Enjoying God
Making Idols and Mocking Hell: "Theology" in the News
Sep 25, 2007I'm addicted to USA Today. It's not the best in American journalism, but it's entertaining and moderately informative (especially the sports section). Today, Tuesday, September 25, 2007, it was just sad. Two stories in particular caught my eye, both of which are tragically indicative of the state of mind in Hollywood and around the globe.
(1) The first thing I noticed was a short piece concerning the Indra Jatra festival in Katmandu, Nepal. The eight-day festival, celebrated by both Hindus and Buddhists, "is named after Lord Indra, the god of rain" (p. 9a).
What caught my eye wasn't the headline announcing this pagan festival but the picture that accompanied it. Two unidentified people, a man and a woman, are seen putting the final touches on the face of a hideous idol. Its features include protruding eyes, flaring nostrils and four oversized and undoubtedly sharp teeth, two of which are protruding from the top much like one would expect from a vampire in some B-horror movie. I have no way of knowing if this is a representation of the pagan deity Indra or perhaps some other "god" or "power" believed to work in tandem with or in opposition to "the god of rain".
I immediately felt three responses rising up in my heart. One was anger that yet again people refused to honor or give thanks to the One True God and instead were futile in their thinking and, while claiming to be wise, became fools and "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom. 1:21-23).
It angered me that anyone but our great and glorious God would be praised or given credit for the gift of rain, for he alone "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:45). Neither "Indra" nor any other so-called "god" is capable of doing what Yahweh does, for "he covers the heavens with clouds . . . [and] prepares rain for the earth" (Ps. 147:8). Perhaps I should let God speak for himself, as he did to Job: "Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass?" (Job 38:25-27).
A day is coming when those who worship "Indra" and other deities to whom they give credit for natural phenomena will stand before the Lord and hear him say: "Why did you not repent and give me glory for the manifestation of my goodness and greatness in creation, the consistent witness to my ‘eternal power and divine nature' (Rom. 1:20) that are ‘clearly' seen ‘in the things that have been made?' (Rom. 1:20-21). You are ‘without excuse'" (Rom. 1:20b).
My second response was one of sadness to think of such people who give themselves over to the worship and adoration of a "deity" who is utterly impotent to intervene on their behalf, utterly impotent to redeem them from sin, utterly impotent to bring this chaotic world to its consummation in Jesus Christ. It reminded me of Psalm 115:4-11 -
"Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them. O Israel, trust in the LORD! He is [your] help and their shield. O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD! He is [your] help and their shield. You who fear the LORD, trust in the LORD! He is [your] help and their shield."
As over against such pathetic incompetence and inability, "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Ps. 115:3)! And as I looked at those two anonymous figures in the photograph, I only wish that I could have said to them, "Don't you realize that ‘those [like the two of you] who make them [i.e., dead, lifeless, hideous idols] become like them'? Is this the image according to which you want to be conformed?"
My third reaction was one of gratitude for friends of mine like H_____ and M_____, and B_____ and N_____, and B_____ and S_____ who labor daily in Nepal, joyfully sacrificing the comforts I take for granted to bring the gospel of eternal life to those who would otherwise forever remain in spiritual darkness.
(2) The second eye-catching story was easier to see. The large headline in the Life section of the paper read: "Reaper" shows viewers a hell of a good time (p. 1d). The story concerned a new TV show scheduled to premier tonight at 9:00 eastern time. No, I won't be watching.
The show concerns a "hapless young Sam" (praise God, not me!) who is sold to the Devil by his mother and father. And what is his job in service of his new master? He is forced to work "as a hellish bounty hunter, recapturing escaped souls." As expected, Satan is portrayed as being in charge of hell, overseeing the torment of those consigned to spend an eternity there.
Aside from the fact that a show like this fails to communicate the very real and literal existence of eternal torment, it perpetuates any number of misconceptions about hell that, sadly, even many Christians mindlessly embrace. Contrary to the plot, there is no such thing (and never will be) as "escaped souls." There are no "second chances" or opportunities to "redeem" oneself. Once consigned to hell by the righteous and irreversible verdict of a good and holy God, there is no escape. Perhaps those in Hollywood, if they know anything of the biblical portrait of hell, are aware of the liberties they are taking with this story. But I doubt that they care. After all, it makes for a good laugh and an interesting twist in their efforts to gain as many viewers (and thus dollars for their commercial advertisements) as possible.
There is another distortion in this scenario, and it concerns the role of Satan in hell. Contrary to what many believe, he is not in charge there. God is. The "eternal fire" of hell was "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:41), not that he (and they) might oversee its application to others but precisely so that he (and they) might suffer its torments. According to Revelation 20:10, in which we find a description of the final judgment, "the devil . . . was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." It is God who inflicts righteous punishment on the rebellious and unbelieving, not Satan. The latter is himself a deserving object of eternal punishment, not its administrator.
I suppose some will tell me to lighten up and enjoy the show for what it is, a mindless, slightly entertaining diversion at the end of a long day at work. But may I suggest that it is precisely because of such an endless run of jokes, TV shows, and misguided feature-length films that we Christians struggle to get people today to take hell seriously. Is it any wonder that professing evangelicals are themselves beginning to question the existence of an eternal hell in favor of some version of annihilationism or universalism?
Watch this show if you must, laugh if you will, but as you do, think about those two people in Nepal preparing "Indra" for their pagan festival in Katmandu. For they and all others who exchange "the truth about God for a lie" and serve "the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom. 1:25) will one day, and forever, be in that very hell which so many casually mock. And there too, but for the grace of God, go I.
