Taken from Christianity Today – September 29, 2023: A Handful of Churches Split from the Christian and Missionary Alliance over Women in Ministry
New position on ordination and titles pushed some “beyond where their convictions would allow them to go.”
Eight congregations have broken away from the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) over the denomination’s decision to ordain women and allow them to carry the title of “pastor.”
The change was approved by a majority of delegates at the Alliance’s general council in June, after several years of discussion. Women in the Alliance could previously be “consecrated” to ministry and serve as “Consecrated Women of God,” even preaching and teaching in Sunday services, at the discretion of local churches. The Alliance has a history of encouraging women to preach and sending them to plant churches while still placing restrictions on their “ecclesial authority.” The updated polity maintains this distinction and does not allow women to serve as elders or senior pastors in CMA churches. The consecration process will now result in ordination.
“We take a rather unique centrist position in our polity on this issue,” CMA vice president Terry Smith told CT. “For some, this stretched beyond where their convictions would allow them to go.”
The elders at Alliance Bible Fellowship in Boone, North Carolina, voted unanimously to separate in July.
“This decision was not easy. In fact, it grieves us,” senior pastor Scott Andrews said. “Our hearts are grieved to see the direction that we believe the CMA is taking that we just cannot follow.”
Andrews called the change “a significant step toward egalitarianism, which eliminates any gender distinction in the roles of men and women in the church.”
The church is one of the larger and more prominent CMA congregations in the South. Vice president Mike Pence visited in November 2020 as the special guest of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse CEO Franklin Graham. A little more than 1,000 attend every Sunday, and on the congregation’s website, newcomers are directed to a special page with information about the church’s commitment to complementarianism, separate from the general “What We Believe” statement.
According to Andrews, “Alliance is the same church we were two months ago [and] 40 years ago. It is not we who have changed; it is the CMA which has changed.”
“My role is to shepherd district churches who are working through the issues,” he said in an email. “The Alliance has historically been a community of congregations focused narrowly on Christ and his mission. My job is to remind us all of this commitment and to encourage grace and benevolence to those who hold differing opinions on lesser matters.”
Some pastors in the region are also promoting the message of the power of unity for the sake of the gospel.
CMA president John Stumbo has reminded people that the Alliance brings different Christian traditions together, uniting Wesleyan and Reformed churches that have taught different things at different times about women in ministry. The movement put those disagreements aside, because they wanted to prioritize deeper life in Christ and the work of spreading the gospel.
“That has always been the Alliance at its best,” Stumbo said, “experiencing the fullness of Jesus within us, the heart change of Christ within us, that sends us on mission to the world.”
Not everyone is happy with that approach to reading the Bible, however. Some pastors think the CMA leadership is undermining the authority of Scripture.
Tom Sugimura, the senior pastor of an Alliance church outside Los Angeles, saidthere could obviously be only one correct interpretation. Christians believe in “a God who does not contradict himself,” so “God has only one interpretation of his Word, not two, and any confusion must be on our part, not his.”
For others, however, continued affiliation with the Alliance seemed like it would be a betrayal of their commitment to the authority of Scripture. Remaining, they said, was no longer acceptable for them.
“We mean no ill will toward them, nor is it our desire to disparage them,” said Andrews in North Carolina. “We will continue to love and pray for them as they seek to fulfill the Great Commission—our elders simply believe it is going in a direction we cannot follow.”
The congregations separating from the CMA have so far not made any moves to join another denomination or network of churches.
When I read something online or in an article that includes references to a leader from my denomination – it usually grabs my attention for obvious reasons. My denomination is the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. What makes it painful and saddening is when that person is either participating in false teaching or fellowshipping with false teachers – I think Scripture compels me to respond. My goal is not to judge someone’s salvation or to personally attack that person, but it is to point people back to truth found in God’s word. This includes making a statement to what has been falsely presented as God’s word to many people who have sat under the false teaching especially since the current leadership in the C&MA doesn’t go back to rectify or correct those who have promoted the false teaching. This is prevalent in the C&MA Bible colleges and Alliance Theological Seminary. Sadly, the people that you would expect to know better, do not. And some of these folks are training the next generation of pastors and leaders in the denomination. They then educate congregations around the world and bad theology spreads like a disease.
While my reaction to the accreditation & financial problems at Alliance University at Nyack potentially resulting in its closure was mixed. Ultimately, I think it is not good to see schools shut down for these reasons – you hope and pray that the school remains open. But you hope and pray that it teaches correct doctrine that is Biblical. If it refuses – which seems to be the case for much of the C&MA, then will other actions befall it? I don’t pretend to know and frankly, I don’t want to be like Job’s “friends”. I would rather see the education and training continue in a school that has a long history of equipping the saints in a denomination that has a distinct place in the history of contemporary Christianity in its missions and discipleship to the world. When it is all said and done, the school may reopen or the denomination will pursue alternative paths to accomplish the same goal.
That all said, I just came across another one of the C&MA professors showing up on the heretic (according to many) Richard Rohr’s website. Red flags should pop up all over. But, it actually gets worse. Look at the teaching that is being promoted –
C&MA professor James Danaher includes references to Richard Rohr in his works. That includes references and recommendations promoting Danaher’s books to having Danaher’s views presented on Richard Rohr’s home site – Center for Action and Contemplation.
As discussed in the previous blog posting, Rohr is a Roman Catholic Franciscan priest whose views and theology run counter to not only Evangelical Protestantism but in some cases Roman Catholicism. Rohr is a panenthiest, perennialist, universalist, mystic, contemplative,……ugh…it gets tiring to go through this list. Is he a Christian? I don’t know (and this is being kind). Is he a heretic? Many Christian leaders say that he is.
Let’s discuss one of these attributes – the Perennial Tradition – as it related to James Danaher. From what Richard Rohr writes about the Perennial Tradition, he says that –
the “perennial philosophy” or “perennial tradition” recognizes that there are some constant themes, truths, and recurrences in all of the world religions. Unfortunately, many religions have emphasized differences and claimed their particular brand is better than others. But there have been threads of the perennial tradition throughout history, even acknowledged by the Catholic Church. In Nostra Aetate, for example, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council begin by saying that “All peoples comprise a single community and have a single origin [created by one and the same Creator God]…. And one also is their final goal: God….The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions” (Vatican II Documents, 1965, #1, 2). The document goes on to praise Native religion, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam as “reflecting a ray of that truth which enlightens all people.”
Aldous Huxley calls the perennial tradition a metaphysic, a psychology, and an ethic at the same time: “1) the metaphysic which recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; 2) the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical to, divine Reality; 3) the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being. This is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions” (The Perennial Philosophy, vii).
The Wisdom Tradition, as it can rightly be called, is what we hope to uncover this year, following a lineage of teaching and tradition through various times, people, and places. What I teach is true not because “Richard Rohr says so.” This wisdom is grounded in the unchanging yet ever fresh and relevant themes of a mature spirituality. Wisdom pervades and penetrates all things.
It’s central doctrine is that there is one underlying religion that lays behind all local expressions, that is to say, all particular religions, and that the reality at the core of all religions is the same, even though the outward characteristics, their teachings and practices are only external trappings.
Rohr goes on to quote from James Danaher in this article – “Beholding” regarding perennial philosophy –
Beholding
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
My friend and Christian philosopher James Danaher writes about unfiltered divine encounter as a core element in the Perennial Tradition.
There is a perennial philosophy that is not relative to history, culture, or language community. It is a philosophy, or perhaps better termed an alternative epistemology, that continually claims that pure, unfiltered perception is possible. [Remember, epistemology means how we know what we know; an “alternative epistemology” means that there’s another way of knowing what we know—what we’re calling Perennial Tradition—that is less rooted in culture, religion, tradition, or binary thinking.] This alternative epistemology perennially appears in every major religious tradition. In every historical epoch and in every cultural tradition, there are those who practice a form of contemplation that puts them in a position to receive the gift of an unfiltered divine encounter.
Unlike those who imagine that they can experience and know God the way they know other things, the contemplative knows that God is encountered in a way very different from any ordinary experience. . . . Our ordinary experience is always an interpretation based upon the conceptual understanding we bring to the data of the experience. When we encounter the divine, our conceptual understanding is not equipped to do anything but misinterpret that encounter. If we recognize this, we treat our encounters with the divine very differently than our normative experience, and wait upon the divine without all of the filters through which we normally process the data of our experience.
Consequently, the divine encounter is something of a pure or direct encounter because there are no appropriate words or concepts through which to interpret it. Maggie Ross refers to the encounter with the divine as “beholding.” [1] Beholding is the antithesis of ordinary experience in that the self, which usually processes the data of our experience through an understanding inherited from our history, culture, and language community, is suspended, and we change our focus in order to be open to an engagement that defies whatever understanding we bring to it. . . .
What makes the contemplative experienceuniversal and perennial is that contemplatives suspend the understanding through which their minds actively process and assess the data of their experience. . . . The prejudice of the modern mind is that knowledge must be something we can possess, but the knowledge that comes from our encounters with the divine possesses us and infuses an ineffable knowing within us. . . .
The prayer of the contemplative is, essentially, an attention to the omnipresence of God. God is omnipresent not as a theological doctrine, but as the great silence that is present in every moment—but from which we are usually distracted by an overactive mind that refuses to wait in a humble unknowing for a pure wisdom from above [James 3:17]. [2]
If you have practiced any form of contemplation for any length of time, you’ve probably experienced the truth of this last statement. I surely have, and it’s what inspired me to stay on the contemplative path and to talk and write about it so passionately.
References: [1] Maggie Ross, “Behold Not the Cloud of Experience,” The Medieval Mystical Tradition in England: Exeter Symposium VIII, ed. E. A. Jones (Boydell and Brewer: 2013), 29-50.
[2] James P. Danaher, “What’s So Perennial About the Perennial Philosophy?”
“The Perennial Tradition,” Oneing, vol. 1, no. 1 (Center for Action and Contemplation: 2013), 50-51, 53. No longer in print; a Kindle version is available from Amazon.
He closes with another quote from James Danaher – “In every historical epoch and in every cultural tradition, there are those who practice a form of contemplation that puts them in a position to receive the gift of an unfiltered divine encounter.“
The Perennial Philosophy is a growing influence within Christianity. Its perspective has actually been around for more than a century. As stated above – It’s central doctrine is that there is one underlying religion that lays behind all local expressions, that is to say, all particular religions, and that the reality at the core of all religions is the same….etc. Their focus is oriented towards the spiritual and it is to such an extent that they think that all distinctions in various religions become irrelevant because ALL is ONE. Those who believe this are called ESOTERICS.
Historically, much of Christianity involved people who were known for being EXOTERICS. Those who are focused on truth claims and the concrete externals of religion – external symbols, creeds, practices…etc. of their particular religion.
It is common that certain concepts, words and phrases are used to describe aspects of these views – i.e. buzzwords. Common New Age philosophical descriptions are used to describe the change in a particular way of thinking by saying something to the effect – They present perennial philosophy as a NEW way of thinking about an older established way. Historically used practices are framed in such a way to say that the old way is not longer the best way of doing things. They have become less exciting. Some will comment on the idea that they were even getting bored with the old way and discovered these new methods which revitalize their walk. Who doesn’t want to participate in the latest greatest trends within Christianity? But as we see repeated many times in Christianity, when someone discovers a “NEW” way of doing something, the church is usually lead down a road that moves it further away from God’s word.
Ken Wilber has probably been the most influential in introducing Perennialism to Christianity, through his influence on authors like Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, and David C. Benner. To varying degrees, these folks have all had an influence within the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. (especially David Benner).
As stated before, The Perennial Tradition puts all religions on the same playin field and it reeks of universalism. Misleading people to believe that it doesn’t matter what religion you believe in, because in the end, we all end up in the same place may be one of the cruelest actions that one could take. But should Christianity on that state?
