees before the Father . . . that you may have the strength to comprehend . . . and know the love of Christ which surpasses your knowledge" (Ephesians 3:14, 18-19)

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

When we become more and more amazed at Christ's love for us, we then begin to understand that loving people in the New Covenant way is to surprise them with our love as we are surprised by God with His love for us.

In His Grace,

Wade

The New Covenant: Christian Living at It's Finest

2009-06-29T00:00:00.003-03:00

One of the best things we can do for others is to teach and model the New Covenant. The word "covenant" in Hebrew is [beriyth], and in Greek it is [diatheke], often translated "testament." Both original words literally mean "a promise or solemn oath" (See Genesis 26:3). We help others when they hear us teach, and they see us live, resting in God's solemn promise of faithful goodness toward us - regardless of our performance, obedience or commitment.

In order for Christians to understand this radical way of thinking and living, they must first understand that there two kinds of covenants God enters into as described by Scripture. First, God has often entered into covenants that are based on a mutual agreement, so that God makes a promise to bless based upon certain requirements being met by the recepient of the promise. But there is a second kind of covenant or "promise" that God enters into, and fulfills, with no requirements or necessary stipulations from the recepient of the promise. This kind of covenant is called "an unconditional covenant." Unconditional covenants are entered into because of the mere grace of the promise maker.

Though there are several conditional covenants that God has made with His people throughout history as recorded in the Old Testament, there is one major conditional covenant, under which all other conditional covenants were made. The writer of Hebrews officially calls this covenant that God initiated with His people "The Old Covenant." God said, "If you will obey me . . . then I will bless you. If you disobey me, then I will curse you," and all Israel agreed. But the writer of Hebrews tells us that this covenant has been done away with and replaced with a "New Covenant" (Hebrews 9:15) between God and both Jews and Gentiles - all who will trust His Son. This "New Covenant" is a "better" covenant with "better" promises; promises that are unconditional in nature.

A believer in Jesus Christ is the recepient of promises from God that are based on His mere grace, and have nothing to do with the performance or commitment of the participants. Simply "look to Christ and live." Unfortunately, many pastors do harm to their congregations by not understanding themselves the differences between the two covenants. A New Covenant preacher will tell God's people what God has done for us through His Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ. New covenant messages and ministries will not be on "if you will . . . then God will . . . " but rather, "look what God has promised to do, and will do, for those who trust Him." It is to this ministry, with this message, that Jesus has called all minister to others the good news.

But our High Priest [Jesus Christ] has been given a ministry that is far superior to the ministry of those who serve under the old laws, for he is the one who guarantees for us a better covenant with God, based on better promises. If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it. But God himself found fault with the old one when he said: “The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah…” (Heb. 8:6-8 NLT)

I was once asked why our church did not have an active "Promise Keepers" movement within it, and I responded that when emphasis is on "The Promise Keeper," meaning God, then we would be involved. I have found that when ministries are built on the promises of man, they always tend to fail in the end.

However, it is not my desire to focus on the specifics of how a ministry implements New Covenant teaching in terms of tithing, church attendance, Christian commitment, etc . . . There are plenty of web sites that delve into this, including several articles by my own father, Paul Burleson.

The purpose of this particular post is to simply show that under the New Covenant there is a particular characteristic that defines God's people. We are not defined by our "obedience to any law" such as the law of Sabbath keeping, or the law of sacrifice, or the law of Temple worship, or the law of abstinence, or any other Old Covenant law, church law, or man-made law. Rather, we are defined as a people by our desire to solely and completely fulfill one law - the law from Jesus Christ Himself, called "the royal law of love."

Jesus calls this His "new commandment" (John 13:39). It is "new" in that it is a "new" commandment for the "new" man whose been given a "new" name and sings a "new" song as he lives a "new" life where all things are "new" (Rev. 21:5). It is this radical commandment to love one another - to boldly, liberally and continually love people - that is THE IDENTIFYING MARK of God's people. This does not mean that a New Covenant believer cannot be a person of strong convictions,,, but it does mean that love for people is to pervade all he/she does.

One of the best ways to measure whether or not we are living the Christian life to its fullest and its finest is to measure whether our hearts are truly filled with love for people - people who disagree with us, people who are different than us, people who are a delight to us. Do we rejoice when others are blessed? Are we glad when others succeed? Do we do what we do because we love?

These are questions I ask myself almost daily.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Has the Ark of the Covenant Truly Been Found?

2009-06-26T13:23:00.004-03:00

In a copyrighted story from the Italian news agency Adnkronos the patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, Abuna Paulos (pictured here) says he will announce to the world today, Friday, June 26, the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the world’s most prized archaeological and spiritual artifact. The patriarch says the ark has been hidden away in a church in his country for several thousand years.

Abuna Pauolos, in Italy for a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI this week, told the news agency, “Soon the world will be able to admire the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible as the container of the tablets of the law that God delivered to Moses and the center of searches and studies for centuries.”

The announcement is expected to be made at 2 p.m. Italian time from the Hotel Aldrovandi in Rome. Pauolos will reportedly be accompanied by Prince Aklile Berhan Makonnen Haile Sellassie and Duke Amedeo D’Acosta.

