MDR: Easy on Adultery

I was reminded again tonight in a conversation about divorce and remarriage how often people misrepresent the other side. This is going to appear self-serving as I will be pointing out how the other side misrepresents my side. I do this with full awareness that my side does it's fair share of misrepresenting too. Now that we have that out of the way...

I hold the view—as I have for a long time—that there are valid reasons for divorce and remarriage. The no divorce and remarriage advocates equate remarriage after divorce with adultery (Luke 16:18). Consequently, they say about people who allow divorce and remarriage that they allow adultery, they are easy on adultery, or their churches are full of adultery. 

Obviously I find this absurd for several reason, But allow me to flip the table and frame it in the following way. There are scores of women in no remarriage churches who have lived with abusive, serial cheaters for years as a consequence of that doctrine. They tolerate the abuse and cheating with all of its consequences because they think they can never remarry. And in many cases, the cheating husband will continue to cheat because they know the wife won't do anything about it. 

I suggest the view that judges the adulterous spouse by divorcing them is the one being strong against adultery. And the view the makes someone feel like they have to tolerate adultery or live alone is the view that facilitates adultery. That's the view that is more conducive to adultery thriving. 

Admittedly this does not prove one way or the other whether the Bible teaches that a divorced person may remarry. But it is a good response to an extra-biblical argument. 

Perspectives on Preaching: Feel the Burn

When God gives you a word, it never comes alone. It always comes with a time and a place to speak it. God always speaks to his preachers so he can speak through his preachers. But God doesn't always release us to speak it immediately. Sometimes he wants it to burn in us like his word in Jeremiah (20:9). When we allow the word to burn in us until we cannot contain, then it makes us a willing vessel to speak all of what God has spoken. Because his word is like a fire, it will burn out impure motives, fleshly ambitions and carnal wisdom. 

Some words are too big for us to grasp the magnitude of what God is wanting to say the moment he gives it to us. When we let it burn in us, then it consumes every detail of our being (body, soul and spirit). We don't just preach it from the head; it will explode from the heart. So, don't become impatient if God has given you a word and you have no place to speak it at the moment. God knows how to let it burn in you for the right amount of time until he prepares the right place.

Young preachers don't try to force out a word before its time. If you do, then it will not have maximum effectiveness. God has your best interest in mind by giving you a word and letting it burn in you until you feel like you will explode before you get it out. Just rest in the fact that if God gave you the word, then he will make the appointment for you to speak it. In the meantime, Feel the Burn!

Perspectives on Preaching: Preaching in Another Man's Pulpit

As an evangelist—even as someone who has been preaching over twenty five years—there are topics that are off limits for me to address as a guest speaker. This is especially true of a young man at the beginning of his ministry. I made the mistake of addressing issues beyond my experience and knowledge when I first started preaching. And it cost me valuable relationships that I never regained. 

Just because something is in scripture doesn't mean that everyone is qualified to address it in every congregational context. Yes, every preacher is to "preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2), but not every preacher should preach every word. There are some biblical topics that it takes experience to be able to effectively communicate them. One example for me was the doctrine of "trusting God." I was raised to not go to doctors or take medicine for any reason. I am not bashing that, I am simply making a point. But as an 18 year old preacher who had barely been sick a day in his life, I was not the person to be preaching to seasoned saints who were struggling with serious diseases that they were not "trusting God" because the sought medical help. There are plenty other applicable examples, but this will suffice. 

Also, there is a relationship with people that is required in order to be able to address certain issues in their lives. There are some church topics and issues that only a pastor is qualified to address. For example: if I preach against something that a pastor allows, then I have helped no one. I undermine the spiritual authority of that congregation. I cast doubt on the spirituality and judgment of that pastor in front of his people. I alienate myself from the congregation. No good can come from it. If God wants to use me to affect theological change in a church I do not pastor then he will open the door for private discussion with the man who is the pastor. If in private conversation the pastor asks my opinion and his view changes, then he will communicate that change to his congregation. It is not my responsibility to sabotage him in his own pulpit. 

Young man if God blesses you to speak in any pulpit, then speak basic doctrine, faith and life. Encourage and strengthen the congregation and pastor. If you have something deeper to say, then trust God to provide the proper relationship and maturity for you speak it.