10 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. John 10:1
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. John 10:9
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
These passages as well as many others shows that Christianity is unique. There aren’t similarities in truth with other religions. So why would you try to focus on what is similar between religions. It really defies any reason or logic. Most importantly, it defies Scripture.
James Danaher appears on other pages on Rohr’s website. Like what was said previously, Rohr’s name appears on Danaher’s books as giving a recommendation to this teaching.
So, in summary, it is difficult to understand and to accept a so-called teacher of Christianity who is being used by someone who is considered a heretic to promote his website and his teaching of doctrine that explicitly contradicts Scripture at its core message of the salvation provided only by Christ to only those who believe in Him. It doesn’t get any more basic than this – does it? Yet, this is another example of the contemplative mystical stranglehold that is on the denomination and its more younger and up & coming leadership throughout the denomination.
Who would have thought that POLYTHEISM is making it way back in vogue today? Hints of Mormonism come to mind when I heard what evangelical pastor and author JOHN MARK COMER preached on this topic during a sermon at his church. Comer used to pastor a church – Bridgetown Church in Portland Oregon. In 2021, he stepped down and founded Practicing the Way.
This comes from a series of messages given in January of 2013 entitled God Has a Name.
There is a YouTube video of the message given here –
This was the description given –
John Mark Comer Topic- God Has a Name, Exodus, 34v6-7 God Has A Name Who is God?
Is God a he, a she, a they, or an it? Is God a force or a person? Is God good or evil? Strong or weak? Close or far away? What is God like?
The fact is that everyone has a picture of God, whether right or wrong. However, to answer the question of who God is, we have to go to the source. Exodus 34v6-7, is God’s self-disclosure of Himself. It is the most quoted verse in the Bible, by the Bible, and the epicenter for a theology of God. This series was originally recorded in winter of 2013 and is now being re-release with the introduction of the new book from John Mark Comer.
YouTube – John Mark Comer Topic – God Has a Name, Exodus, 34v6-7
Let me hit the highlights from his sermon. Hopefully I can present what he said as well his intended purpose in his statements. It may seem repetitive but I will try to specify the comments that Comer makes directly – identifying in quotes when it is word-for-word while paraphrasing or summarizing other statements that he makes that I wrote down from my notes taken when listening to his sermon.
Comer prefaces his comments by saying that “this verse is the most quoted verse in the Bible by the Bible and the epicenter for a theology of God”.
Comer has several admirable traits as he gives his sermon. He is easy to listen to, has some humor injected into the sermon and just seems like a nice pastor giving a sermon. His youth doesn’t seem to be betrayed by a lack of knowledge. But his interpretive skills may be where he strikes out.
He starts out by saying that the Bible mentions the Hebrew name of God as Yawweh Elohim – the Lord your God. To his credit, he is studying the line-upon-line passages in Exodus 34. He defines this by saying:
Elohim can refers to both the singular and plural form of the meaning of this word. It depends on the verb to fully understand what version of Elohim is being discussed. In Hebrew, the noun and the verb must agree – which is how you can determine if Elohim is singular or plural in any particular passage. If it is singular, it is referring to God, the one true, all-powerful God. If plural, then it is referring to “gods“.
I could summarize the entire sermon by pointing this issue out – who or what does the word “gods” refer to or mean?
=> Comer takes it to mean literally lower DEITIES – “gods” means…..gods.
He begins by referencing Genesis 1 and points out how Scripture starts out by identifying God, the creator, supreme being of the universe…etc. He then makes the following statement – “there are MANY gods” He goes on to repeat this viewpoint from referencing several passages in the Bible including Exodus 12:12; 15:1-2,11; Psalm 97:7-9; 86:8; 96:4; 82; 1 King 11; Mark 5; Ephesians 6:10-12….etc.
Many of these passages use the word “gods” which Comer uses to justify his conclusion. Some of the passages indirectly refer to “powers” that he relates to his view of “gods”. Comer makes it clear that the God of the Bible is the supreme being – there is no god greater than God. God created everyone and everything – including these other gods.
In Psalm 86:8, it says – There is none like you, among the gods –
“Among the gods there is none like You, O Lord; Nor are there any works like Your works.”
He then reads from 1 King 11. He shows how King Solomon loved many foreign women and Comer jokingly says that “the Hittites [women] are so hot” as the audience laughs. He mentions that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. His wives lead him astray. They turned his heart after other gods. Comer says that these gods are called out by name in the Bible.
=> Comer states that these gods are real – nowhere in Scripture is it said that these gods are not real.
Another conclusion can be arrived at from reading these passages throughout the Bible – these gods are over geographical regions and ethnic groups of the earth. For example – Michael wrestled with the “Prince of Persia”.
Comer goes on to say that God is a jealous God and implies that God is jealous of these other gods (which can be seen from the Ten Commandments). This leads into what IDOLATRY means (see below). But first, he prefaces his reasoning by pointing out the differences between how those in the West can view issues in opposition to those from Near Eastern cultures.
II. WESTERN vs EASTERN PERSPECTIVES
He goes on to justify some of his conclusions by saying that Christians in the west are guilty of having a “western view” of understanding these topics. In the Near East, these views are not hard to understand because they are viewed as real. He states that western views are influenced by what can be seen and understood (e.g. science). People have a difficult time in understanding something that “can’t be seen under a microscope.” While that can be true, it is also true that many today use that line as justification to overgeneralize and in essence make a straw man in order to support their own particular view. Western Civilization, like any other has faults and is far from perfect – nobody argues that. But contrary to other world views, Western Civilization has been instrumental in promoting many things such as freedom, prosperity, science….etc. and in no small part Christianity had a big influence in each of these areas. While it may be popular today to blame the Western viewpoint, I am finding that many are using this far too often to come up with meanings that may not be correct.
III. IDOLATRY
Comer explains what IDOLATRY is with one definition that says that idols themselves are not real but are representations of what is real (these other gods). From his book – ‘God has a name’, he elaborates this topic with the following discussion (bold was added):
Finally, let’s talk for a moment about idolatry.
There are commands all over the Scriptures to stay as far away as possible from idolatry. We already read the second commandment, but the New Testament says the same thing, repeatedly.
Paul writes, “My dear friends, flee from idolatry.”53
John follows up with, “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.”54
The idea here is that an idol is a good thing that becomes ultimate—it becomes the thing. The idolatry conversation becomes a priorities conversation. The task is to keep watch over “the idols of the heart.”
I just don’t think that’s what the writers of the Bible mean by idolatry. At least, I don’t think that’s the primary, face-value meaning.
An idol isn’t a “good thing that becomes ultimate”; it’s a statue that REPRESENTS some kind of REAL spiritual being. It serves as a go-between, a conduit, a place for the worshiper to meet with his or her “god.”
Now, of course, some idols are just a hunk of rock or metal or wood that somebody carved to make a little cash, and when the worshiper bows down in front of it, nothing happens at all.
But other idols are portals to a relationship with a real spiritual being, and when the worshiper comes to pray or sacrifice or share a meal for the dead, something happens.
For example, Paul writes this to the followers of Jesus in first-century Corinth: “Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No,but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.”56
Notice that for Paul, the danger of idolatry isn’t that your priorities are out of whack; it’s that you end up in relationship with a demon.
In a secular society, the “gods” become nonspiritual—money, sex, power, more followers on Twitter, flatter abs, anything that “takes the place of God in your heart.”
But here’s what we need to remember: behind these nonspiritual, secular non-gods, there is often lurking a real spiritual being. Like with an idol, behind that hunk of wood or rock or metal is often a creature with a scary amount of power.
The New Testament scholar N. T. Wright says it this way: “When we humans commit idolatry—worshiping that which is not God as if it were—we thereby give to other creatures and beings in the cosmos a power, a prestige, an authority over us which we, under God, were supposed to have over them. When you worship an idol, whatever it is, you abdicate something of your own proper human authority over the world and give it instead to that thing, whatever it is.”57
This is a bit different from the “idolatry” in the New Testament, but still, all the more reason to stay awayfrom it. Money has enough lure and pull and sway all by itself. Sex is intoxicating and addictive. If we accidentally open up our lives to a demonic being behind money or sex or whatever our “god” of choice is, we’re in that much more trouble.
Comer, J.M. (2017). God has a name. Zondervan.
I think it is important to deal with the issue directly and draw our conclusions from what the Bible actually says. As Christians, that should be foundational in determining our worldview. How does Scripture use the word “idol”?
18 p“What profit is an idol (6459) when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, q•a teacher of lies? For its maker trusts in •his own creation when he makes rspeechless idols! (457) p Isa. 44:10 q Jer. 10:8, 14; Zech. 10:2 r Ps. 115:5; 1 Cor. 12:2 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Hab 2:18). (2016). Crossway Bibles.
Two Hebrew words are used for idol in Hab 2:18 including the following:
457. אֱלִיל ʾeliyl: A masculine noun meaning worthlessness. The term is frequently used to describe false gods and idols (Lev. 19:4; Ps. 96.5; Isa. 2:8; Hab. 2:18). Sometimes, this noun is used in a prepositional phrase, such as in Zechariah 11:17, where the Hebrew literally says “shepherd of worthlessness,” and in Job 13:4, “physicians of worthlessness.” In those verses, ’eliyl functions as an adjective. – Baker, W., & Carpenter, E. E. (2003). In The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (p. 58). AMG Publishers.
6459. פֶּסֶל pesel: A noun meaning idol, a graven image. This word comes from the verb pāsal (6458), meaning to hew or to cut, which was done to create an idol. In the Law of the Old Testament, the Lord forbade Israel to create such images (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 5:8); for they were an abomination to Him (Deut. 27:15). Those who served idols would be ashamed in the judgment (Ps. 97:7; Isa. 42:17); and the Lord would cut them off from Him (Nah. 1:14). The presence of these idols were indicative of the sin and rebellion of the people (Deut. 4:16, 23, 25; 2 Chr. 33:7). The prophets often demonstrated the folly of these idols: they were profitable for nothing (Isa. 44:10; Hab. 2:18); they could easily be burned (Isa. 44:15); they had no breath (Jer. 10:14); and they could not save (Isa. 45:20). Idols could be made of metal (Judg. 17:3, 4; Isa. 40:19); wood (Isa. 40:20; 44:15, 17); or possibly stone (Hab. 2:18; cf. Hab. 2:19). cf. (compare, comparison) – Baker, W., & Carpenter, E. E. (2003). In The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (p. 909). AMG Publishers.
To summarize the sermon at this point, Comer mentions that idols are not real but they point to what is real and sometime he seems to contradict himself a bit by warning that idols could represent what is real – the could be so influenced by spiritual beings that they directly lead to being exposed by these beings.
=> One observation of the implications in Hab. 2:18 is that the word describing idol comes from the verb meaning to hew or to cut. To construct an idol obviously implies in this case that the idol is NOT some real, living, existing being.
I.V. WORLDVIEW: CREATIONAL MONOTHEISM
Comer then moves into summarizing how these perspectives on idols, gods,…et.c fit into various worldviews. He breaks it down into the following categories:
WORLDVIEWS – based on John Mark Comer’s definitions:
(a) Monotheism – one God. All the other gods are false gods. But, Comer states that this is not Jesus’ world view? There is one God. All other gods are false gods. But, Comer says that this is not the world view held by Jesus and the Bible. (Really?)
Taken from ‘God has a name by John Mark Comer
(b) Universalism – he lists several views and then summarizes them and calls them the “junk view” – “all paths lead up the same mountain”. He says that this view sounds polite, nice…..but it is born out of the Western Europeans – who were deists who conquered the world in the preceding centuries. Comer states that these Europeans were exposed to many different religions – even thought there were some similarities between all religions, even though there were/are cosmic differences. None of the people who were conquered thought like the Western Europeans. These people groups took what they couldn’t see as actual reality and when they met up with people of different faiths – they believed their religions were different. The Europeans saw some similarities while those they conquered saw the difference. The concept of similarities was imposed on them by the cultural imperialism of these western Europeans.