“The Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia for many centuries,” said Pauolos. “As a patriarch I have seen it with my own eyes and only few highly qualified persons could do the same, until now.”

According to Pauolos, the actual Ark has been kept in one church, but to defend the treasure, a copy was placed in every single church in Ethiopia.

He said a museum is being built in Axum, Ethiopia, where the Ark will be displayed. A foundation of D’Acosta will fund the project.

The Ark of the Covenant is the sacred container of the Ten Commandments as well as Aaron’s rod and a sample of manna, the mysterious food that kept the Israelites alive while wandering in the wilderness during their journey to the promised land.
Muslim scholars say it will be found near the end of times by the Mahdi – a messianic figure in Islam.

I happen to be a partial-preterist, ala R.C. Sproul, but many on my pastoral staff who are dispensationalist, including Pastor Ted Kuschel, Th.M, Dallas Theological Seminary, will most assuredly point out to me the prophetic significance of this event when I arrive in Enid the first of next week.

I remain a skeptic on matters like this.

In His Grace,

Wade

Reflections on the 2009 SBC in Louisville, KY

2009-06-25T12:40:00.004-03:00

Rachelle and I are packing to head to the airport to catch our flight back to DFW. I thought I would take a couple of minutes to post something that has been on my heart and mind.

For reasons that are not of my making (at least in my opinion), I have been involved in the politics of the SBC for the past three years.

It is now time for me to step aside.

For the next year I will be taking a sabbatical from any SBC political discussions on this blog. I will continue to write posts, but they will concentrate on theology, church work and those things that are positive about all Southern Baptists, including those who I consider to be my Baptist Identity friends.

Further, if someone reads a post of mine and believes it to be political in nature, whoever it is that believes it to be political, I commit to remove that post at the simple request of the reader.

I will, of course, reserve the right to write on theological issues, but there will be no mention of those who disagree, nor comparisions with anybody else's theology, methodology or ecclesiology.

We have far too much at stake, and far too much in common as Southern Baptists to be polarized in the manner in which we have been polarized. My little part to help bring unity in the blogosphere may not amount to much, but those who know me will tell you that I stand by my word.

So, until the next SBC in Orlando (2010), I hope you enjoy reading my blogposts - sans any political SBC discussions.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Confusing Future Direction of the SBC

2009-06-24T00:00:00.003-03:00

Tuesday night at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention, the messengers overwhelmingly voted to adopt a motion from Al Mohler to "authorize the President of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a Great Commission Taskforce charged to bring a report and any recommendations to the SBC meeting in Orlando, Florida June 15-16, 2010 concerning how Southern Baptists can work together more faithfully and effectively in serving Christ through the Great Commission."

The Convention in Orlando next year is setting up to be a doozy. Not only will there be a new President elected, but the report of this Great Commission Taskforce will be as controversial as the Peace Committee Report of the mid-1990's.

There are three reasons why this Great Commission vote Tuesday night launches a year of controversy:

(1). Baptist State Convention Executive-Directors and Dr. Morris Chapman are united in their belief that certain agency heads, particularly Jerry Rankin, Al Mohler and Danny Akin are looking for churches to give more money directly to their institutions rather than through the Cooperative Program where state conventions and the Executive Committee would receive a cut of what is given. Whether this is true or not is not really the issue - it is the perception.

(2). Some Southern Baptists, particularly Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell and others affiliated with Southwestern Theological Seminary believe the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration does not go far enough doctrinally. Wanting a much firmer and official "Baptist Identity" spelled out in the Great Commission Declaration, Baptist Identity adherents have signed the document with "caveats" or not signed it at all. Many who argued against the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night said the growing influence of Calvinism in the SBC is the reason for the decline in baptisms, and no Great Commission Declaration would ever weed out what really needs to go in the SBC - Calvinists.

(3). Dr. Morris Chapman made, in my opinion, a very strategic mistake during his Executive-Director's address Tuesday morning. As stated above, Dr. Chapman is adamantly opposed to the Great Commission Declaration because of a feeling those in support of it will work to "cut out" traditional Cooperative Program accounting. In essence, Dr. Chapman believes Danny Aiken and other agency heads have long sought the Convention to label any DIRECT gifts to any specific SBC agency as "Cooperative Program" giving. Dr. Chapman takes the position regarding the Cooperative Program budget that most local SBC pastors take regarding their local church budgets. Once people begin to "designate" gifts then the idea of a unified and cooperative budget goes out the window.

However, rather than addressing the practical and financial concerns associated with GCRD Article 9 (i.e. the restucturing of SBC agencies and ministries) during his address, Dr. Chapman delivered a rather polemical strike against Calvinism. Dr. Chapman, in essence, blamed Calvinism for the decline of baptisms, giving and missions in the SBC. Several who opposed the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night picked up on Dr. Chapman's attack against Calvinism. Dr. Chapman's strike against Calvinists in the SBC was a mistake.

In an extraordinary luncheon meeting at Sojourn Church after Dr. Morris Chapman's address, Dr. Danny Aiken publicly apologized to all his "Calvinist" friends present at the luncheon (Dr. Mohler was seated to his left on the platform) for the "shameful" misrepresentations of Calvinism by Executive-Director Morris Chapman. I don't know when I've seen agency heads at such odds with each other as they seem to now be.