Perspectives on Preaching: His Sheep Know His Voice

Where I came from there was very little personal training of young ministers about how to approach preaching. We just learned as we went. We knew we did it wrong when we got corrected. I have been preaching 25 years now. I feel that I have learned a few things in those years that will be helpful to some younger preachers. 

Every preacher needs a personal philosophy about preaching that guides his approach to the pulpit. He needs to pray it and speak it into his mind an spirit until it becomes part of who he is. I am still working on mine, but the Holy Spirit has help me greatly over the years. 

In this particular blog, I am going to discuss my philosophy about audience response. So much of Apostolic Pentecostal preaching is about saint "gettin' with the preacher." And when they don't, many preachers leave the pulpit feeling like they have failed. Or worse yet, feeling like the congregation has failed them. We judge preaching too often by audience response. We say things like: He rocked the house tonight, He knocked it out of the park, or that was a conference message. I have never heard those comments about a sermon that did not solicit significant audience response. It may have been tears rather than triumph, but audience response non the less. 

Young preachers hear and witness these kinds of ideas about preaching and formulate a philosophy about preaching. They seek to build sermons designed to solicit response. I have seen older preachers driven by this immature philosophy to the point that they rebuke congregations for not "getting with them."This is a sad and tragic way to approach preaching. 

So what approach should a preacher take when the sermon or Bible class does not resonate with God's people? For me it is always self reflection based on principles from John 10. The sheep hear the shepherd's voice, and the porter opens the door of the sheepfold for the shepherd to come in and speak (John 10:1-3). As ministers, we are undershepherds/porters whose job it is with our preaching to make the voice of the Chief Shepherd heard. So when His sheep do not hear His voice when I preach I always ask myself, what did I do or say the prevented the sheep from hearing His voice? If I assume that the congregation to whom I am preaching are God's sheep, then if they don't hear the Shepherd's voice in my preaching then something is wrong. 

My first response is to reflect on my prayer and preparation. I pray over my attitude and treatment of the flock. Most of the time the Holy Spirit will reveal a fleshly attitude or motive in me that was the problem. Preachers it is your sole responsibility to make the Shepherd's voice heard. The sheep will not recognize your voice, but they will recognize His voice. 

The Building Principle

Luke 14:27-30 gives a building principle that if all a builder does is lays a foundation, then he will become a mockery. I know that the context is not about building theology, but I am going to borrow the principle and apply it to theology. The exegesis Nazi's are are to judge me harshly for me my textual sins, but I am willing to accept the punishment for my crime.

My mind will not allow me to read this building principle and not apply it to theology. There seems to be a move among many to only teach foundational doctrines. However, as our text suggest, just having a foundation is a mockery and not a glory. It is true that the foundation is of primary importance, but it is not the only part of a building that is essential. Walls and roofs are also essential.

Likewise there is an hierarchy of doctrine. The shema is the "first commandment" (Matthew 22:38). Yes, there are doctrines that are foundational. But there are other essential theologies that are like walls and roofs. We must not forget those. If all your theology has is a foundation, then it should be mocked. Theology needs more than a foundation to be the full, strong theology that provides a shelter  from every wind of doctrine. 

Theology is not Theoretical

In Galatians 2:3 Paul put a face and a name to the topic of Circumcision—Titus. Paul would not allow the Judaizers to compel Titus to be circumcised. He was forcing them to apply their theology. If you say that you must be circumcised according to the Law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15), then tell Titus they HE is going to hell to his face. When most people discuss their theologies they resist bringing names and faces into it. Paul had no problem making preaching personal. Theology is never theoretical. It is always practical. Part of the way that you test the truthfulness of a theology is how it works in real life. You know a tree by its fruit (Luke 6:43-45). What practical fruit does your doctrinal tree produce? The dimension to which you really believe something will be determined by your willingness to allow the consequences of your view to have faces and names.

Eschatological Essentials

There are many eschatological views within the Apostolic movement. I would think that pre-mill, pre-trib, dispensationalism is the predominant view—by far. The second most popular view would be some form of post-trib. But these views do not make up the sum total of end-time views among Apostolics. You name the eschatology and there is a self-identified Apostolic who will espouse it.

There are Apostolic who are pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib. There are Apostolics who are a-mill, post-mill and pre-mill. There are all forms of preterism that exists under the Apostolic label also.