(c) Creational Monotheism –“not one mountain but many”. Comer says that this is what Jesus and Scripture taught. Islam is the way to Allah. Buddhism is the way up to Nirvana. Hinduism is the way up to Brahman….etc. I am not familiar with this phrase “Creational Monotheism”. This may be more unique to Comer or he mentioned Greg Boyd’s influence.
Comer says –
“There is one creator God who made all of the other gods. This God is nothing like the others. He comes down the mountain in the incarnation of Jesus. It is not the only way to God (monotheism) but rather He is God (Yahweh) come down to us.”
Comer says that the implications affect how we think about the Gospel. Questions & comments that naturally arise which Comer’s lists the following:
How do we think about evil?
If there is a God, why is their evil. Theodicy – why evil?
The root cause of unbelief. Scripture says little or nothing about evil.
Job is about justice not the problem of evil.
Comer states that evil is a real problem – not a philosophical problem. But a problem arises today because evil is just assumed to be real. Evil being real is no longer the world view of the west. We lost the biblical worldview.
Comer recites a story (seemingly true?) of a girl who went to a Palm reader who predicted the future. She asked – how can this be? In her mind, she is an only a monotheist – one God and no other. But in predicting the future, Comer states that could be an indication of that ability coming from gods. They are capabilities not greater than God but none-the-less it gives them the ability to read the future. Demonic spirits are not bound to time and space like we are.
Again, Comer defines idolatry by first saying that idols are not real on one hand. But on the other hand there can be a real spiritual being drawing you away. Giving your life away to anything other than God.
He ends with a passage in 1 John – little children – keep yourselves from idols. John at this point is an elderly man – yet this is one of the last thing he says in Scripture. The implication is that this is a serious (real) and important topic.
(d) Polytheism
All of that was from his sermon – “God Has A Name/ Yahweh Elohim / Pt 2 – Exodus 34v6-7”.
The main issue is POLYTHEISM. Comer in several different ways, presents this topic with his conclusions that idols are representations of real beings (i.e. gods). He interprets the biblical use of the word “gods” in a literal and real sense. There was no mention in his sermon of this being figurative, symbolic or hyperbole.
In response to his teaching, Comer released the following statement:
Some of you have been asking some great questions about my recent teaching “Yahweh Elohim” and Solid Rock’s theology. To clarify, we are NOT polytheists.We ARE monotheists. We believe there is ONE real, true Creator God with NO equal or parallel. By using the language of “Creational Monotheism,” we are saying there are real spiritual beings in the universe UNDER the Creator God Yahweh. The demonic powers we read about in the scriptures are not “non-entities,” but are real. The New Testament calls them “demons,” “angels,” “spirits,” “powers,” “princes,” and “principalities,” but the primary Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is elohim or “gods.” These beings are “gods with a lowercase g.” They are not on par with the Creator God Yahweh. They are created, but have rebelled against their Creator to wreak havoc on the earth. This is the worldview of Jesus and of the Scriptures.
By using the language of “Creational Monotheism vs. Modern Monotheism,” we are challenging the post-enlightenment, Western European view of monotheism from the last 300 years that says there are no other spiritual beings in the universe. We don’t buy it, and we don’t think Jesus does either. At Solid Rock it is our deepest conviction to know and pursue the ways of King Jesus, to understand and adopt his way of thinking and his worldview. Stay rooted in the Scriptures, keep asking questions, and above all follow the Creator God in Jesus!
John Mark and the Teaching Team of Solid Rock
However, there are several problems with his statements.
(1) First, why did the church go 2,000 years before coming to this conclusion? There may have been early church teachers whose views were all over the place – some of which were heretical. But these were dealt with by church councils. Mormonism taught in 1840 – ” “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” – Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet. This implies that Mormon theology presents the view of a pantheon of gods. But, that is not how Scripture is understood to Christians.
What is polytheism?
The belief in a multitude of distinct and separate deities [i.e. gods] – Walter Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984], 931.
Belief in and veneration of more than one god or divine being. Many pagan religions are polytheistic – Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket dictionary of apologetics & philosophy of religion (p. 94). InterVarsity Press.
=> Simply, the belief in more than one god.
Comer makes this point very clearly on several occasions in his interview. He mentions that the pagan gods of the Old Testament were actual deities. He believes they were created by the supreme deity – the God of the Bible.
Ken Silva responds and makes this important point –
“Whether someone worships all, or any, of them is irrelevant. If you believe that more than one god exists, YOU you are a POLYTHEIST, period; and polytheism has NEVER been a part of the theology of Judaism or of the Christian faith.”
Another commentator, Ray Fava states that –
The problem with John Mark Comer’s theology here is that monotheism does not fail to recognize the existence of other spiritual beings. No one would assert that the Sadducees were modern monotheists whist the Pharisees were creational monotheists because the latter acknowledges angels and demons. The belief of spiritual powers of angels and demons is a primary belief in Christianity and is a part of every good faith statement. At best, this view is a straw man fallacy that unnecessarily causes strife in the body of Christ. – “Is John Mark Comer a false teacher?” by Ray Fava.
I thought this was also great point. Yet, today within Evangelicalism, we are seeing polytheism creep back into the mainstream through he teachings of people like John Mark Comer of Solid Rock Church in Portland Oregon.
=> John Mark Comer is a polytheist.
Here’s a quick glimpse of who is actually behind this teaching by Comer. One of these other gods could be Satan, which would then make his errant, prideful, boast true — ‘I will make myself like the Most High.’ (Isaiah 14:14).
In the same book of Isaiah, we find in chapter 43:10 –
10 “You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. (Isaiah 43:10)
This passage refutes the polytheist argument.
But, today, we have John Mark Comer teaching polytheism to an Evangelical audience. Where are the warning alarms?
Fava concludes –
“And this is where creational monotheism becomes as logically untenable as theistic evolution. If you believe that the One true God can create other gods, even if subservient, there still exist other gods; therefore, creational monotheism is polytheism with extra steps. So, creational monotheism is a damnable heresy at worst.There is no plausible case for creational monotheism to be found in Scripture.”
In the New Testament, polytheism represented the primary religious system of the Gentiles ( 1 Thes 1:9).
What is polytheism?
Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the Greek word for “God.” Polytheism has perhaps been the dominant theistic view in human history. The best-known example of polytheism in ancient times is Greek/Roman mythology (Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Poseidon, etc.). The clearest modern example of polytheism is Hinduism, which has over 300 million gods. Although Hinduism is, in essence, pantheistic, it does hold to beliefs in many gods. It is interesting to note that even in polytheistic religions, one god usually reigns supreme over the other gods, e.g., Zeus in Greek/Roman mythology and Brahman in Hinduism.
Some argue that the Bible teaches polytheism in the Old Testament. Admittedly, several passages refer to “gods” in the plural (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 10:17; 13:2; Psalm 82:6; Daniel 2:47). Ancient Israel fully understood that there was only one true God, but they often did not live as if they believed that to be true, continually falling into idolatry and the worship of foreign gods. So what are we to make of these and other passages that speak of multiple gods? It is important to note that the Hebrew word elohim was used to refer to the one true God and to false gods/idols. It functioned almost identically to the English word “God.”
Describing something as a “god” does not mean you believe it to be a divine being. The vast majority of Old Testament Scriptures which speak of gods are speaking of false gods, those who claim to be gods but are not. This concept is summarized in 2 Kings 19:18: “They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men’s hands.” Notice Psalm 82:6, “I said, ‘You are “gods” you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.”
The Bible clearly teaches against polytheism. Deuteronomy 6:4 tells us, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Psalm 96:5 declares, “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” There is only one God. There are false gods and those who pretend to be gods, but there is only one God.
The term “polytheism” is derived from the Greek terms meaning “many” (πολύς, polys) and “god” (θεός, theos), and thus refers to a system of belief in “many gods.” At their base, polytheistic religions believe in the existence of many finite (limited) gods. Most ancient Near Eastern religions considered these gods to have originated at some point in cosmic time (Buccellati, 1686). In contrast to biblical monotheism, polytheistic religions did not support the belief that their gods were eternal, but rather that they emerged out of some eternal “primordial stuff” (Bavinck, 25). Fate was viewed as a separate, impersonal force that defined the nature of things and the laws of their inner workings. However, fate was not seen as possessing a mind, interest, or concern; it did not will anything, and was not the object of prayer or worship. While the Mesopotamians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians did not see their religion as having a beginning, they saw their gods themselves as having a beginning as they emerged out of a “cosmic brew”.
However, fate was not seen as possessing a mind, interest, or concern; it did not will anything, and was not the object of prayer or worship. , while this may be the most important issue brought up by John Mark Comer, he comes with baggage from the New Age movement and contemplative practices. We will focus on these in Part 2.
Criticisms of Polytheism. While polytheists have some insights into the nature of reality, nonetheless, their worldview is false. Ultimate reality does not consist of many finite gods. There is good evidence that there is only one God, not many (see Cosmological Argument; God, Evidence for; God, Nature of; Theism). This God is Creator of all else. Hence, there are not many divine beings.
If the natural elements, say heaven and earth, had given birth to the gods, then the gods would not be ultimate beings. Whatever is derived from something else is dependent on that something, at least for its origin. How could a being that received its existence from another be above its maker? This would be like a cookie claiming to be greater than its cook, or a computer declaring itself above its creator. Similarly, if nature created the gods, then nature is ultimate. And if, as Paul Tillich thought, worship involves an ultimate commitment to an ultimate, then nature, not the gods, should be worshiped. This would be true regarding whatever was believed to have given birth to the gods or to have preceded them. If the gods are derivative beings, then they are not worthy of ultimate commitment. Why worship something that has no ultimate worth?
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Polytheism. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (pp. 602–606). Baker Books.
Conclusion. As a worldview, polytheism lacks rational and evidential support. The many spiritual beings that exist are limited and imperfect. Hence, they imply an unlimited and perfect Creator. Polytheism does not account for either ultimate causality or ultimate unity, which is needed to explain a diverse, changing universe.
Jeremiah 11:9–13 ESV
9 Again the Lord said to me, “A conspiracy exists among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 10 They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words. They have gone after other gods to serve them. The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant that I made with their fathers. 11 Therefore, thus says the Lord, Behold, I am bringing disaster upon them that they cannot escape. Though they cry to me, I will not listen to them. 12 Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they make offerings, but they cannot save them in the time of their trouble. 13 For your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah, and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to shame, altars to make offerings to Baal.
Christianity is not Polytheism
Exodus 20:1–6 ESV
1 And God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Isaiah 45:21–22 ESV
21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. 22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Beware of developing idols
1 Thessalonians 1:9 ESV
9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,
Luke 16:13 ESV
13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
Acts 17:24 ESV
24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,
=> A most important word has not been discussed yet (but implied). That is CONTEXT. That is what determines what a word actually means in Scripture. A word can have a completely different meaning than what it may commonly be viewed as. You have to determine the context of the passage it is in to determine the meaning. That is a fundamental rule of interpretation.