My Vote on the Great Commission Resurgence

In the end, I voted for the Great Commission Recommendation Tuesday night. Honestly, after the Baptist21 luncheon today at Sojourn where national agency leaders seemed to either advocate or condone bypassing state conventions in order to give directly seminaries, the IMB, or other national entities of the SBC, I was withdrawing my support for the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.

However, after hearing the floor debate on Tuesday night and realizing that those voting AGAINST the Great Commisison recommendation were either slamming Calvinists, or opposing evangelical cooperation, or were strong advocates of Baptist Identity - I voted FOR the Great Commission Motion.

I admire Dr. Chapman, but I think it was a very strategic mistake to oppose the Great Commission Resurgence on the basis of blaming Calvinists for the problems in the SBC. Others heard his address and picked up the mantra Tuesday night during the debate on the Great Commission recommendation. In the end, the diatribe against Calvinists by those opposing the GCRD Task Force is precisely why I voted FOR for the GCRD Task Force.

Otherwise, I probably would have voted against it. It is not my desire, nor will it ever by my desire, to defund state missions ministry. I can't speak for other Baptist state conventions, but I can guarantee you that the work done in Oklahoma is extraordinary. Frankly, I am far more comfortable with the accountability of how our STATE Cooperative Program funds are being spent than I am with the accountability of hour our NATIONAL Cooperative Program funds are being spent - particularly when our national convention refuses to adopt GAAP or FASB conflict of interest guidelines - something our state Baptist Conention did years ago.

Needless to say, things are getting very confusing in the SBC. I told my wife three years ago that the reason I was taking a stand against excluding charismatics from the IMB and the SBC is because if you don't draw the line there, then those who hold to the doctrines of grace would be the next ones targeted.

Well, it sure seems that some very signficant people are now taking direct aim at Calvinists in the SBC.

Hold on tight. It could get really rocky.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Conflicts of Interests in the SBC and the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration (and Conflict)

2009-06-23T17:33:00.005-03:00

An interesting day (Tuesday) at the SBC. I will cover some of the more interesting items from the morning and afternoon sessions, but I will save an evaluation of Dr. Morris Chapman's speech, a critique of the Sojourn Baptist21 Conference at lunch, and a report on Tuesday night's SBC session for the morning.

Several motions were offered from the floor early Tuesday included two very bizarre ones:

(1). A motion to force Convention agencies to cease funding and/or cooperating with the ACTS 29 Network or Mark Driscoll ministries.

(2). A motion to forbid any person to speak from the platform of the Southern Baptist Convention who has declared it is acceptable to drink an alcoholic beverage. The messenger who made this motion called drinking alcohol "reprobate behavior."

The above two motions will addressed by the Executive Committee and SBC at a later date.

Another motion to disfellowship from Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas for allowing gays to have their photographs taken in the church directory passed, just as I predicted. A motion to disfellowship from FBC Decatur for calling a female pastor, another motion I predicted would be offered, has not yet been presented, though there are a couple of business sessions Tuesday night and Wednesday where this could be offered.

During the morning session I offered an amendment to the Nominating Committee report, substituting Bart Barber's, FBC Farmersville position as an at large trustee for Southwestern Theological Seminary (term expiring 2012) with Buddy Hunt, FBC Tahlequah. I was allowed to speak to the motion and offered the rationale for the substitute motion.

Dr. Bart Barber is an adjunct professor for Southwestern Theological Seminary, teaching church history last semester (Spring 2009). Bart has drawn a salary and various benefits from Southwestern while on their payroll. I explained that to appoint Bart Barber as a trustee of the institution that has provided him a paycheck is in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and their respective statements regarding conflicts of interest.

I affirmed that Bart and Buddy were both good men and friends, but that as a Convention we should avoid any appearance of irregularities, but I'm not sure the Convention understood the "irregularities" at stake. I didn't point out, but might should have, that to have an employee of an institution being in a position (i.e. "a trustee") where he will make decisions regarding his own salary, benefits and future personnel policies that shall affect him as an employee is a definite conflict of interest. Corporations would be fined for such violations by the various regulatory oversight agencies that enforce FASB and GAAP. It is up to the Southern Baptist Convention to police ourselves.

However, the member of the Nominating Committee who spoke on behalf of Dr. Barber's nomination said he had "prayed" about it, and that every person nominated and voted on by the ENTIRE committee was precisely who they beleived God desired to serve on the various boards. I am glad the members of the Nominating Committee prayed about the people they nominated, but frankly, if their actions violate ethical and moral standards that even secular corporations follow, it might not be wise to let people know you prayed about it. It's a little like saying, "I prayed about robbing the bank and felt like God would have me do it."

The Southern Baptist Convention has historically voted on behalf of the full Nominating Committee report. I can only recall one time in the last 30 years that a substitute nomination from the floor was approved by the Convention. My motion to replace Bart Barber's nomination also failed. However, I am glad I pointed out the conflicts. It puts the people who need to know that they are being closely observed on notice.