So how much room should we allow for diversity of opinion? Some post-tribbers think that all other eschatologies are heresy. And there are some pre-tribbers who think that all other eschatologies are heresy. A certain post-tribber used his Facebook page to encourage everyone in non post-trib churches to leave those churches and find a post-trib one. I also heard a tape of a pre-trib pastor calling post-tribbers heretics. Both sides demonstrated wrong spirits and wrong thinking. There is nothing about pre-trib or post-trib that is in conflict with the gospel.

So what are eschatological essentials? To answer that question, one must ask how it affects the gospel. I think any eschatological scheme that distorts the biblical teaching of resurrections is problematic. I think hyper preterism does just that. It denies corporate, future, literal, physical resurrection of the dead and second coming of Christ.

When an eschatology messes with the resurrection, it messes with the gospel (1 Corinthians 15). When one denies bodily resurrection of believers, they deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. Christ's resurrection is the model of believer resurrection. And nothing is more essential to the Christian foundation than the resurrection (Hebrews 6:1-2). There is a lot of room for differences of opinions on eschatology. But the doctrine of bodily resurrection is non-negotiable. 

You are Not My Brother

I recently talked to a friend who was involved in another conversation in which a group guys were placing a mutual friend of ours outside of the body of Christ because of his views on "second covering." Our mutual friend teaches that women should wear an artificial head covering. Brothers and sisters, of all the things in the world over which to place someone outside the body of Christ, this must be at the bottom of the list. This would especially be true of my friend in that the majority of his friends (including me) disagree with his position. He does not make it a test of fellowship. My friend preaches for, and has many men preach for him, who think that his position on second covering is wrong. By the way, this is not the only issue with which I disagree with my friend.

To make the claim that "You are not my brother" is synonymous with saying "He (God) is not your Father." You better make sure that a person is in serious violation of the gospel when you declare that they are not a brother. 

What makes this situation even more humorous (or ignorant), is that my friend is independent, and those placing him out of fellowship with the body are U.P.C.I. Now, I am in no means oppose to the U.P.C.I., but the U.P.C.I. has churches within its fellowship that also teach the "second covering" standard. I want to further state that not only am I not opposed to the U.P.C.I., I am very appreciative of it. Furthermore, I am a YUGE  fan of Superintendent, David K. Bernard, that I can tell you (in my best Donald Trump voice). I wonder if the good union brothers have the same sentiment about their fellow card carriers who also hold the view of my good independent brother on the issue of "second covering"? 

If not, why not? If they do not, then why do they hold someone outside of their fellowship to a different standard than those inside of their fellowship? This is religious partisanship at its best. Perhaps, if they truly feel that "second covering" theology is such a grave error, they should seek to ad an amendment to the manual prohibiting "second covering" advocates. In other words, they should seek to clean their on organizational house before they seek to clean someone else's independent house. 

Or perhaps, the true solution is to admit that the "second covering" issue is not a matter of orthodoxy, and especially fellowship with God the Father.

We Persuade Men

Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; (2 Corinthians 5:11a KJV)

I want to make a plea—hopefully a persuasive one—to my fellow ministers for us to consider how we interact with those with whom we disagree. I will be honest, I have seen some very poor examples in the last few years. I have seen examples of how not to interact with people with whom I disagree.

We have all had friends in the church (parishioners and preachers) that have taken directions with which we have disagree. Some of those friends have been more notable than others. Regardless of their position or notoriety, there is a proper, Christian was to do it. If we really believe that someone is going the wrong direction, our first responsibility is to persuade them. Our blog text reminds us of this sober responsibility. If we believe someone is straying from the truth, and knowing the terror of the Lord, we should seek to persuade them of their error. 

Brothers and sisters, the goal is to persuade. It is not to belittle or betray. I know that there is a natural impulse to be angry and disappointed, but we cannot allow those sentiments to control how we react. I must insist that we persuade no one—either the person themselves or observing outsiders—with condescending and demeaning speech. This kind of response is unbiblical an off putting. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not blog or preach with anger and vitriol. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then do not make your response emotional or personal. IF your goal is to persuade people with the truth, then you will be more effective if you argue your point scripturally and limit your comments to the issues. I have seen very few stick with the issues. There are a number of reason why they don't, but that is a blog for another time.

If you think you have the truth, then use it. The truth, not anger and condescension, is the only effective weapon you have against error. Any weapon other than truth will be weak and ineffective. 

Don't be petty; be persuasive! 