The word “gods” in the Hebrew is defined as
410אֵל,אֵל [ʾel /ale/] n m. Shortened from 352; TWOT 93a; GK 445 and 446; 245 occurrences; AV translates as “God” 213 times, “god” 16 times, “power” four times, “mighty” five times, “goodly” once, “great” once, “idols” once, “Immanuel + 6005” twice, “might” once, and “strong” once. 1 god, god-like one, mighty one. 1a mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes. 1b angels. 1c god, false god, (demons, imaginations). 1d God, the one true God, Jehovah. 2 mighty things in nature. 3 strength, power. n n: noun, m m: masculine TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger, AV Authorized Version, Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Strong’s Lexicon shows that there are many times that “god” refers to something or someone other than the one true God. It can also mean “great”, “idols”, “might”, “strong”
If we look at The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament by Barker, Carpenter, one can see additional nuances in the mean of “god” –
410. אֵל ʾēl: A masculine noun meaning God, god, mighty one, hero. This is one of the most ancient terms for God, god, or deity. It appears most often in Genesis, Job, Psalms, and Isaiah and not at all in some books. The root meaning of the word mighty can be seen in Job 41:25[17] and Micah 2:1. This word is used occasionally of other gods (Ex. 34:14; Deut. 3:24; Ps. 44:20[21]; Mal. 2:11) but is most often used to mean the one true God (Ps. 5:4[5]; Isa. 40:18). It expresses various ideas of deity according to its context. The most common may be noted briefly: the holy God as contrasted to humans (Hos. 11:9); the High God El (Gen. 14:18; 16:13; Ezek. 28:2); the Lord (Yahweh) as a title of Israel according to the Lord’s own claim (Gen. 33:20; Isa. 40:18); God or god in general (Ex. 34:14; Deut. 32:21; Mic. 7:8); the God of Israel, the Lord (Num. 23:8; Ps. 118:27); God (Job 5:8). This word is used with various descriptive adjectives or attributes: ʾēl is God of gods (Ps. 50:1); God of Bethel (Gen. 35:7); a forgiving God (Ps. 99:8). He is the holy God (Isa. 5:16). Especially significant are the assertions declaring that ʾēl is with us, Immanuel (Isa. 7:14); and He is the God of our salvation (Isa. 12:2); a gracious God (Neh. 9:31); a jealous God (Ex. 20:5; 34:14). The closeness of this God is expressed in the hand of God (Job 27:11). In the human realm, the word also designates men of power or high rank (Ezek. 31:11); mighty men (Job 41:25[17]); or mighty warriors (Ezek. 32:21). The word is used to designate superior and mighty things in nature, such as mighty or high mountains (Ps. 36:6[7]), lofty, high cedars, or stars (Ps. 80:10[11]; Isa. 14:13). In conjunction with other descriptive words, it occurs as ʾēl šaday, “God Almighty” (7706) (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; Ex. 6:3) or ʾēl ʿelyôn, “God Most High” (5945) (Gen. 14:18, 19; Ps. 78:35). Used with hand (yāḏ) in some settings, the word conveys power, strength (Gen. 31:29; Deut. 28:32; Prov. 3:27), or ability.
Polytheism is not represented as part of the faith. As fundamental as this is to the faith, John Mark Comer has additional issues as he introduces mysticism and contemplative practices in his writings. He quotes from other authors – some of which are heretical. He uses occult practices that is becoming more popular today across much of Christianity. These will be discussed in Part 2 – there is more to come. At this point, I would not recommend Comer for reading or Sunday School classes at church. There is a lot that can sound convincing to readers but there is also a lot that goes against what Scripture states and what the church has taught for 2,000 years.
“The Truth About Women Pastors | Voddie Baucham, Beth Moore, Victoria Osteen, Joyce Meyer”
Again, a seemingly difficult subject to talk about today – a much different environment than even 20-30 years ago.
Voddie Baucham, as usual, gives a clear interpretation of Scripture. He takes a stand on what Scripture says – no matter who the audience is – even on CNN.
The main point of the video is about women pastors in the church today – he looks at several scriptural passages which, again, clearly define the role of pastor in the church to males. It is not based on ability, skill, or talent. It is based on assigned roles that differ between men and women.
Let me first say that where I differ somewhat from Voddie Baucham’s view is in regards to women leadership in society. I think the Bible is clear about the role of men as pastors, elders, leaders in the church. But it does show women leading other groups in Scripture with the most well known example of Deborah. The implication in this video is that just because Deborah lead Israel does not mean that was normative in Scripture. His reference to the passage in Isaiah implies that when women lead a nation, it reflects God’s judgement upon that nation. I have never heard of that view before and will have to give it more thought.
That said, we are faced with many churches today who act contrary to God’s word. Rhetorically asking – is that sinning against God? The common response that some use is that a woman feels called to lead and pastor a church. But a couple of points in response to that idea. First, shouldn’t we compare anything and everything to the word of God to determine if it is true or not? Instead, many base their decision on their own personal feelings and bypass God’s word. Do you really want to base anything on someone’s feelings over the word of God?.
Secondly, a common response is that these verses about male headship in family and in church doesn’t apply to today’s society. Voddie Baucham deals with this – again clearly – asking us if we want to make our determination based on what society says we should do – a society that increasingly hates things of God?
Third, some will say that the passage in Timothy has to do with a local problem at the church in Ephesus. Since it is a local, culturural issue, it doesn’t apply to our culture today. I would ask how sure are you that is why the passage is included in Timothy? When you add local cultural viewpoints, you are relying on ideas that are not stated in the Bible. Again, you have to base your view on God’s word. When you bring in outside references and hold them higher than what Scripture says, you are opening yourself up to error.
Any of these reasons are also included in other teachings which are contrary to the God’s word. People will justify same-sex marriage and homosexuality by applying these methods into Scripture with twisting what is plainly stated into something sanitized with today’s cultural view. A culture that doesn’t love God.
Some will say that this is a side issue, a non-critical issue, a non-important issue….etc. But, that doesn’t really fly far when it is a doctrine taught in the Bible starting with the very first book of Genesis. Both family issues as well as leadership in the body of Christ are very important issues throughout the New Testament and they point to the relationship of Christ to the church. What is not important from any of these points?
The best way to interpret Scripture is with other Scripture. An additional point should be made is that historically, the church has viewed this topic consistently with male leadership roles in the church and family. It seem like today, we have a bigger problem with this issue – why is that? As stated in the previous posts, men and women are valued the same. This issue has to do with roles. And as difficult as it may seam to some, it is a biblical issue that affects two very important part of our lives – the family structure and leadership in the church. We may not fully understand why God does things, but that shouldn’t override clear teaching from God’s word.
There may not be a more contested debate in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors.
Part of me wanted to avoid this subject because it seems that more churches are moving in the direction of having women pastors. It is quickly becoming an outdated issue as society has long ago started this trend which now the church has followed through on. It can be a contentious issue for several reasons such as personal bias, upbringing, social environment, tradition (Fiddler on the Roof comes to mind)…etc. Personally, I have left my previous church for reasons which included this subject (among others). I settled into a church which outlined the role of elder in the church as a role taken up by men, in accordance to Scripture. In some ways, the church is becoming more similar to society instead of being different than society. And while the intentions may be good and may sound noble, ultimately we need to follow through with what Scripture says. If we don’t then we can make up any line of reasoning and use it to justify any type of behavior or practice.
Many churches today do that very thing. Take for example that subject of homosexuality, the ordination of homosexual ministers, same-sex marriage….etc. Most churches that have gone that far have already crossed over the bridge in dealing with the issue of having women pastors. This has been an ongoing debate for decades now. But in the history of the church, it is a debate that is relatively recent more so than ancient. For most of the history of the church since the time of Christ, the church did not include the practice of women occupying the role of pastor in the church. Many would blame the patriarchal role men have had in society. However, today, women occupy almost any role that men occupy. Currently, the Vice President of the United States is a woman. We have had women running for President of the country and that no longer surprises society as it once did 50 years ago. There are women leaders in Congress as well as in other nations around the world. There are women leaders in our military, in sporting events, blue collar and white collar jobs, multi-billion dollar corporations…etc. Today’s debate in society has more to do with providing equal pay than it does for having women on a particular job.
Let me also say that I have sat under churches with women pastors. I respect these people and don’t doubt that they can be used by God in many different ways in the church today. In many cases, I look up to these women for their spiritual maturity and wisdom. I would encourage them to continue to be used by God – in ways that he has ordained in His word. That means that I do draw a line when it comes to having women pastors or teachers in the church because of what Scripture says – in my opinion – in a clear and understandable manner.
So, yes, there is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors. In some cases the debate actually has moved on we see women taking on roles in society that traditionally they haven’t filled – so many are already viewing women in these roles and they just assume those roles for the church. But, It is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women in this role. Likewise, there are men who believe women can serve as pastors and that there are no restrictions on women in the pastoral ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
Why is there a debate about this in the church – after all, in many ways society has moved on with this subject in many areas? Simply put, the Bible makes several statements (i.e. commands) regarding the roles of men and women in the family and in the church. These roles begin to be addressed in the very first book of the Bible through the New Testament.
Let’s look at some of the main passages related to this subject.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13–14). God has assigned different roles for men and women in the church and in the family.
There are some general points that should be stated upfront. It is important to realize that
these different roles don’t imply one is better or more important than the other based on their sex,
these different roles don’t imply that one is more qualified than the other,
as stated above, men and women have interpreted these roles in various ways which in itself shows that the point is not to single out this issue to make it a male versus female issue based on capabilities, talents, patriarchy,….etc.
In the pastoral epistles – which as the name implies are geared to the purpose and operation of the church – the apostle Paul through God’s word, in the 1 Timothy 2 passage restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them.
There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry.
(1) A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11–14nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified.
(2) A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism—therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11–12.
(3) A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8–10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9–10)? Of course not. Verses 8–10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11–14.
(5) Another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women were chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. This is a huge statement because most societies and cultures back then did NOT allow women to take on these roles of leadership. But the Bible makes it a point to show by real life examples that women can be leaders just like men in society.Until more recent times, that was a distinguishing difference between our faith and other belief systems throughout the world.
When we think of leaders such as Deborah, and use that as example promoting women pastors, we need check the context of what Scripture is saying about these issues. This includes that the authority of women in the Old Testament (e.g. leading Israel as a ‘nation’) is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people—the church, the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11–14.
In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–13; Titus 1:6–9).
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
We could also go and list the areas where women are better suited than men. The obvious include raising children. Again, in today’s age, that will offend some because they don’t want to see any difference between anyone. With gender transition lies that are being promoted, separate roles for women and men in the church is met with anger and dogmatic fervency in equating roles between all people. And while that sounds noble, it is not how God designed it.
(6) Some women will say that God has spoken to them personally to become a pastor. My question is usually – “how do you know God spoke to you?” I’ve heard answers such as – “I felt lead by the sermon my pastor gave” or “my pastor felt that God was showing him to tell you to pursue becoming a pastor”….etc. But this flatly disagrees with what God has already said in His word – the Bible. So, why would God contradict his written word? We tend to change our views over time but the Bible does not change, so why do you think God is leading you to go against his word? Should someone believe you over God?
(7) Along with point (2), the Timothy passage is assigned today by some to problems that were discovered in a particular church of that day. In other words, some variation of the story includes church services that were being disrupted by a chaotic display by some women which resulted in Paul writing this epistle to separate and silence women in that church’s service. And while this sounds convincing after your read from other historical books outside of the Bible because there are historical episodes of this type of chaotic environment occurring from time to time, the passage in Timothy does not specifically make those statements. Instead, people are taking the liberty of adding in these stories into their interpretation of what is found in the pastoral epistles as well as other parts of the Bible. When we do this type of interpretation you have to ask yourself if you are adding too or taking away from what Scripture is actually saying? Are you forcing your view or society’s view into the meaning of these scripture passages to come away with an interpretation that you agree with? Dows anyone have the right to do that with God’s word?
God gives us additional justification for these different roles which really steps outside of a specific time period in church history or specific problem in a specific church. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the question of why should women not have authority over men in the church is dealt with ? It is because Adam was created first, then Eve. The woman was deceived first (verses 13-14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has an application that is not limited to a particular church but rather it is a universal principle that applies for all families and churches since the dawn of creation. This steps out of time and makes this an issue for all churches to understand – even today.