There is an interesting conflict arising over a motion to appoint a Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. That motion, debated Tuesday night at 7:40 p.m., is causing a rift among leadership in the SBC. On the one side you have Dr. Morris Chapman and the various State Executive Directors (only two state exec's signed the GCRD), and on the other side you have national agency heads and seminary Presidents who would like to see churches be able to give directly to their ministries - bypassing the State Conventions.

I find it ironic that some will try to frame the Great Commission Resurgence debate in terms of "How can anybody be AGAINST the Great Commission Resurgence?" - a little bit like people who were pro-conservative resurgence in the early 1980's used to say, "How can anybody be AGAINST a belief in an inerrant Bible?"

Just a word of caution before the debate tonight regarding the Great Commission Resurgence - the debate is more about politics, turf and money than any disagreement over whether or not we need a resurgence in the Great Commission.

More later.

Wade Burleson

A Short Synopsis of Monday With a Preview of Tuesday at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention

2009-06-23T01:16:00.003-03:00

Rachelle and I enjoyed a good day in Louisville on Monday. Rather than give a detailed review of every message given on Monday, I decided to give just a one sentence observation of each pastor and/or message.

Mike Landry - (8:55 a.m.) "Anybody given the 8:55 a.m. time slot on Monday morning at the Southern Baptist Convention's Pastors' Conference should be praised just for accepting."

Ed Stetzer - (9:35 a.m.) "Ed is the real deal; the SBC needs more men like Ed in leadership. He gave an excellent message on the state of the SBC."

Tom Elliff - (11:00 a.m.) "Tom delivered a message I've heard before from him on the importance of forgiveness; a message in which he shares anecdotes from his own family."

Michael Catt - (1:55 a.m.) "This former pastor of FBC Ada, Oklahoma is known more for his movie making ("Facing the Giants" and "Fireproof") than he is his preaching, though he does a good job at both."

Fred Luter, Jr - (2:55 p.m.) "The best comment about Fred's message came from Mike Huckabee who followed him: (Quote) 'Don't you wish Barak Obama had sat under Fred's preaching for 20 years rather than Jeremiah Wright's preaching?' (Endquote)."

Mike Huckabee - (3:45 p.m.) "Governor Huckabee is funny and effective as he delivers his first campaign speech for the Presidential campaign of 2012.

Alvin Reid - (7:00 p.m.) "Ditto what was said about Ed Stetzer regarding Dr. Reid - Southern Baptists need more like this professor from Southeastern who is rather unafraid to tell it like it is."

David Platt - (7:45 p.m.) "I predict the ubiquit0us David Platt of Brookhills Baptist in Birmingham will be on more Pastors' Conference programs in the next 20 years than any other SBC pastor."

Johnny Hunt - (8:30 p.m.) "One thing that must be said about Johnny Hunt is he is not used to anybody telling him how something should be done - no doubt about it as to who is setting the agenda for this Convention (and Pastors' Conference)."

The Great Commission Resurgence is the hot topic, and by Thursday it will be discussed even more across the Southern Baptist Convention.

Tuesday Preview

Look for some very surprising motions (and fully expected motions) to be presented right off the bat at 8:30 a.m. eastern time from the floor of the Convention.

Also, during the Executive Committee's second report in the afternoon there will be a controversial recommendation regarding disfellowshipping from a SBC church.

Look for a couple of possible surprises in the Nominating Committee report as well.

All eyes and ears will be tuned to the two speeches by Morris Chapman and Johnny Hunt - two men who have much in common, but at this Convention a great deal of public differences.

It should be an interesting Tuesday, not the least of reasons is my booksigning, unlike other booksignings, is being done in the waiting line for people buying donuts.

:)

In His Grace,

Wade

Thoughts on Sunday Night Pastor's Conference

2009-06-22T00:00:00.002-03:00

Sunday night's Southern Baptist Pastor's Conference was held at the Kentucky Exposition and Fair Grounds just about five minutes south of downtown Louisville. I arrived at 6:00 p.m. and walked into the main lobby to the wonderful smell of freshly baked donuts. It seems some entrepreneurs have brought in a donut machine that makes hot, white sugar coated minature donuts - selling them for $4.00 a dozen. The line for donuts was longer than the line for Convention registration, and I can vouch that the donuts are worth the wait.

J.D. Greear started the preaching off at 6:30 p.m. I have heard a great deal about J.D., but have never had the privilege of hearing him preach. He pastors The Summit Church in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, a fast-growing church composed of mostly young adults. J.D. did an excellent job showing the six characteristics of Christians who have substituted religion for the vitality of knowing Jesus Christ. His text was Matthew 23 and he showed how the Pharisees (1). sought personal recognition, (2). substituted religious rituals over and against love for God, (3). substituted religious rituals over and against love for people, (4). considered only themselves holy and other people sinful, (5). raised tertiary issues to the place of primary doctrine, and (6). sought fellowship around conformity to their own ideology and not the life transforming power of God.

J.D.'s message was superb. My only reservation is the manner in which J.D., like many trained in modern Southern Baptist seminaries, used women in ministry as an illustration of a "primary" doctrine. One of these days I believe J.D. will see that this "doctrine" is secondary, if not tertiary - and disagreement among evangelicals in this area should not lead to separation in fellowship or cooperation.