The Value of Debate

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. 

Proverbs 18:17 ESV

My last blog I discussed three reasons why I think Apostolics should engage in intramural debates. At the conclusion of that blog I stated my intention to blog about why I think that Apostolics do not debate. I still intend to do that. However, while listening to a debate, one of the speakers used this verse to demonstrate the value of debate. 

It is likely that the context—strictly speaking—is referring to taking a matter before a judge. The lawyer that presents their case first seems like they have an air-tight case. That is until the other lawyer presents their case and answers the first lawyer's arguments. The truth in such cases can only be discerned after both sides have presented their cases. A strong case does not mind questioning. When a strong case is questioned it only becomes stronger for it.

One ought to be aware of the person who refuses to have his argument questioned. This means that person is fearful that their argument will not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Truth is never afraid of questions. Few things frustrate me as much as someone who launches a public, personal or theological attack against someone and refuses to answer any one's objections. If you are going to argue for something publicly, then be man enough to field the questions that come along with it. Don't hide behind moderated comments and pulpits!

Why?

Because if truth is what you are really after, then you won't mind both sides of the argument being heard. People who refuse to field questions are only interested in "seeming right;" they are not interested in "being right." There is a way to have healthy and productive debate on any issue. It's not divisive; it is unifying if done properly.

The early church and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 are an awesome example how coming together to discuss issues that are controversial can lead to consensus. Avoiding controversial issues does not produce unity, it only hides the conflict beneath the surface where it festers and grows. 

The Impact of Inconsistency on One's Argument Part II

I wrote Part I of this topic two blogs ago. I am following up on this post due to something I read in the last couple of days. It never ceases to amaze me how selective we are with our judgments of others. An former friend of mine once made the statement that, "If I condemn in my enemies what I condone in my friends, then I make myself the ultimate hypocrite." This is a true statement indeed. I must also add to this statement one of my own:"If I condone worse behavior in my friends that what I condemn in my enemies, then I am a malicious hypocrite."

It is so easy to condemn people against whom we are politically aligned while going to great lengths to condone people with whom we are politically aligned. We see it all the time in the political battles in our country. Republicans will condemn Democrats for a little of nothing, but will defend fellow republicans for the same thing or something greater. The same goes for Democrats to Republicans. This also happens often in Pentecostal fellowship politics. And it is more frustrating when it happens in the church—I might add. 

This is precisely why so many young men are disenchanted with certain segments of our movement. Brothers, I am not saying that we should start judging our friends the way we do our enemies. I am saying that we should start showing mercy to our enemies the way we do our friends. Furthermore, we should start showing the same mercy to both our enemies and our friends that we show to ourselves. The worst of the hypocrites is the person who condemns in others—both enemies and friends—what he condones in himself. 

I must confess that I have at some point in my ministry been guilty of every one of the above hypocrisies. I find myself having to repent repeatedly for this sin. Thankfully, I am having to do it less and less these days. The Holy Spirit is revealing me to myself and is causing me to become more self-aware. I am grateful for this, although it has been very uncomfortable.

So what does this have to do with inconsistency? It makes one wonder if you believe what you say you do when you condemn in your enemies what you condone in your friends. It appears politically motivated and it hinders your message. This may not always be fair, but it is the way others usually perceive it. I pray that the Lord will help me to show grace to everyone equally, and not just my friends.

Why "Calvinism My Way"?

I am frequently asked if I am a Calvinist? People also frequently make assumptions about my views based on the name of my blog. So, I am writing this blog to explain the name of my blog. I am doing this to keep from getting blogged down with always responding to this question. 

The reason for the name of my blog is because my name is John Calvin Carroll. I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am merely expressing my views on this blog. Because John Calvin is my name, and because the views are mine, hence the name "Calvinism MY Way."

When I tell people that my name is John Calvin they often respond: "That explains a lot."

People now you know the reason behind the name. There is no conspiracy. There is no dark, hidden meaning. It is simply using my name to play on a known soteriological scheme. It really is just that simple.

The Impact of Inconsistentcy on One's Argument

I have participated in a number of discussions over the past few months with fellow ministers concerning various issues. Inconsistency is one of the things that consistently comes up in discussions about Apostolic issues. So the question becomes, what impact does consistency have on one's argument? Must one be absolutely consistent within the framework of a particular issue in order for their argument to be received?