With Eve’s deception referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14, women are not to serve as pastors or have spiritual authority over men. Again, this doesn’t mean that women are gullible and easily deceived. If it did then women shouldn’t be teaching children who are gullible and easily deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church because Eve was deceived – adding anything to that story runs the risk of misinterpreting the simple command. Remember that both man and woman are made in the image of God and in essence stand before Him on equal footing (cf. Gen. 1:27; 5:2; Matt. 19:4; Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). So, a woman is not inferior to the man in any way – especially with intellectual faculties.
In 1 Timothy 2:15 the reference to Genesis 3:16 shows a link between Eve’s sin and the pain of childbearing. However, Paul provides a note of comfort. Before the Fall, God issued the command for reproduction of future generations (Gen. 1:28), but the pain in childbearing developed as a result of sin, which brought with it suffering and the distortion of the Edenic Paradise. The godly behavior of a woman will be rewarded by her awesome contribution in joining with the Creator God in the process of producing the next generation. Through a willingness to bring life into the world and nurture that life physically and spiritually, a woman is obedient to the redemptive plan of God.
In 1 Timothy chapter 3, the qualifications of a pastor are identified and again, it is given in a way that shows that the role is for men. In the N.T. the terms “bishop” (“overseer”), “elder,” and “pastor” all refer to the same position (cf. Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1–4, note). It was customary to have more than one person in each local church who was responsible for spiritual leadership (Acts 14:23), but with one ruling elder having primary leadership as the pastor. Verses 1–7 make it clear that God is especially concerned with the character of those men who lead the churches. Functionally, it is the responsibility of the pastor to shepherd, direct, teach, and protect the flock of God entrusted to him.
Even in 1 Timothy 3:2 Monogamy (one wife for one husband) is unquestionably the normal standard and pattern for marriage throughout Scripture. But the wording and how it is stated means literally that an elder must be a “one-woman man”. This at least implies that a pastor would be a married man. It says nothing of women being pastors.
Then the passages in 1 Timothy 3:8-11 discuss the qualifications of Deacons in the church. Here, there may be some level of disagreement as to if women are permitted to be deacons or not. I am not going to touch on that because it is not quite as clear cut as it is for pastors and elders. Here is a very brief summary of these passages:
In 1 Timothy 3:8“Deacon” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos, which means “servant” or “attendant.” This fits the early N.T. concept. Jesus used other forms of this word in describing His ministry in Matt. 20:28 (diakonēgthēgnai and diakonēgsai); Paul used the same term of himself in Col. 1:25 (diakonos). The qualifications of the deacon are clearly given (3:8–13; Acts 6:1, note) and are similar to the qualifications for a bishop or pastor. Acts 6:1–6 tells of the apostles’ action in delegating certain tasks in order that they could devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. Paul’s distinction here between bishops and deacons reflects this division of labor (cf. Phil. 1:1). The deacons were responsible for ministering to the physical and material needs of the congregation, whereas the bishops or elders provided spiritual leadership. Obviously pastors and deacons worked closely together in the work of the church (Acts 6:1–7). (Believer’s Study Bible)
1 Timothy3:11 The same Greek word (gunēg) can be used for “woman” or “wife.” Here, the NKJV translators have inserted “their,” indicating that in their judgment the reference is to deacons’ wives, rather than female assistants or deaconesses. If these are female assistants or deaconesses, it should be recognized that their ministry would certainly have been one of service and directed especially to women (cf. Titus 2:3–5). It is significant that no teaching/ruling assignment is present. If wives of deacons is the correct interpretation, their assignment would no doubt be to assist their husbands in service. Note that there are no similar instructions for bishops’ wives (cf. 3:8, note). (Believers’ Study Bible)
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. Is it not that men are better, or more qualified. Nor is because women are less intelligent or inferior. It is simply the way God designed the local family and church body to be. Women are encouraged to use their gifts and teach other women and children (Titus 2:3-5). Really the main difference between men and women have to do with role of teaching and having authority over others – this role is identify by God as the chief distinction and difference in roles.
There are additional passages that can be looked at such as in 1 Corinthians and much more could be said. But for now, let’s conclude with what I think is a clear command in Scripture that says that spiritualy – men and women are equal (Gal. 3:28); women can be leaders in society (e.g. Deborah) just like men; women played an important role in the ministry of Jesus and well as an important role in the history of the church; men are not superior intellectually or otherwise – both man and woman are made in God’s image. But God does give men and women different roles in the setting of a church (and family). I think Scripture is clear on this distinction in the church. I may not fully understand, in light of current standards in society, but it is clear that men and women have different roles to fulfill in the church based on God’s word.
Because this issue is identified distinctly in the Bible, it is difficult to ignore it by saying things like – “let’s not divide over a non-essential issue” or “society will criticize this and therefore to be inviting to society, we should not take a stand on this issue” or “church problems back then don’t apply to us today”….etc. – these all fall short and contradict what Scripture does say on this subject. So, it is difficult to ignore. Again, ultimately we are accountable to God – who does not change, and not to the tenets of the world which does change.
Today, I would say there is a debate on what the sin of Sodom in Genesis 19 is, but many times, usually what happens with a greater frequency are statements made without recognition of the historic perspective held by the church. That doesn’t make a statement necessarily right or wrong, but I think it throws some weight into a discussion or perspective. The bottom line is – what does the Scripture say in regards to how we should view a particular issue.
Here is the first thing that Google states when searching for this question online –
“the sin of Sodom was that “thy sister, Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance ofidleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
Pride, idleness, not helpig the poor and needy….etc. Some may say – “no homosexuality?” Is this what the Bible refers to as the sin of Sodom?
Maybe we can go back to the 1963 Hollywood movie Sodom and Gomorrah starring Stuart Granger –
Sex, torture and betrayal in Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, leader of the Hebrews, believes his people can co-exist with the Sodomites, a disastrous decision:
Ildith: Evil? How strange you are. Where I come from, nothing is evil. Everything that gives pleasure is good!
Ildith: There, not far, just ahead – Sodom and Gomorrah.
The “nothing is evil” and “everything that gives pleasure is good” seems to more common in our society today. But, obviously, if we want to see what the Bible refers to as the sin (s) of Sodom, then we need to look in the Bible and review the passages relating to this question.
(A) GENESIS 13
The condition of Sodom’s men is first described in Genesis 13:13.
But the men of Sodom twere exceedingly wicked and usinful against the Lord.
t Gen. 18:20, 21; Ezek. 16:49; 2 Pet. 2:7, 8 u Gen. 6:11; 39:9; Num. 32:23The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 13:13). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
This verse refers to the wickedness of Sodom. Specifically, the term used for men is anšê instead of the more generic term “people” (‘am) which is used in other parts of Genesis as a reference to the general inhabitants of a city.
In Genesis 19:4, the same term is used for men (anšê) is used twice referring to men of a particular place.
4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. (Genesis 19:4 – NKJV)
At face value, these verses show that these are men (i.e. males) who surrounded Lot’s house.
Genesis 13:13 goes much further in implying or saying that the issue of sin being presented isn’t merely hospitality. While it doesn’t eliminate it, the same message is presented from the mouth of God in Genesis 18:20 and described their sin as very grave, exceedingly wicked...etc. One would have to really stretch the point that these are referring to merely lakcing hospitality? The modern view of these passages are commonly interpreted to say just that – hospitality is what is being referred to and the justification for that comes from a passage in Ezekiel – which we will look at next) –
20 And the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, (Genesis 18:20 – NKJV)
(B) EXEKIEL 16
The passage in Ezekiel is sometimes used to interpret the sin of Sodom as primarily (or only) hospitality while downplaying or eliminating the homosexuality.
Ezekiel 16:49 –
49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, dexcess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy
d [Gen. 13:10]. Ezekiel 16:49 – NKJV
The contemporary view is that the people of Sodom were primarily condemned simply because they were selfish, not because they were homosexuals. This is not the historic traditional view. In light of the context, the language used in these passages imply at a minimum that they refer to something far worse than selfishness but also to homosexuality.
Both Giesler and Howe, state that the sin of Sodom was not only selfishness, but also homosexuality. Genesis 19 reveals that their perversion was real and sexual
They state the following:
First of all, the context of Genesis 19 reveals that their perversion was sexual (see comments on Gen. 19:8).
Second, the sin of selfishness related by Ezekiel (16:49) does not exclude the sin of homosexuality. As a matter of fact, sexual sins are a form of selfishness, since they are the satisfaction of fleshly passions.
Third, by calling their sin an “abomination,” the very next verse (v. 50, nkjv) indicates that it was sexual. This is the same word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.
Fourth, the notorious nature of Sodom’s sexual perversity is revealed in the very word “sodomy” which has come to mean homosexual activity.
Fifth, the sin of Sodom is referred to elsewhere in Scripture as a sexual perversion. Jude even calls their sin “sexual immorality” (v. 7)
“It is true that Ezekiel 16:49-50 refers to multiple offenses at Sodom; but there are a number of strong contextual arguments for concluding that “committed an abomination” refers to attempted man-male intercourse; indeed, that Ezekiel (whom all Ezekiel agree knew the Holiness Code or something very much like it) is connecting the story in Gen 19 to the Holiness Code prohibition of such (Lev 18:22; 20:13) such that he reads the former in light of the latter.
A critique of the revisionist view of Ezekiel 16: From
To understand how the destruction of Sodom was interpreted later, we must turn to Ezekiel’s reference. According to the revisionist view, Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom categorically and finds them less serious than the sexual sins of Jerusalem. Revisionists point to verses 48–49. There, they say, we find that Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, idleness, and neglect (or, according to Edwards, oppression) of the poor and needy.68 The passage does not mention homosexuality.
However, Boswell and Bailey and others interpret these two verses incorrectly because they fail to consider their context, especially verse 50.69 In the passage, Ezekiel compares Jerusalem with her two sisters, the elder Samaria and the younger Sodom. He finds that Jerusalem, is worse than either of the others (note 16:47–52). Sodom obviously is a figurative term here, probably a reference to Judah as a whole.70 Ezekiel 16:2 sets forth the argument of the chapter: “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations” (kjv). In failing to take into account verse 50, Boswell misrepresents the text. There it is written about Sodom and her daughters, “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good” (kjv). The sins of “Sodom” went far beyond pride and neglect of the poor. These sins gave rise to abominable conduct, and this conduct caused their destruction, as described in Genesis 19. God singles out pride as the root of Sodom’s sin. Pride is frequently linked to homosexuality in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as well as in the New Testament (Rom. 1:21–22, 28ff.; see p. 160).
Indeed, when one understands that Ezekiel is comparing Jerusalem and Judah with Sodom, one realizes just how appropriate the comparison is. Judah practiced the same sins as Sodom. This observation finds substantiation if the references in Deuteronomy and especially those in 1 Kings and 2 Kings refer to sodomy. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel made frequent comparisons of Judah with Sodom.
Note the terms used to describe “Sodom’s” iniquity in Ezekiel 16. The revisionist view makes much of these terms in the discussion of the prohibitions of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. The terms include:
1. zōnāh about twenty-one times (“play the harlot, whoredoms, and fornication”; the LXX translates with cognates of porneia and diatheke);
2. toʿebaten times (“abominations”; the LXX has anomia and anomēma); and
3. zimmah three times (“lewdness”; the LXX has cognates of asebeia).
These terms seem to be synonymous and clearly relate to sexuality and spiritual adultery (idolatry). The Levite uses zimmah to describe the “lewd act” committed by the men of Gibeah (Judg. 20:6; see p. 79).
If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present. One can assume it under one of the three terms involved, and it is present in the very mention and significance of the term Sodom. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 support this assertion because they use abomination (Heb. toʿeba; Gk. bdelygma) to denote male homosexual acts. This point is especially significant, for no one term is reserved specifically for this behavior, unless it be dog or changed sex.
68Gay/Lesbian Liberation, 53.