Mac Brunson followed J.D. Greear and preached a message from I Peter. His theme was on how the people in Christ's church should love one another and treat each other with grace, civility and love - so that the world will see how we treat one another and glorify God. Mac is a great communicator and I enjoy listening to him. He is faithful to the text, which is more than can be said of many preachers. However, I couldn't help but have two thoughts reverberate in my head as Mac preached on Christian civility and love - (1). Why is he yelling so loud? Usually, loud preaching is not bothersome, but there seemed to be a disconnect between a preacher talking about Christian civility and love while yelling at the people who he says (those of us in the congregation) aren't showing it, and (2). I wonder what Mac's church member - the one who criticized Mac on his blog and then was issued a trespass warning without ever being personally contacted by Mac - was thinking?

I didn't have to wonder long because as soon as the message was over I received a text message from that church member. He let me know what he thought of the message -and I discovered that he was thinking what I thought he must be thinking.

Chuck Colson closed out the evening. I really enjoy listening to Chuck. He is casual, conversational and most often insightful. He spoke about "The Great Storm" our nation faces - caused not by economic or political catastrophes, but by a moral vaccuum in the hearts and lives of God's people. He spent a great deal promoting his new book "The Faith" - which he will be signing today in the LifeWay store - but his words were, as usual, insightful. If I have any complaint about Chuck's message it would be he is often too focused on "culture" and what he calls "The Christian Worldview" to the point of warning the congregation that in just a couple of years we all might be imprisoned for "speaking out against homosexuality." In the first message by J.D. Greear we had an example of a young SBC pastor who encouraged us to live out the gospel - while in the last message we have an elder SBC statesman who seemed to indicate that it is more important to speak out against a sinful culture. I don't know that either is necessarily "wrong" or "better than the other" - just illustrative of the divide between two generations of Southern Baptists.

If you would like to watch Monday's Pastor's Conference, you can watch the live feed here.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Louisville, Kentucky and the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention - June 21 - 24, 2009

2009-06-21T16:19:00.003-03:00

Rachelle and I arrived in Louisville late Saturday night via a direct flight from Dallas, Texas. Before catching our flight at DFW, we dropped of our youngest son, Logan, at Dallas Christian College where he is going through a week of training before heading to the Amazon jungle in Peru to spend six weeks sharing the gospel with Peruvian jungle natives on a team from Awestar Ministries in Tulsa.

Rachelle and I are staying at the historic Brown Hotel in downtown Louisville. We both swear by Hotwire, and our $90 a night hotel room is a great deal when compared to the $125 rooms at the Convention headquarters hotel where we usually stay.

Today I attended three different worship services at various Lousville Southern Baptist churches, including Valley View Community Church, Highview Baptist Church, and 9th and O Baptist Church. I will be attending a couple of meetings at Sojourn Church later this week.

Kevin Ezell, Senior Pastor of Highview, is being nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Pastor's Conference. Highview has seven locations, and I attended the Fegenbush Campus where Dr. Russ Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary preached the 10:15 worship service. Dr. Bill Cook, a professor at Southern, is the lead pastor at 9th and 0 Baptist Church. Joel Carwile is the Senior Pastor of Valley View. A few observations from attending these various worship services today.

(1). The influence of Southern Seminary is felt at every Southern Baptist church in Lousville. Southern is our largest seminary and, frankly, it is a huge blessing for churches to be able to tap into the gifts and talents of both faculty and students. Examining closely the staff rosters of the churches, it is evident that Southern plays a huge influence in leadership at these churches.

(2). Valley View is less identified with Southern Baptists, removing "Baptist" from their name, using women far more effectively in leadership roles than the other two churches, and they seem, by far, to have the younger congregation. However, to be fair to Highview, I only attended one service of multiple services they offered this weekend, and it could have been that I chose a service attended by a generally older crowd than the other services.

(3). All three messages that I heard were doctrinally sound, well-delivered, and a blessing to the hearers.

(4). Highview is to be commended for having multiple campuses with multiple pastors and teaching pastors. Rather than Kevin Ezzel preaching at every campus via close circuit feed or video archive, various pastors teach at each campus, including Dr. Russ Moore every Sunday at the second of three services at the main campus, giving Dr. Ezell a break between the early and late service. The series topic is the same at each campus, but the messages are unique to each pastor. This, in my opinion, is far better than the LIFE model out of Edmond, Oklahoma, which often becomes a church revolving around a personality.

(5). The websites of Valley View and 9th and O were well done, but in Valley View's case, information was outdated. Highview, on the other hand, had the finest website of any Southern Baptist Church I've come across. It was visually appealing, easy to use, and simplified a very complex worship schedule and structure for the newcomer or visiter. The web administrator and staff at Highview are to be commended for a job well done on getting great information about the church on the Web.

(6). All three churches sponsor a number of missionaries, mission projects and direct mission causes that have nothing to do with the Cooperative Program. This is neither a negative or a positive regarding the churches - just an observation.

(7). I came away this morning grateful that these churches understand evangelism, for the most part, is to be done OUTSIDE the worship service - and Sunday worship is to encourage believers - which happened at all the services I attended.

After an early start this morning, Rachelle and I ate lunch and returned to the hotel where I watched Emmanuel, Enid's 11:00 a.m. service via the internet (archived). My dad delivered a wonderful and meaningful message on Father's Day.