I must confess that when one is inconsistent in their argumentation and application I tend to discredit the validity of their argument. This may or may not be a valid response. Be that as it may, it is the common response. The sentiment is as follows: if you cannot consistently apply your own doctrine, then why should I be convinced of it's validity?

Just because someone does not consistently apply their doctrine, that does not mean that their doctrine is wrong. Conversely, if a view is so inherently flawed that it can be applied consistently with little to no success, then it's weakness is self-evident. A doctrine that is practically impossible—or even improbable—to apply consistently in real life does not bear the marks of a true doctrine. 

I guess the point that I am getting to with this blog is this: don't be angry because people question your positions when they have gaping inconsistencies. 

With that being said, we all have blind spots in our lives. We are all strong in one area and weak in others. But we should seek to have a logically and scripturally consistent presentation of any given doctrine that we teach. And if it cannot be practiced in a livable way then it may be worth reconsidering. 

A Call for Calm About Christmas

There is a significant demographic of Apostolics that do not celebrate Christmas. There are a range of reasons why they don't. Not all anti-Christmas advocates use the same line of reasoning. However, the two primary arguments are: 1) It's pagan. 2) It's Catholic.

In making these arguments there are strong claims made about pro-Christmas advocates participating in paganism and teaching ancient trinities. The anti crowd makes heathen charges from Jeremiah 10. Now while this all makes for powerful points, it never translates into practical participation. If the anti crowd really believes that the pro crowd is partipating in paganism, idolizing idols and teaching trinities, then why are they still fellowshipping? 

I have yet to see any of my Apostolic brethren apply this issue the way they claim to believe it. The most ardent anti advocates that I have known have preached for or preached pro advocates. It were really as pagan, heathen, and idolatrous as is claimed, then why would fellowship anyone who participated in those anti-God activities?  You see no one really practices it the way they preach it.

This is not a pro-Christmas post. It it a call to calm on both sides of the isle about this issue. I was recently involved in a social media conversation started by an anti brother. The anti advocates were making it an heaven or hell issue. Brothers and sisters, can we stop?

Whatever your view is on this issue, we be brethren. 

What Silence Says!

There are many situations in life when people attempt to judge another's silence. We often judge silence more harshly than we judge speech. In fact, there is a large group of people within the body of Christ who think that "interpretation of silence" is one of the nine gifts of the Spirit. And they feel they have been gifted in this way.

The Bible calls them "busybodies" and those who "sow discord among the brethren." These people insists on knowing where you stand on issues that matter to them. If an issue is of no consequence to them, then they couldn't care less about your opinion. But if an issue is important to them, you must speak or be considered an enemy. 

The person gifted with the iOS (interpretation of silence), will use any means necessary to force you to speak. They will threaten you with hot button labels like "compromiser." To which they expect that we will respond by saying, "Nooooo, not a compromiser. Anything but that. I will talk. Just don't call me a compromiser." They will almost always throw out deep quotes about the vice of silence. Bonhoeffer is their favorite: "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." 

But what does the Bible have to say about silence? 

Ecclesiastes 3:7 teaches us that there is a time to keep silence. There are times that silence is not a vice, but silence is a virtue. This means that one shouldn't speak to certain issues in certain situations. What are some reasons why one should keep silence?:

1. One should keep silence when speaking would break confidence. 
2. One should keep silence when they are not authorized to speak. 
3. One should keep silence when they are not qualified to speak.
4. One should keep silence when someone is soliciting information from them for the purpose of using it against them. 
5. One should keep silence when the mistrust they person attempting to make them speak. 
6. One should keep silence when speaking would require that they speak contrary to their convictions.
7. One should keep silence when they are uncertain what to say or what they think about the question.

Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. Proverbs 17:27-28

Silence says you are a smart man. Silence speaks so convincingly that is persuades the public that even fools are wise and intelligent. 

We should all reserve the right to remain silent. And we should all extend the right to silence to others without suspiciously reading anything into it. 

Why Apostilics Won't Debate!

This is a continuation of a previous blog:  "What I Wished Apostolics Would Do." If you have not read that blog, then you should read it before you continue reading this one. Go on. Go read it. I will be waiting on you right here when you return. 