69 Countryman acknowledges the use of abominations in verse 50, but he does not believe we can know what Ezekiel had in mind by the term (Dirt, 31–32). Nissinen totally ignores verse 50 in the discussion of Ezekiel 16 (Homoeroticism, 47).
70Sodom might represent the small heathen states and cities left around Israel, as is argued in H. L. Ellison, Ezekiel: the Man and His Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 66. This does not affect the interpretation, or the presence of sodomy in the context.
Let’s look at the passages in Leviticus a bit further. Gagnon’s summary interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 include:
In taking such a severe and comprehensive stance toward male homosexual behavior, Lev 18:22 and 20:13 represent a level of revulsion toward same-sex intercourse without parallel in the ancient Near East.… [The framer of these laws as part of the so-called Holiness Code] was responding to the conviction that same-sex intercourse was fundamentally incompatible with the creation of men and women as complementary sexual beings. For a man to have sexual intercourse with another male as though the latter were not a male but a female violates God’s design for the created order.… It is nothing short of a rebellion against the way God made humans to function as sexual beings.… [There is solid] evidence for the enduring validity of Lev 18:22 and 20:13.74
74 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 156–157.
Davidson, R. M. (2012). Homosexuality in the Old Testament. In R. E. Gane, N. P. Miller, & H. P. Swanson (Eds.), Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues (p. 22). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
The argument that the homosexual practice is not being indicted in Gen 19 but rather hospitality makes an either-or out of a both-and: The most effective way of dishonoring male visitors to the city is to treat their masculinity as if it were non-existent by treating them as the receiving partner in an act of intercourse.Had the visitors consented to such activity they would have contributed to their own self-abasement (that this is the correct interpretation is evident from ancient Near Eastern descriptions of men who play the receptive role in man-male intercourse).”
(D) HISTORY
Gagnon also refers to historic authors such as Philo and Josephus:
“The two most significant (non-Christian) Jewish authors of the first century, Philo and Josephus, who also comment on the sin(s) of Sodom more extensively than anyone else in that time period, use the story as an indictment of homosexual practice.”
Historically, while not absolute, but far more numerous, the church as viewed the sin of Sodom primarily as homosexuality. The emphasis on the other sins of Sodom relating to selfishness, inhospitality, lack of care for the poor…etc. to the exclusion of homosexuality is a more modern view that is popular today.d
There are other sins in Sodom – but they don’t take away from the main sin of homosexuality. Gagnon refers to the Isaiah passage discussing social injustice:
“Most texts in the canon of Scripture that refer to Sodom simply mention it and Gomorrah as places of great evil that God utterly destroyed. Isaiah 1:7-17 alludes to Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of discussing social injusticebut this merely picks up one them of the Sodom cycle with excluding other themes. There are a number of biblical texts that allude to the immorality of homosexual practice at Sodom.”
(E) GENESIS 19
In the context of Genesis 19, R.M. Davidson states –
“But the Achilles’ heel of the argument…….who see only issues of inhospitality in this narrative is the use of “to know” in the immediate context. In verse 8 the verb yādaʿ is used in connection with Lot’s daughters and unmistakably refers to sexual intercourse. The close proximity of its usage in verse 5 to this clear sexual meaning of yādaʿ in verse 8 makes it very difficult to conclude that it has a different, nonsexual meaning in the former. Furthermore, as Sakae Kubo notes, “Bailey’s explanation for the reason Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom is simply not convincing.… It is much more difficult to explain why Lot would offer his daughters to people who came only to demand to check up on two foreigners than if they wanted to abuse them sexually.”31
There are many attempts to make these verse mean something different than what they plainly state in Scripture.
James De Young shows how the literary macrostructure of Genesis also points to a sexual interpretation for Genesis 19. Following the literary analysis of Robert Alter, he points to the three episodes just prior to the birth narrative of Isaac that delay and pose a threat to the fulfillment of God’s promise of seed for Abraham—Abraham’s intercession and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18–19), the incest of Lot and his daughters as the origin of the Moabites and Edomites (Gen. 19), and the sister-wife episode involving Abraham, Sarah, and the king of Gerar (Gen. 20)—and shows that “Each episode relates sexual sin and its punishment.… The literary structure of the text demands a homosexual meaning for the sin of Sodom. Illicit sexual enjoyment or opportunism connects all three of the episodes”32 De Young, among others, also points out that scholars generally recognize that the narrator of the book of Judges consciously modeled his telling of the story of the disgrace at Gibeah (Judg. 19) after the account in Genesis 19, and since the Judges 19 story clearly has reference to homosexual activity, one should interpret the story of Genesis 19 the same way.33
Most modern interpreters now acknowledge that homosexual activity along with inhospitality are described in Genesis 19 but insist that the sexual issue is that of rape or violence and that thus this passage gives no evidence for the condemnation of homosexual practice in general.34 It is indeed likely that the specific actions contemplated by the men of Sodom included homosexual rape, but Victor Hamilton points to a fourfold problem with limiting the reference here to only homosexual rape.35
First, the verb yādaʿ, which has been translated by some versions as “to abuse” in this passage (e.g., Jerusalem Bible), nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible carries the meaning of “abuse” or “violate.”Second,elsewhere in Scripture, specific terminology besides yādaʿ is used to describe incidents or cases of rape (“to seize,” “to lie with,” “to force”; cf. Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 13:14; Deut. 22:25–27). Third, translating yādaʿ as “rape” or “violate” in Genesis 19:5 would force a different meaning on the word than three verses later, where yādaʿ undeniably means “have intercourse with” regarding Lot’s daughters. Finally, Hamilton points out that “such an interpretation forces these incredible words in Lot’s mouth: ‘Do not rape my visitors. Here are my daughters, both virgins—rape them!’ ” In light of these problems, Hamilton concludes—correctly I believe—that “the incident frowns on homosexual relations for whatever reason.”36
Beyond the significance of the word yādaʿ, one must also recognize that in the overall movement of the narrative, this incident is utilized to characterize the depth of depravity in Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus, as Gagnon observes,
“it is likely that the sin of Sodom is not merely inhospitality or even attempted rape of a guest but rather attempted homosexual rape of male guests.…37
What makes this instance of inhospitality so dastardly, what makes the name ‘Sodom’ a byword for inhumanity to visiting outsiders in later Jewish and Christian circles, is the specific form in which the inhospitality manifests itself: homosexual rape.”38
The larger context of the later prophetic passages that refer to this narrative clearly indicates a sexual interpretation (Ezek. 16:43, 50; cf. Jude 6–7; 2 Pet. 2:4, 6–8) and a castigation of homosexual activity per se and not just homosexual rape. ……….In the analysis of Ezekiel 16:49–50, the sin of inhospitality is indeed signaled by the prophet, but this is not all that Ezekiel indicates. Specific terminology in the immediate context of these verses in Ezekiel 16 also indicates the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom. That the opprobrium attached to the Sodomites’ intended activity involved not only rape but the inherent degradation of same-sex intercourse is confirmed by the intertextual linkages between Ezekiel and the sexual “abominations” mentioned in Levitical legislation.
In light of the passage, the most common response to the question “What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term “sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.
Ezekiel 16:49–50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me …” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “… Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.
Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.
The previous posting discussed several questionable teachings from Dr. James Danaher, professor of Philosophy at Nyack College, a Christian school sponsored by the Christian and Missionary Alliance Denomination.
As I said previously, I believe that there are many good, faithful servants of God at Nyack and Alliance Theological Seminary. They have a long history of bearing fruit across ministries throughout the world. However, like most other Evangelical denominations, today we see an increasing influence from unbiblical practices – some are simply man-made traditions from the early church while others include practices from historical “saints” promoting mysticism in Roman Catholicism, similarities (intentional and unintentional) to Eastern Mysticism and practices from Eastern religions.
It is disheartening to know that a denomination used mightily by God in the past is now being influenced in what they are teaching future pastors, missionaries, leaders,…etc. The temptation is to fluff off these issues as non-essential and not adversely affecting others. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Think about the following issues which are being promoted –
Danaher’s involvement with a heretic such as Richard Rohr (denying the biblical doctrine of man, sin, creation, salvation, Jesus,…etc.).
The promotion of Postmodernism – leading people further from biblical truth and leading away from teaching biblical truth to a focus on an experiential walk and into a relativistic and experiential view of faith and relationship with God. According to these folks, there is no absolute truth.
The promotion of the Enneagram – a popular ancient personality assessment tool which in reality is neither ancient nor is it justified as a personality assessment tool. Rather, it’s origins stem from an array of occultic practices made popular by the New Age movement.
=> At the local church level, there have been gatherings by C&MA church leaders in the Western Pennsylvania District of the C&MA where the focus was on utilizing the Enneagram. Even today, some leaders in the denomination list their Enneagram number as a part of their bio or list of accomplishments.
This is not a small issue – this is a major problem with the doctrinal integrity of a denomination that was founded on fulfilling Christ’s calling for the Great Commission in missionary efforts and discipleship of its members. Again, I don’t want to judge someone’s motives, but this type of teaching and fruit is very concerning. Error creeps in the church through the back door and many times within the leadership.
Jesus warned us that false teachings, “false Christs and false prophets” will come and will attempt to deceive even God’s elect. This trend will increase during the “last days”. The Apostle Paul warned repeatedly of the onset of false teachings that follow after philosophies,
2 Peter 3:3 – knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days (The New King James Version (1982). Nashville: Thomas Nelson)
Matthew 24:23-26 – 23 x“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For yfalse christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, zif possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. (NKJV)
Jude 17-18 –17 vBut you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: 18 how they told you that wthere would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. (NKJV)
1 Timothy 1:3-7 –3 As I urged you cwhen I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may 1charge some dthat they teach no other doctrine, 4 enor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now fthe purpose of the commandment is love gfrom a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from2sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to hidle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. (NKJV)
The best way to protect yourself from falsehood is to know the truth. If you know the real thing so well, it is easier to spot falsehood. This involves correctly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). It is often difficult to spot a false teacher/false prophet. Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), and his ministers masquerade as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:15). Only by being thoroughly familiar with the truth will we be able to recognize a counterfeit.
(B) ENNEAGRAM
What is the Enneagram? Here are a few common descriptions:
“Moreover, just as Scripture reveals that there is both diversity and unity in regard to spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12), we must also consider the diversity and unity of temperament and personality as they relate to spiritual formation and expression. Historically, various Christian traditions have recognized these differences in spiritual temperament and utilized systems such as the Enneagram, which proposes nine different spiritual temperaments and accompanying primary sins, or the quadrilateral model of Ignatian, Augustinian, Franciscan, and Thomistic personality types, based on the alleged temperaments of those spiritual giants.” (Mangis, M., & Post, B. (2011). Personality and Temperament. In G. G. Scorgie (Ed.), Dictionary of Christian spirituality (p. 670). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.)
“Enneagram (»astrology; »occult). A circle divided into nine equal points. The ennegram is rooted in the Kabbalist (see »Kabbala) tradition, astrology, and »divination. The numbers are linked to personality types. The enneagram has come into popular usage among many people today; there is a growing number of books written about how to understand and use it.” (Nichols, L. A., Mather, G. A., & Schmidt, A. J. (2006). In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions (p. 391). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.)