Needless to say, the Southern Baptist Convention has a great deal going for her in 2009 - mostly some wonderful churches who understand what it means to minister to people.

I am on my way to the Southern Baptist Pastor's Conference at the Kentucky Exposition Center where I will hear J.D. Grear, Mac Brunson and Chuck Colson. I will report on the Pastor's Conference later.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

New Trend Identified Among U.S. Animal Wildlife

2009-06-20T00:00:00.001-03:00

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect US wildlife.

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of waiting for the government to give individual animals a handout or orchestrate a national wildlife bailout. Apparently these animals, like the Montana grizzly bear above who happens to be waiting at his favorite government handout table, have become quite adept at learning to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance, rather than work and forage for their own food.

This particular black bear in Montana has been identified as a member of the Democratic Party and is known by the locals by his pet nickname . . . (ready for this) . . . (scroll down)

.....

.....

......

.......

......

"Bearack Obearma."

Smile.

Off to Louisville for the Southern Baptist Convention. Blog posts daily while in Louisville.

In His Grace,

Wade

There Is a Huge Difference Between Homosexual Sin and Women Preaching the Gospel

2009-06-18T00:00:00.004-03:00

The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will meet on Monday, June 22, 2009 and more than likely approve a recommendation seeking to officially disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

Bill Sanderson, a pastor in North Carolina and a trustee of the International Mission Board, made the motion to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church at last year's Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. The messengers referred Sanderson's recommendation to the Executive Committee, requesting the EC to report back to the 2009 Convention. It seems gay couples who were attending Broadway asked to have their portraits appear in the church directory. Broadway's leadership, rather than taking a stand against homosexual relationships, led the congregation to vote in February of 2008 to publish a directory without individual or family portraits — simply candid snapshots of people instead. This solution, said church leaders, would allow members to recognize one another without making a judgment regarding homosexual relationships.

It is my belief the motion from the Executive Committee to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church, if presented to the Convention, will pass. In the mid-1990's the Southern Baptist Covention voted to change Article III of the Convnetion's Constitution.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution now reads:

___________________________________________

Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:

1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding.

____________________________________________

If in fact, it is reported that Broadway Baptist Church and her members are affirming homosexual relationships, I will vote to disassociate from Broadway. The Convention's action will be big news, particularly in light of President Barak Obama's push to overturn the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prevents the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage." However, the SBC has disassociated from churches that affirm homosexuality before, and we will simply be following our Constitution. You will be hardpressed to find Bible-believing, evangelical believers who would disagree that homosexual relationships are sin.

The Bigger Problem We Face as Southern Baptists

The much larger issue we face as Southern Baptists is not the disassociation from Broadway Baptist Church, but rather, the probable attempt by some to disassociate from churches that recognize and call women to vocational ministry, such as First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia. This historic Southern Baptist Church called Julie Pennington-Russell as their lead pastor, and have a number of women in ministry positions.

Though evangelical, conservative Christians agree that homosexual and adulterous behavior is sin, there is disagreement among inerrantists on whether or not women preaching the gospel to men, women teaching the Bible to men, or women spiritually leading men is actually sin. One conservative, inerrantist Southern Baptist pastor has written an excellent paper, while in seminary no less, entitled A Biblical Primer on Women in Ministry. Jon Zens, a fellow conservative evangelical Christian has written, Are the Sisters Free to Function?, an extraordinary defense of women in ministry, based on a very high view of the sacred text. Many conservative scholars write for Christians for Biblical Equality, defending their belief from Scripture that nowhere does God restrict women in ministry.

Sure, there is disagreement among Southern Baptists on this issue. But I predict that if someone from Georgia offers a similar recommendation to disassociate from First Baptist Church, Decatur because they have hired a female pastor, then the Southern Baptist Convention will face an extraordinary crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time.

The world may not understand our firm view on homosexuality. So be it.

But when half of conservative evangelical Christianity doesn't understand why we would disassociate from churches that call women as pastors, then we lose as a Convention.

Let's debate the women in ministry issue. Let's disagree with one another amicably. But for heaven's sake, let's not make fools of ourselves by equating women preaching the gospel with homosexual sin.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Paul Chitwood's Idea of a Formula Change?

2009-06-16T00:00:00.001-03:00

At this year's SBC Pastor's Conference, Paul Chitwood, Chairman of International Mission Board, will nominate Jimmy Scroggins to be the Pastor's Conference Vice-President. I do not know Jimmy Scroggins personally, but he comes highly recommended by many people as a great theologian, pastor and leader. He has only been pastor at FBC West Palm Beach for a year.

But what interests me about Scroggin's nomination is the nominator, not the nominee. Chitwood recently came out calling for a change in the Cooperative Program formula. He felt that CP giving should increase by all our churches, but that the IMB should receive a higher percentage of all CP funds and the state conventions' a lesser percentage.

Yet, the church that is pastored by the man Chitwood is nominating to be Vice-President had total undesignated receipts last year of over 4.25 million, while giving just $29,335 to the Cooperative Program. That is less than 1% of undesignated receipts - .6 of one percent to be precise.

I would suggest to Chitwood that one of the ways to increase Cooperative Program giving to the IMB is to nominate men to Convention wide offices who lead churches that have shown a commitment to CP. To me that is the better approach than changing the CP formula.