Now that you know that I wish that Apostolics would have intramural debates about our differences, I will give you a few reasons why I don't think it will happen in some circles. Recently a couple Apostolic brothers were making posts on Instagram and other forms of social media about Christmas. I noticed as one person in particular began to interact with them about their views that they were not interested in dialoguing with others. They were only interested in dictating to others what they wanted them to hear. The attitude was: "My mind is made up and nothing is going to change me." This is not an attitude that is characteristic of truth seekers. Honest truth seekers always have the capacity to humbly hear the other side of the argument. 

The following reasons may not be listed in the proper order of importance, but they are all factors that  keep some Apostolics from debating. 

1. OVEREMPHASIS ON PASTORAL AUTHORITY: This reason could very well be the most important reason of all the ones I will list. Many Apostolic pastors would never engage in a public debate or a public discussion about differences for fear of losing authority. We have created a dangerous climate in the Apostolic movement where the pastor has unchecked and unlimited authority. We claim that we have elders, but for the most part it is a facade when push comes to shove. We have created a climate in which the pastor is always right. In fact, as I have heard it said, he is right even when he is wrong. What does this have to do with the reason that we won't debate? This culture of pastoral authority is not conducive to debate because it does not allow for leadership to be questioned or wrong. If it can be demonstrate that the pastor holds an inaccurate or unbiblical view, then his infallibility is undermined and his entire system of authority crashes. Yes, pastors have authority over the congregation. But as with all levels of authority, there are limits. Therefore, what I am pointing out here as the obstacle to in-house debating is not pastoral authority, but "overemphasis" on pastoral authority. I certainly believe that pastors have God-given and Scripture-mandated authority. But when pastoral authority comes to mean to a pastor that he can never admit to being wrong or change his mind, then he has abused his authority as a pastor. A pastor that has created a culture where he can never admit to his congregation that he has been wrong about an issue will find himself in the unenviable position not being able to follow the Spirit in crucial moments in his church's history. The truly sad part is this is a self-imposed and unnecessary limitation. The Apostolic movement is in need of God-fearing and transparent leaders who are only concerned with truth.  However, in an attempt to preserve our pseudo, overreaching authority, we are perpetuating doctrines and traditions that are less than accurate, biblical and productive. Open dialogue in the form of debate would expose them. And that's the thing of which the abuser of pastoral authority is most afraid. 
2. WE ARE AFRAID WE MIGHT BE WRONG: For some, the reason they are uncomfortable with debating their position is because they are uncomfortable with their position. While they preach it long and loud when no one can respond, questions are screaming in the back of their own heads. They are--in the words of a friend do mine--trying to drown out those voice with their own screaming voice. Or as the late great Marvin Hicks said about one of his debate opponents: "He is just whistling in the graveyard to keep his courage up." The problem is: the voices in one's head pick the most inconvenient times to talk. They couldn't care less that you have to get up early in the morning. They will keep you up half the night. Pesky little fellas! The fearful person is so afraid to be wrong because everything they believe is interconnected. They are afraid that if one thing they believe is found to be untrue then everything they believe is untrue. So they revert to an all-or-nothing defense of what they believe as a coping mechanism. This is why we need to understand the hierarchy of doctrine. Not everything we believe need to hold the same level of significance. I have some opinions about scriptures that I could not care less if they turned out to be wrong. Then I hold other views about scripture that are at the core of who I am as a christian.
3. WE DON'T HAVE A HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE: Some Apostolics don't want to debate because they do not have a high view of scripture. In other words, for some Apostolics it doesn't really matters what the Bible says. They have a higher source of authority--their own opinions manifest as traditions. The reason that I know that they value their opinions above scripture is because when confronted with scripture they admit that scripture is at odds with their opinions yet they maintain them anyway. Some have even gone so far as to say, "I don't care what the Bible says." When one places their own opinions above scripture, then their view of scripture is low. Why debate when your views are set regardless of what scripture say?!
4. PEER PRESSURE: This is a significant reason that we don't engage in intramural debate. At least not honest debate. We defend the consensus vigorously. But when it comes to defending what we really believe, he hide. I fully understand the impulse and have been guilty of it many times. We have to create a culture where we are free to safely discuss scripture with other Apostolics. This is especially true for Apostolic preachers. If we cannot have honest debate, we will continue to lose men to extreme positions. They will keep their concerns to themselves until they cant take it an longer. Then in an explosion of freedom they will over react.

CONCLUSION

These are some of the reasons that Apostolics will not engage in discussion about in-house issues that face our movement. Brothers and sisters: this must change. As always feel free to rebuke me, shoot me full of holes and call me a heretic.