What is known as the “Enneagram of Personality” or the “Traditional Enneagram” is a complex system of understanding individuals that touts itself as the most dynamic and open of the various typologies and also offers itself as a path to liberation or self-actualization. The Enneagram is a geometric symbol containing nine points and nine (or more) intersecting lines (the Greek word for “nine” was ennea). As previously stated, the Enneagram of Personality includes nine types of personality. These include (1) The Reformer, (2) The Helper, (3) The Achiever, (4) The Individualist, (5) The Investigator, (6) The Loyalist, (7) The Enthusiast, (8) The Challenger, and (9) The Peacemaker. Each personality type also has at least one “wing.” The wings are the numbers on either side of the basic type; for example, a type 2 (Helper) would have either a type 1 or type 3 wing, which modifies the way in which the dominant personality is expressed. Each type also has a range of functionality, with three levels considered healthy, three considered average, and three considered unhealthy.Adding to the complexity, each personality type on the Enneagram is also compared to two other types in terms of integration (security or growth) or disintegration (stress). When under stress, a particular type will often behave as someone in an unhealthy range of a different type would act out. For example, according to the Enneagram, a type 2 under stress will act as an unhealthy type 8. But a type 2 moving in the direction of growth will act more like a healthy type 4.Personality types on the Enneagram are also grouped into “Centers.” Each Center is formed of three types that share common strengths and weaknesses. The nine types are divided into the Instinctive Center, the Emotional Center, and the Thinking Center. Each center is further characterized by a dominant emotion: anger, shame, and fear. The mapped-out distinctions are meant to demonstrate a dominant way of being, not the only way of being.As can be seen, the Enneagram of Personality allows for much variation in expression of personality. The system discusses both positives and negatives of each personality type. When the Enneagram becomes a method of spiritual or psychic awakening and distracts people from the truth of Scripture, it is wrong. But, seen as a map of God-given personalities, the Enneagram can be helpful in understanding humanity and perhaps gaining insight into the complex and unique way in which God has created us. (Got Questions)
Marcia Montenegro describes aspects of the Enneagram: “What is your number, the Enneagram asks. What is the Enneagram, you may ask back. An increasingly popular tool of personality analysis, the Enneagram is a diagram depicting numbers one through nine, with lines connecting each number to two other numbers. The Enneagram was promoted by mystic George Gurdjieff (1866?-1949) and by his followers, P. D. Ouspensky (1878-1947) and Oscar Ichazo (b. 1931). Gurdjieff claimed to have learned the Enneagram from the Sufis(a mystical spin-off sect of Islam), though many dispute this.” Psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo (b. 1932), a pioneer of New Age related psychological theories, breathed new life into the Enneagram by refining it as a tool of psychological assessment in which a person discovers his number in the chart, and then studies the best and worst traits of that number via the diagram. Each number represents a particular personality type, and is connected to two other numbers, one which supposedly highlights the worst traits, and the other representing the best.http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Enneagram.aspx
Marcia Montenegro’s extensive research into the origins of the Enneagram resulted in her conclusions that the Enneagram is not ancient but rather, it was introduced in the 1900s with occultic origins. [http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Enneagram2.aspx] [http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_FictionFactsEnneagram.aspx]
(C) PODCAST: THE ROAD BACK TO YOU
James Danaher gave an interview with the authors of The Road Back to You: Looking at Life Through the Lens of the Enneagram by Ian Morgan Cron and Suzanne Stabile. Listed below includes a path to the interview. Also, listed next are my notes from listening to the interview – covering some of the main issues that were discussed. Many of these issues are briefly stated – we could spend a great deal of additional time discussing each one of them, but if you have been following this blog, many of these have been discussed previously. Some of the popular descriptions that can tip-off people to the practices and teachings relating to mysticism include the following – e.g. CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER, MEDITATION, SOUL, STILLNESS, RICHARD ROHR, GERALD MAY, THOMAS KEATING, CENTERING PRAYER, “MONKEY MIND”, LOTUS POSITION, “FALSE SELF”,….etc.
Here are notes that I jotted down from the interview –
You would think that a Professor of Philosophy and author of five books would, for the most part, have life figured out. But what we learn from today’s guest Jim Danaher (Enneagram 3) is that we all need to continue to do soul-work, to strengthen the muscles of self-observation to get to a place of honesty.
Jim, an academic and expert on contemplative prayer, speaks of how coming into stillness helps us see that it’s not enough to find our identity in our image and what we accomplish.
In Ian and Suzanne’s conversation with an Enneagram 3, we learn how to step away from the constant need to overachieve and recognize the importance of being instead of just doing.
James Danaher is Professor of Philosophy at Nyack College, New York.
Authors Suzanne Stabile and Ian Morgan Cron leading the interview. –
You would think that a Professor of Philosophy and author of five books would, for the most part, have life figured out.
But what we learn from today’s guest Jim Danaher (Enneagram 3) is that we all need to continue to do soul-work, to strengthen the muscles of self-observation to get to a place of honesty.
Jim, an academic and expert on contemplative prayer, speaks of how coming into stillness helps us see that it’s not enough to find our identity in our image and what we accomplish.
In Ian and Suzanne’s conversation with an “Enneagram 3”, we learn how to step away from the constant need to overachieve and recognize the importance of being instead of just doing.
Met Jim Danaher at a Richard Rohr conference 10 years prior.
Interned with Father Richard Rohr – who was chiefly responsible for introducing the Enneagram in the United States.Rohr wrote a book – “The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective.”“A wonderful book”.
James teaches Contemplative Theology – written a book on this topic.
The Enneagram has ancient roots.
It’s all about the experiences of people.
Judge things by their consequences.
His Enneagram Number is 3
Believes the Enneagram helps us by exploring “soul work”
It is better than therapy.
It explains my life.
It is true because it explains something.
It is factorial pure.
“Your sin becomes your virtue”
“Your virtue becomes truth”
Contemplative Prayer, Centering Prayer or some type of meditation =>you have to do this to observe yourself.Starting out, you can’t do without these practices.
Provost (Nyack?) discussion about the books Danaher has written.
Importance of meeting God in stillness.
“monkey mind” = According to Buddhist principles, the “monkey mind” is a term that refers to being unsettled, restless, or confused. Writer and Buddhist Natalie Goldberg, who teaches many writing workshops, suggests that the monkey mind is the inner critic.
Gerald May wrote a book – “Dark Night of the Soul” – “good to experience His presence.”
Does this 4 to 5 times a day.Not good in the lotus position but lies down.
Danaher said that he would give up everything but contemplative prayer.
It is arrogant to think that we can know what good and bad are.
Mentions “false self.”
Host recommends Thomas Keating’s book – “One Heart One Mind.”
Also recommends – “Into The Silent Land” by Laird.
The entire enneagram is seeing the fault self.
Here is why you should learn the enneagram:
James Danaher made several questionable statements.
You can’t keep on fooling yourselves all your life.
It is sad when people in their 60 and 70s keep up this facade. You don’t know yourself
Destroy false self and get down deeper
Those who don’t have a disaster or are not unfortunate are the most to be pitied
Identify the self-limiting dimensions and get rid of it.
You are not your type – who you are is underneath all of this.
We don’t tell you who you are – we tell you who you are not.
Dr.Kenneth Berding is author of various books, he has published articles in such journals as the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vigiliae Christianae, New Testament Studies, and Journal of Early Christian Studies. Before coming to Talbot, Dr. Berding was a church planter in the Middle East and taught at Nyack College just north of New York City: https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2018/the-not-so-sacred-enneagram
There is a great deal of information on the Enneagram included in the above references. As you read through them, it will become clear that there are valid concerns from its occultic origins, its association with the New Age, and Danaher brings with him Contemplative theology which is a mystical approach to ones walk with many questionable practices associated with it that in the end, have more similarities to Eastern Mysticism than it does to the Bible.
Contemplative practices encourage getting into an altered state of mind and receiving personal messages supposedly from God. But, even here, one of the biggest proponents of contemplative prayer, Richard Foster cautioned and warned that
unsuspecting believers can come into contact with demons;
only mature Christians should be allowed to do this, and that
prayers of protection should be prayed before going into this alternative realm.
Does this sound biblical? Is this a message that should be promoted to Christians?
(E) CONCLUSION
This posting was meant to show how aberrant some of the teachings and practices of Professor Danaher at Nyack College in the Christian & Missionary Alliance Church. Promotion of Postmodernism which cast doubt on absolute truth and minimizes the importance of teaching biblical truth can have a detrimental effect on future leaders within the C&MA. What is worse is the relationship established with other professors with Richard Rohr whose teachings are heretical. This includes some at the Alliance Theological Seminary (ATS) who promote Rohr’s teachings, use Rohr’s books in their classes, and contributes to Rohr’s writings in journals such as Oneing.
It must be asked why the Dean of ATS, Dr. Ron Walborn, promotes these practices instead of removing any influence of Richard Rohr in the C&MA. This includes the promotion of Contemplative theology and practices that share more similarities with Eastern Mysticism than it does with God’s word. These are serious actions that need to be rectified.
In Part 1 of our study on BIBLIOLATRY, we defined its meaning – the worship (idolization) of the Bible. We looked at how the word bibliolatry is used today showing that in some cases it is used more so as a personal attack on Christians who hold to the Bible’s view of it its Divine origin and authority. From the verses we looked at, the Bible shows how the study and application of God’s word lead to the conversion of unbelievers (Philip’s use of Scripture in Acts 8:30-31); we are encouraged to know God’s word when we defend our faith (1 Peter 3:15-16); and probably a good passage that sums much of what we can say about the Bible comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
But, not to be outdone, today’s Christians face an onslaught of both implicit and explicit influences on their faiths to move in a direction that borrows mystical practices from early church traditions (Roman Catholic mystics – “saints”) to more not-so-subtle mystical practices from Eastern religions (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism…etc.). The New Age also includes many of these perspectives.
The editors at Lighthouse Trails put out a recent commentary on Bibliolatry and how it has become a popular view within the Contemplative movement (i.e. mystical) throughout Christianity today (especially with Evangelicalism). The quotes in their article from popular authors/speakers/leaders are, in my mind, quite shocking (although I am not surprised anymore). They reveal not only what these folks believe but also what the particular institution they are a part of is promoting to their students, theological journals, writings and books, future church pastors, leaders..etc. I took the liberty of highlighting names and underlining portions of the article.
In an article titled “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It,” Biola University professor J.P. Moreland says that evangelical Christians are too committed to the Bible. He states:
“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” [Moreland] said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.” The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.(source)
While Moreland gives examples such as non-charismatics who steer clear of any and all venues such as “impressions, dreams, visions, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom,” there may be more behind his statements than meets the eye. This idea of “bibliolatry” (the idolizing of the Bible) did not originate with Moreland. Contemplative Brennan Manning (who gets many of his ideas from mystics like Thomas Merton and William Shannon (Silence on Fire), once said this:
I am deeply distressed by what I only can call in our Christian culture the idolatry of the Scriptures. For many Christians, the Bible is not a pointer to God but God himself. In a word–bibliolatry. God cannot be confined within the covers of a leather-bound book. I develop a nasty rash around people who speak as if mere scrutiny of its pages will reveal precisely how God thinks and precisely what God wants.”–Brennan Manning, Signature of Jesus, pp. 188-189
Without checking the further inferences of such statements, some may agree with Manning and Moreland solely on the idea that we should not worship a leather-bound book but rather the One of whom the book is about. But few “over-committed” Bible-believing Christians would argue with that. Christians who believe the Bible is the actual inspired word of God know that the Bible is not God Himself, but it is the Jesus Christ proclaimed in that Bible who is to be worshiped. But they also know that within the pages of the Bible are the holy words, ideas, and truths of God. So for Moreland and Manning to suggest that these types of Christians don’t really worship God but rather pages in a book is a misrepresentation of Bible-believing Christians.
Scot McKnight is another who uses this term, bibliolatry. In his book A Community Called Atonement, McKnight says, “I begin with the rubble called bibliolatry, the tendency for some Christians to ascribe too much to the Bible” (p. 143). Emerging spirituality figure Walter Brueggemann uses the term in his book Theology of the Old Testament (p. 574).