Finally, there seems to be a pattern from folks connected to our seminaries, that if you connect the dots, would lead one to believe that some are advocating bypassing state conventions in order to give to SBC causes directly (the IMB, seminaries, etc . . . ) There seems to be a growing pattern of advocating less money to states through the Cooperative Program. I know from conversations with some of my fundamentalist friends that there is a perception that state Baptist conventions are the last "remaining vestage" of "liberal" leadership and the one area "they" don't yet control.

Frankly, if I even catch a whiff that the Great Commission Resurgence is an attempt to bypass states and go directly to national causes, I will withdraw my support in a heart beat.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Ever Been Embarrassed by Your Own Words?

2009-06-15T00:00:00.003-03:00

Kevin Everett, pro football player for the Buffalo Bills, suffered a spinal injury two years ago that resulted in paralysis. The following is an actual newscast where a sportscaster is reporting on Kevin's remarkable recovery with a corresponding video - or so he thinks!

Anybody Attending This Church in Louisville Next Week While at the Southern Baptist Convention?

2009-06-13T00:00:00.000-03:00

A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment. New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside for a June event at the church. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms - without that this country wouldn't be here."

Pagano, 50, said some members of his church were concerned that President Obama's administration could restrict gun ownership, and they supported the plan for the event when Pagano asked their opinion. He said the point was not to mix worship with guns, though he may reference some passages from the Bible. "Firearms can be evil and they can be useful," he said. "We're just trying to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety."

The Southern Baptist Convention convenes in Louisville, Kentucky next week at the Kentucky Exposition Center. My wife and I will probably be attending the 9th and 0 Baptist Church or Highview Baptist Church, and not Pastor Pagano's AG church.

No need to go to a church impressed with guns when we will already plan to be at a Convention known for her fireworks.

:)

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Decline of LM and CP Offerings Due to Legalism

2009-06-11T00:00:00.007-03:00

The 2008 Lottie Moon Offering goal was $170 million dollars. The final total of LM collections for 2008 equals $141,315,110.24. The decline of 6.05% in receipts compared to last year LM receipts translates into the largest dollar decrease in the history of the offering. The decision has already been made to suspend the ISC and Masters Program in the IMB and restrict the number of new long-term personnel and journeymen. Because the IMB will not be replacing short-term personnel completing their term of assignments, the International Mission Board's missionary count will be reduced by up to 400 by the end of 2009, and will eventually be reduced by approximately 700 missionaries.

However, rather than blame the economy for such a drastic downturn in Lottie Moon and Cooperative Program giving, one might wish to take a look at a Southern Baptist church in Louisville, Kentucky to identify problems we face in the Southern Baptist Convention. Macro problems always have micro sources. To know what is going on in the SBC at the national level, one must understand what is taking place in local
SBC churches.

Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky is doing a great deal for the community of Louisville and gospel missions around the world. However, while the church's support of mission causes has exponentially increased the last decade, support for the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon offerings has declined. When one inquires of leadership at Sojourn why they fund missionaries directly from their church, and why they have decreased on a percentage basis their giving to CP and LM, they have an answer. They do not point to the financial burden of constructing a new building the church needs to contain the crowds, nor do they point to any disagreement within their local Southern Baptist association or state (in fact, they have a great working relationship with the Kentucky Baptist Convention), nor do they point to any theological differences within the SBC. Rather, they will tell you about a missionary family that Sojourn is supporting overseas as an example of why they must fund missions directly. This family does not qualify for appointment to the IMB for two reasons.

(1) The couple uses real wine during communion, so they could not say they "abstain" from wine. Abstinence from wine, according to some Baptist Identity radicals, is "obedience to Christ and holiness before God." This missionary family is considered "unholy" and ungodly for drinking communion wine. Ironically, they do not drink wine on any other occasion.

(2)The wife has not been baptized in a Baptist church. Never mind she was baptized by immersion as a believer in a Christian church, her baptism simply wasn't in a Baptist church.

There comes a time when Southern Baptists need to realize that some growing, conservative, evangelical churches such as Sojourn are refusing to support the Southern Baptist Convention because of our silly extra-biblical traditions and our tendency toward codifying our legalism in institutional policies that become post de facto edicts to SBC churches.

If we wish to grow CP and Lottie Moon during difficult economic times we will denounce all attempts by Baptist Identity radicals to define "obedience to Christ" and "holiness to God" in a manner that goes way beyond the truth of Scripture.

Sojourn is hosting an interesting forum regarding the SBC on Tuesday of the Southern Baptist Convention. Let's hope that we all can get to the place in the SBC where we can tell the truth about what is really happening in our Convention because we place loyalty to Christ above any fear of offending strategic people in high places of authority in the SBC.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Black Mesa Moment of Reflection

2009-06-09T09:06:00.009-03:00

On Monday, June 8, 2009 I did something I had wanted to do for a long, long time. I hiked up Black Mesa to the highest elevation in Oklahoma - 4,972.9 feet above sea level, a football field under one mile high. The Black Mesa was formed by lava flow from ancient volcanoes in the Colorado Rockies - an ancient lava flow easily seen in the map above. The Black Mesa was created by this lava flow and is like a table top sitting high above the plains. Black Mesa is as far west and as far north as you can go in the state of Oklahoma.