August Rain: A Tremendous Band

August Rain is quickly becoming the most listened to tracks on my music list. Their songs "Kingdom" and "Nothing" have been an incredible blessing to me of late.  The lyrics are amazing and the vocals are unique. Do yourselves a favor and check this band out! 

You can find their music on iTunes. You can also follow them on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. 

The Communion Controversy: Fermented or Unfermented.

There are many intramural debates within Apostolic Pentecostalism. Among them is the Communion Controversy--specifically fermented versus unfermented grape juice. There are many other aspect of communion that are debated within Christendom, but the chemical condition of the grape juice seems to be the preferred issue of dispute for Apostolics. Of all the points of contention for Apostolics, whether or not grape juice is fermented during communion ought to be near the bottom of the list. 

I know that this post is going to enrage or disappoint the activists from both sides of the aisle. And I have personal friends on both sides. In fact, I once was a strong advocate for unfermented juice only. I no longer am. I will be shot at from both sides. I will be accused of straddling the fence. I will be accused of compromise. But I really have come to believe that the bible does not provide a prescription for the chemical condition of the communion cup. I dogmatically insist on scriptural ambivalence.

With that being said, in a later blog I will recommend a book of a friend of mine that argues for fermented wine and he does an excellent job of presenting his case. There are also excellent books from the unfermented camp as well. 

I will list a few reasons why I reject dogmatism from both sides and insist on Christian liberty. Then I will state what I consider to be ideal.

REASONS:

1. The New Testament writers conspicuously avoid using any one of the three Greek words for wine (gleukos, oinos and oxos). If Jesus had used any one of these three words for wine at the last supper, instead of "fruit of the vine," there wouldn't be a debate. The phrase "fruit of the vine" grammatically allows for the entire chemical range of juice from fresh squeezed to naturally fermented. It is never to early to call juice from the grape "fruit of the vine," and it is never to late to call juice from the grape "fruit of the vine."

2. Paul allows for a person--because of conscience--to never drink wine (Romans 14:21). The bible allows for total abstinence. However, Paul also allows that a person can drink wine with faith (Romans 14:22). Whether one obstains or participates in drinking wine, it must come from a place of faith (Romans 14:23). But Paul does allow for absolute abstinence. This must include communion. So, do we insist that a person who cannot drink fermented wine because of conscience and faith  cannot participate in the blood of Christ? Or do we correctly conclude that unfermented grape juice also fits Jesus' prescription for "fruit of the vine?" It must be the latter. The same must apply to the reverse proposition. We must not allow the thing that is designed to make the body one divide the body.

THE IDEAL:

Ideally, if I were pastoring, I would juice grapes on Friday and serve them on Sunday. It resonates with me to follow the crucifixion-resurrection model for communion. I am certainly not saying this is  Scripturally commanded, I just like the imagery. I think fresh squeezed juice is ideal. I don't like the idea of store bought wine or Welches.

CONCLUSION: This should provide a nice conversation starter should anyone chose to comment. As always, all feedback is welcome. 

Something I Wish Apostolics Would Do

DEBATE!

Yes, you read correctly. I wish Apostolics would debate. I know that many Apostolic preachers would rather a dentist pull their teeth without anesthesia than to debate. I am not speaking about Apostolics debating non-apostolics; I am speaking about intramural debate. I think that we have a need to formally debate our differences. My reasons are as follows:

1. IT CAN BE DONE IN A RESPECTFUL WAY: I will illustrate this point with one example. Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown are the perfect model of respectful debate. White and Brown have teamed up in debate against Unitarians and others. They consider each other brothers in Christ. They share both Christian fellowship and personal friendship. Not only have they team debated against others, but the have also had formal debates against each other. As far as I know, they have debated Calvinism and cessationism. They prefaced those debates by informing their audiences that they were brothers in Christ and that the issues were in-house debates. Apostolic brothers and sisters, we need this kind of discussion among us. We need to develop the ability to disagree publicly with one another in a respectful way. We are disagreeing publically with each other now; we are just not doing it in a respectful and Christian way. Instead of doing in a formal, public, regulated way, we are doing it by taking potshots at each other from pulpits when our targets are not present. For those of you that think public regulated debate would be dangerous, I submit that what we are presently doing is infinitely more dangerous. 
2. MANY OTHER GROUPS DO IT: Almost every other Christian demographic is debating the relevant issues. These debates are reaching to highest level of theological academia. There are many debates and panel discussions being held on a number of different issues. Perhaps one of the hottest topics being discussed in contemporary Christianity is the doctrine of hell (pun absolutely intended). Theologians of every denominational strip are weighing in on this and many other issues. The question is, if these groups are doing it, why can't we as Apostolics? I will give my opinions in a later blog as to why I think we don't. Brothers and sisters, we have brilliant minds among us. It is a shame that we can't provide a venue where these great minds can weigh in from different perspectives on the same issues in the same venue.
3. WE ARE DISAGREEING ANYWAY: This is perhaps the most significant of these points. We are discussing our differences already. The problem is that we are doing it in unhealthy and unethical ways that are leading to misrepresentation, false witness and division. We are sitting around conference tables making claims about preachers with whom we have little to no relationship. I have witnessed innumerable accounts of men totally distorting the views of others (including my own). I will confess to having done this myself.  And I regret each and every time that I have. I have watched preachers on social media attack other preachers by claiming that they believe a certain doctrine when I knew they did not. Misrepresentation resulted from one man pouring his definition into the other persons terms. Or they heard a key phrase and instead of letting that man define his term for himself they assumed that he meant the same thing by it that another person who used that term meant. My point is this: since we are disagreeing anyway, why not do it in a way that allows both persons to represent fairly what they believe in their own words. Brothers and sisters, it is almost impossible to portray what someone else believes without distorting it is some way. We have almost an irresistible tendency to build strawmen arguments against the other person's view so that we can cleverly knock or burn it down. It is a much more difficult task to refute another man's view when he is arguing it in his own words. We must change this if we hope to survive as a movement. Finally, since we are disagreeing anyway, let's do it redemptively and respectfully

I intend to follow this blog up with another one that lays out why I think we resist this kind of public dialogue. I welcome any and all responses to this blog. All comments will be posted.

NOTE: If you disagree with debating, but comment contrary to what I have posted, that would be debating. :)

"It Seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and To Us" Is Not a Blank Check!

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

INTRODUCTION 

Preachers often use this verse as their authority to preach against things for which they admit they have no prohibitive verse (s). Well...they actually only use part of the verse. But I will make that point a little later. So they use this verse as their trump card to every objection that anyone raises against their personal authority. They even use it to trump biblical arguments. 

I am writing this blog post to place this verse in its biblical context. It should not be used as a blank check to preach whatever one chooses. A pastor has the liberty to make certain requirements for local church membership for which he has no explicit biblical command. However, no pastor has the authority bind, either on his local congregation or the global church, as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. This applied to me when I pastored in Alton, IL. And it will apply to me if I should ever pastor again in the future.

As I stated earlier, we do not have the authority to bind as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. Furthermore, we do not have the authority to use our opinions as a basis to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

The context of Acts 15:28 was whether or not to bind circumcision—therefore, the whole law—on Gentile converts. The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised. This is the context in which one should understand the statement under consideration.

IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US: NO SCRIPTURE NECESSARY
This phrase is thrown around as though scripture did not figured into the apostles decision in Act 15. Therefore, this phrase is used to justify men binding their own opinions about contemporary issues on the entire body of Christ. This is the text many use to prove they don't need scriptural support for what they bind.  In fact, based on this verse, they can bind their own opinions on the body of Christ when the entire witness of scripture says the opposite.

So, did the apostles use this phrase because they issued a binding edict without, or contrary to, scripture? God forbid! Let's back up a few verses and see:

"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  (Acts 15:15, 18 KJV).

Brothers and sisters, James and the others based their decision on written scripture. The reason  it seemed good the the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders was because they consulted the written words of the prophets.

WHAT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US?
Notice the rest of the verse that never gets quoted:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

What seemed good to the Holy Ghost was not:

• To bind unnecessary rules for which one has no scripture. 
• To bind unnecessary rules that are contrary to scripture.
• To make ones own personal opinions the basis by which they judge those who do not comply. 
• To make 20th and 21rst century standards (many of which may be wise) perpetual, unbreakable law by which we condemn all present and future generations. 

CONCLUSION

"To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" is what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

If we are going to quote this verse, quote it all. And if we are going to use this verse, use it. Don't misquote and misuse it.