There may be a logical reason why these men condemn those who adhere to the Bible too strongly. All have something in common – they all promote CONTEMPLATIVE spirituality. And, as we have shown time and again, those who embrace the contemplative spiritual outlook, often shift their focus from the moral (doctrine) to the MYSTICAL as HENRI NOUWEN suggested in his book In the Name of Jesus:
Through the discipline of contemplative prayer, Christian leaders have to learn to listen to the voice of love . . . For Christian leadership to be truly fruitful in the future, a movement from the moral to the mystical is required. (p. 32)
In Moreland’s book, The Lost Virtue of Happiness, he talks about rediscovering important spiritual principles that have been lost. In Faith Undone, Roger Oakland cites this book in explaining the problem of mysticism:
Two of the spiritual disciplines . . . are “SOLITUDE and SILENCE” (p. 51). The book says that these two disciplines are “absolutely fundamental to the Christian life” (p. 51). . . . Moreland and Issler [co-author] state:
In our experience, Catholic retreat centers [bastions of mysticism] are usually ideal for solitude retreats . . . We also recommend that you bring photos of your loved ones and a picture of Jesus . . . Or gaze at a statue of Jesus. Or let some pleasant thought, feeling, or memory run through your mind over and over again (pp. 54-55)….
Moreland and Issler provide tips for developing a prayer life. Here are some of the recommendations they make:
[W]e recommend that you begin by saying the Jesus Prayer about three hundred times a day (p. 90).
When you first awaken, say the Jesus Prayer twenty to thirty times. As you do, something will begin to happen to you. God will begin to slowly begin to occupy the center of your attention (p. 92).
Repetitive use of the Jesus Prayer while doing more focused things allows God to be on the boundaries of your mind and forms the habit of being gently in contact with him all day long (p. 93).
Moreland and Issler try to present what they consider a scriptural case that repetitive prayers are OK with God. But they never do it! They say the Jesus Prayer is derived from Luke 18:38 where the blind man cries out, “Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me,”(p.90) but nowhere in that section of the Bible (or any other section for that matter) does it instruct people to repeat a rendition of Luke 18:38 over and over. (from Faith Undone, pp. 117-119)
To be sure, the worship of any leather-bound book would be unscriptural and idolatrous, but we have never known or heard of a single case where a Christian advocates or practices Bible worship. As far as that goes, we have known countless Christians who respect (revere) the Bible as being the inspired Word of God; now if that were a point deserving criticism and condemnation, then we would necessarily need to place the apostle Paul under such scrutiny for having said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Was Paul a Bible worshiper? We know he was not. We also know that he never instructed anyone to repeat words or phrases from the Bible over and over for the purpose of achieving a “silence” (i.e., a mind-altering state). Such a practice is not taught anywhere in Scripture; hence, we propose that it is just such a practice that is a misuse of Scripture. Is it mere coincidence that in virtually every case where someone uses the “bibliolatry” argument, that person also promotes contemplative prayer, a practice that cannot be supported through Scripture? And by downplaying scriptural authority, cannot the contemplative viewpoint be easier to promote within Christianity?
One last case in point about “bibliolatry” comes from Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho (NNU) where Dr. Jay McDaniel was invited to speak. McDaniel is a self-proclaimed “Christian” Buddhist sympathizer. When asked by a student at the lecture whether he believed that Jesus was “the way, the truth, and the life,” McDaniel stated that if Jesus had meant to say that Hehimself was the way, the truth, and the life, it would have been egocentric and arrogant of Jesus – He only meant to point people in the right direction – letting go of ego and grasping love. McDaniel stated also that Buddhist mindfulness (eastern meditation)is just as truth filled as doctrine and theology. He said there was an overemphasis in the church on doctrine calling it bibliolatry (idol worship of the Bible). (source
There is an attack on the Word of God. That’s no new thing–secular humanists, New Agers, and philosophers have attacked the Bible for centuries. BUT this attack of which we speak comes from WITHIN the ranks of Christianity out of the halls of highly respected universities and off the presses of successful Christian publishers, and it is being carried forth by those who gain access into the hearts of men and women through their use of contemplative spirituality.
What can we make of this idea of “bibliolatry”? The following statement offers some valid insight regarding this idea that Christians put too much emphasis on the Bible:
Today some are saying that the Bible is a lesser revelation than the Son. But if we do not make much of the Bible, then we cannot know much of the Son, for our only source of information about the Son (and hence about the Father) is through the Bible. Furthermore, if the Bible is not to be trusted, then again, we cannot know truth about the Son . . . if the Bible is not completely true, we end up with either misinformation or subjective evaluation. Jesus Himself asserted that the Bible revealed Him (Luke 24:27, 44-45, John 5:39). (A Survey of Christian Doctrine, Ryrie, p. 17)
In summary, we find it rather odd that in a time in history when many churches are hardly even opening the Bible, that Bible-believing Christians would be accused of focusing too much on the Bible. Our continual plea to all Christians is to be diligent in their study of the Scriptures and to be as the Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). We should also note that Jesus never corrected people for studying the Scriptures but rather for their lack of understanding them. Paul nailed it on the head when he said, “Study to show thyself approved unto God . . . rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Could this accusation of “bibliolatry” be nothing more than a smoke screen to further the contemplative agenda?
Additional information related to this article can be found at https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=28301
=> Instead of diving into mystical practices, if you desire to know God and truly understand Him along with a desire for God to talk to YOU – open up your Bible and pray for His Holy Spirit for an understanding of His word (2 Timothy 2:15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Answer: The term bibliolatry comes from combining the Greek words for Bible and worship. In a Christian context, simply stated, bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible. Typically, the accusation of bibliolatry is used as an attack on those who hold to the inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy of Scripture. It is often employed as an inflammatory and derogatory attack on believers who hold to “sola scriptura” and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible.
It is important to note that the charge of bibliolatry does not claim some Christians literally bow down before a Bible and worship it, as if it were an idol. While there may be some strange cult out there that literally worships the Bible, that is not what bibliolatry is referring to. The accusation of bibliolatry is that some Christians elevate the Bible to the point that it is equal with God, or to the point that studying the Bible is more important than developing a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. Is the charge of bibliolatry accurate?
First, it is important to understand what the Bible says about itself. Second Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So, if the Bible is “God-breathed,” and “God does not lie” (Titus 1:2), then every word in the Bible must be true. Believing in an inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Bible is not bibliolatry. Rather, it is simply believing what the Bible says about itself. Further, believing what the Bible says about itself is in fact worshipping the God who breathed out His Word. Only a perfect, infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God could create written revelation that is itself perfect and infallible.
Do some believers emphasize the Bible to the point that other things of importance—such as tradition, nature, reason, and experience—are neglected? Yes. However, the Bible, based on what it says about itself, must be a higher authority than any of these and must, in fact, be the authority against which they are judged. God would never contradict Himself by revealing something in nature, reason, or experience that disagrees with what He revealed in His Word. The Bible is not to be worshipped, but the God of the Bible is to be worshipped. To ignore what God has revealed about Himself in His Word and instead elevate the subjective “revelations” of nature, reason, and experience is idolatry (Romans 1:18-25).
The Bible is not God. The Bible does not contain all of God’s knowledge. While the Bible gives principles that apply to every situation, it does not explicitly give us all the information we need to daily live our lives. Part of the problem is that some Christians take the saying “the Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it” to extremes. While the statement is absolutely true and should reflect how we view the Bible, God’s Word does not instruct us to abandon our brains or ignore our experiences. True reason is completely compatible with Scripture. Experience can help us in our understanding of Scripture. While the Bible must be our authority, we must also use it to confirm and verify the conclusions we reach with our God-given reason and God-directed experience (1 Peter 3:15). Believing what the Bible says about itself is not bibliolatry. Rather, accepting God’s Word for what it claims to be is in fact worshipping the God who breathed it.
Another good article at MidWest Christian Outreach about how easy and subtle it is to “lean towards heresy”. Again, how easy and subtle aberrant theology flows into churches that may be generally very conservative in their approach to Scripture. No church is immune to this effect – even Paul warned the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)
This article lays out an example happening today in a well-known Bible institution – http://midwestoutreach.org/2018/04/25/leaning-toward-heresy/
Few realize how subtly doctrinal drift occurs. It often isn’t a jump from sound teaching and belief in the essentials of the faith to all out denial but is a slight lean from one to the other. It comes with a slight change in wording or applicationof a new definition which makes an aberrant view sound acceptable. Julie Roys publicly raised this issue regarding Moody Bible Institute last month after spending a great deal of time trying to dialogue with the leadership at MBI. One of the issues was inerrancy. In her article, Moody Bible Institute Takes Bold Step to Affirm Biblical Inerrancy we see the impact of redefining terms:
It was a slight lean but was sufficient to demonstrate under scrutiny that they didn’t actually affirm Moody’s doctrinal statement after all. Would anyone have caught the subtle shift had Julie not brought it to public attention? It’s hard telling because although the professors seemingly affirmed the statement no one thought to ask them how they defined “truth.” This is not a new problem but has been with us since the beginning of the church, and truth be told, we see it throughout the Old Testament as well. Much of the New Testament was written to correct false teaching and lay down clear definitions of belief, including Early Church Creeds such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. The Church Councils formulated Creeds to clarify the essentials of the faith which were being subtly corrupted by false teachers. As we look at the creeds, they went from the simple statements of the Nicene Creed (325) to longer more detailed statements of the First Council of Constantinople (381, see comparison). By the time we get to the Athanasian Creed it is longer, more detailed and includes definitions which would prevent false teachers from co-opting the language by redefinition. Although it addresses the humanity of Christ, the bulk of the Athanasian Creed focuses on the deity of Christ, the nature of God (One True God) and the relation of the three persons (Trinity) who share that nature. Reviewing this issue in light of recent revelations and discussions, Julie Roys points out:
Moody also announced that it is revising its doctrinal statement regarding the Trinity. The revision adds that God is “three co-equal Persons” and that “these divine Persons, together possessing the same eternal perfections, work inseparably and harmoniously in creating, sustaining and redeeming the world.”
The nuances of trinitarian language often makes a big difference in what is being communicated, so someone who is orthodox in their view may unwittingly use heretical terminology. For example, in 2011 Mark Hensch did a fine article on Evangelicals Take Stand on Trinity with the exception of the statement:
For Spencer and other signers like him, taking stock of the Trinity requires maintaining the Bible’s emphasis on one god and three manifestations of that God. (emphasis ours)
Spencer and the other signers would never use the terms “three manifestations,” as that is the language of an Early Church heresy called modalism. Many point out that modalism is perhaps the most common theological error on the nature of God. It is the idea that God one person Who “manifested” Himself as Father in creation, Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in sanctification – but that they are not co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful, etc. Did Mark Hensch intentionally embrace modalism by using this term? Probably not. The definition sounded close to the truth but leaned into heresy.
Many churches today opt for “user friendly” sermons, and do not teach the essentials of the faith on a regular basis. As a result, most who attend such a church are prey for cults and false teachers who use similar terms with different definitions to pull the unwary away from the faith.
Adding to this problem, some organizations which represent themselves as Christian media promote and sell false teaching online. A book such as Joe Kovacs’ Shocked by the Bible and The Divine Secret, promoted and sold by WorldNetDaily, is little more than an updated version of the false teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong who denied the deity of Christ and doctrine of the Trinity – and promulgated many other false teachings. Even though this has been brought to the attention of the leadership of WorldNetDaily privately and publicly, it has fallen on deaf ears. Unlike Moody, they appear to be uncorrectable.
Again, none of this is new and the Apostle Paul was so concerned about the flood of false doctrine that would flood into the church after his death, he sent for the Ephesian elders and gave them a mandate which still applies to church leadership today:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)
The Apostle visited this theme in Romans 16:7; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Timothy 1:3 & 10, 4:6, 6:3; Titus 1:9, 2:1 and 2:10. Discernment and watchfulness is vital to prevent the flock from subtly leaning or drifting away “from the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).Ω
IronDukeblog 
Recent Comments