People think Enid, Oklahoma (Garfield County) is in far northwest Oklahoma - not even close. At 7:30 a.m. I hopped in my trusty 140,000 mile Honda Accord and headed west on US Highway 412 out of Enid. I went through Woodward (90 miles), through Guyman, Oklahoma, (210 miles), then to Boise City, Oklahoma (275 miles). In Boise City you go on a circle around the courthouse in the center of town and then follow State Highway 325 west 37 miles to the city limits of Kenton, Oklahoma. Just outside the city limits of Kenton, which necessitated me turning my watch back since Kenton is the only town in Oklahoma that operates on Mountain Time, I turned north and followed a county road 4 miles to the parking lot of the Black Mesa Natural Preserve. Distance from Enid - 312 miles.

At the Natural Preserve you must park your car and then hike 4.2 miles to the top of Black Mesa. On this day I was the only hiker. I never saw another human being during the almost 10 mile round trip hike. The sounds of the land were incredible. From the locusts nesting in the thousands of cacti, to the dozens of different birds, as well as the whistling winds sweeping down the gorges, it was a cacophony of sounds and sights the nearly two hours it took me to get to the top.

But my, was it worth it.

Black Mesa is in the far northwestern corner of Cimarron County, the most western county in the Panhandle of Oklahoma. Cimarron County has the distinction of being the only county in the United States touched by four different states. As I sat and rested on top of Black Mesa, I could literally see 1/10 of the United States in terms of our states.

Less than fourteen hundred feet to my west was the state of New Mexico. On the horizon I could see the mountains surrounding Raton Pass. To my north four miles was Colorado and the ancient volcanic mountains at the foot hills of the Colorado Rockies, the very volcanoes which provided the lava that formed Black Mesa. Back to my northwest was Kansas; to the south was Texas, and due east was the great state of Oklahoma. From my viewpoint a mile above the earth I could see over a hundred miles in each direciton.

But there was something that happened while I was on the top of Black Mesa that got me to thinking. It was a bright, sunny day and as looked at the beautiful blue skies I saw a passenger jet flying east to west above me. They say at night the stars kiss your nose on Black Mesa, and I can vouch that in the day the planes are close as well. I could clearly see the plume of smoke coming out of the twin engines of the jet, with the long, white crystallized cloud it formed as it crossed the blue sky. I thought about the couple of hundred passengers on their way to Los Angeles or beyond. Then I looked down and saw a Burlington Northern - Santa Fe train snaking its way, heading west. Beside the train was a modern state highway where a few cars were heading west as well.

Just to the south of the railroad tracks and highway, easily seen from my position on Black Mesa, was the path of the Old Santa Fe Trail. from 1823 to 1880 the Cimarron Cutoff of the Sante Fe trail crossed the Oklahoma Panhandle just to the south of where I sat, heading west into Mexico and Santa Fe (a city once in Mexico but now in the US's "New Mexico"). The United States in the 1820's were very interested in establishing trade with the new country of Mexico and so a trail was forged from St. Louis to Santa Fe - a wagon trail. At Dodge City (Kansas) the trail split into a southern route (the Cimarron Cutoff ), which crossed the just south of the Black Mesa, and a northern route that took the trail west through the Colorado Rockies and then south to Santa Fe. Most travellers and traders in the 1800's took the Cimarron Cutoff of the Santa Fe trail because it was 100 miles shorter and avoided the Rockie Mountains.

With the advent of the steam engine and the railroad, the Santa Fe trail fell into disuse in the 1880's. No longer would people make the seven week journey from St. Louis to Santa Fe via wagon. They would take the train. Then, just a few decades later, people were taking cars and planes to Santa Fe and beyond.

As I was thinking about all this, I pulled out my Blackberry Curve and saw I had missed a couple of calls.

And then it hit me.

If I were a business on the east coast wanting to trade with merchants and people in Santa Fe, how foolish would I be to keep bringing my goods in a wagon over the Santa Fe Trail? Not only would I be foolish - I'd be out of business. Times have changed. The world has become fast paced. Communication is instant. From my perspective on Black Mesa, a mile high, I could see this very clearly.

Why then, do we Southern Baptists continue to use an archaic system of governance that was established in 1845 - the very time the Sante Fe trail was being used to bring goods to, and communicate with, the people of Mexico?

Isn't it about time we started having our Convention regionally, electronically and efficiently? My wife and I just spent $2,000 hard earned dollars to buy our tickets, hotel and car to Louisville, Kentucky. I spent the weekend with a church planter from Arizona who not only couldn't afford to go to Louisville, if he could, he would use his money to attend conferences that would help him in his church planting ministry.

I asked him, however, if the Convention offered a regional Convention, via satellite, that would allow him to observe, participate and vote, would he attend - say if one of the regional conventions were in Phoenix?

Absolutely! He responded.

It's time the Southern Baptist Convention caught up with the rest of the world. It's time we stopped using our archaic system of governance that excludes the vast majority of Southern Baptists from being able to participate in Convention business.

It's time we changed how we operate.

In His Grace,

Wade