Let me close by telling you a story. A friend of mine who worked in a high-rise office building in Dallas told me of an incident one day in an elevator. It was August and the temperature was in excess of 100 degrees. As my friend entered the elevator, so too did a man who was sweating profusely and had obviously been jogging in the summer heat. "Whew," he virtually spewed out, "it's as hot as hell out there!" Without intending to be in the slightest way humorous or flippant, my friend replied, somberly, "No sir. It isn't."
So much for my experience today in reading USA Today.
Sam
Smelling Good to God (2 Cor. 2.15-16)
Sep 20, 2007How do you measure success? By what standard do you assess how well you've done? When you take stock of your life or evaluate the effectiveness of whatever ministry God has given you, how do you determine the outcome? Do you count heads? Or money? Do you apply the criteria typically used in a Gallup poll or Barna survey? Do you size up your efforts as over against those of high-achieving folk in the market place or perhaps line up your congregation, side by side, with the mega-church down the road?
All of us are tempted to measure ourselves by comparing what we've produced with that of others, especially those whom we admire or whose names are cited often in the newspaper or on the blogs. Let's admit it. We invest far too much in the opinion of the power-brokers in our society, whether spiritual or secular. What they think and how well they've done, as well as the size of their facility and the impact of their ministry weighs heavily on our minds and typically leads to feelings of inferiority and failure.
I can hardly overemphasize the devastating effects of embracing this perspective in the life of the church. It saddens me to see how many have compromised on truth, cutting corners on the gospel or softening the sharp edge of biblical morality in order to enhance one's status or increase attendance or retain the support of some significant donor.
Equally as devastating are those who've abandoned church and ministry altogether, whether from burnout or the unbearable frustration of thinking they've failed God or shown themselves incapable of fulfilling the calling on their lives.
If that even remotely resonates in your heart or if you struggle with feelings of spiritual inferiority, ministerial incompetence, or simple inadequacy as a Christian, heed well the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. The biblical standard for "success" articulated in this text is a much-needed remedy for what ails so many in the church today:
"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (2 Cor. 2:15-16a).
Do you want to smell good to God? Then be true to the gospel! Be faithful to its terms, articulate its promises, and don't back down from declaring the eternal consequences that come with its denial.
There are two, and only two, possible responses to the gospel of Christ. When the message is made known, everyone responds. There is no such thing as neutrality. Indifference or apathy is a myth. Not to believe the good news in Christ Jesus is to reject it. Pretending to ignore it is to deny it.
Either you are among "those who are being saved" or you are among "those who are perishing". The word of the cross is either "folly", utter and absolute foolishness, or it is "the power of God" unto salvation (see 1 Cor. 1:18). The message of Christ that Paul proclaims (and not the messenger) is itself responsible for dividing the hearers in this way.
Wherever, whenever, and to whomever the Christian proclaims the name of Jesus, a fragrance is released. To some it is an aroma of life and hope and renewal and forgiveness. Nothing can compare with the sweet smell of the Son of God. The gospel of his dying and rising for sinners awakens life and leads to life. To others it is a suffocating, poisonous stench.
Charles Spurgeon reminds us:
"The gospel is preached in the ears of all; it only comes with power to some. The power that is in the gospel does not lie in the eloquence of the preacher; otherwise men would be converters of souls. Nor does it lie in the preacher's learning; otherwise it would consist in the wisdom of men. We might preach till our tongues rotted, till we should exhaust our lungs and die, but never a soul would be converted unless there were mysterious power going with it - the Holy Ghost changing the will of man. O Sirs! We might as well preach to stone walls as to preach to humanity unless the Holy Ghost be with the Word, to give it power to convert the soul."
But what I want you to see is that Paul is a fragrance to God regardless of the response to his message! When, in the midst of suffering, he faithfully proclaims the gospel and is mocked, slandered, and the name of Jesus is blasphemed, Paul smells good to God. When, in the midst of suffering, he faithfully proclaims the same gospel and is embraced and loved and people bow the knee in love and loyalty to Jesus, Paul smells good to God.
We are a fragrance to God even when our message is rejected. So long as we remain faithful to our commission, we smell good to God. Though our crowds be small and the offering paltry, success is measured by fidelity, not fruit. Whether our efforts lead to "life" or "death", we remain "an aroma of Christ to God" (v. 15a). We have succeeded when we preach Jesus truly and biblically.
This will be a difficult pill to swallow only if our fear of man is greater than our fear of God, only if our preference is for their praise rather than his. Some of the worst failures in ministry are found in mega churches, where pragmatism often (though not always) trumps principle. Many who appear small in the eyes of man are giants in the kingdom of God. Both success and failure can be found in churches of every size, whether mega or mini.
There's no escaping the fact that you smell, and so do I. May we strive in the power of God's grace to be a fragrant aroma, pleasing to him (even if putrid to the world).
Sam
The Dangers of "Triumphalism"
Sep 13, 2007One of the more not-so-subtle delusions that exists in many corners of the professing Christian church is what I refer to as Triumphalism. I use that word rather than a more technical theological phrase ("Over-realized Eschatology") lest I lose you up front.
The bottom line in triumphalism is the belief that the overt and consummate victories that we will experience only in the age to come are available to us now. I'm not saying that we as Christians shouldn't rejoice in the daily victories we experience by virtue of the enthronement of Christ Jesus and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we have authority over demonic spirits (cf. Luke 10:17-20). Yes, we have been blessed "with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3) and have been "raised" up with Christ and are "seated" together "with him" (Eph. 2:6). We who believe "that Jesus is the Son of God" have "overcome" the world (1 John 5:5). And Jesus himself promises great and glorious rewards "to the one who conquers" now (Rev. 2:7, 11, 12; etc.).
So the last thing I want to endorse or encourage is a defeatism that fails to embrace and act upon every good and glorious blessing secured for us by the Lord Jesus Christ. But where many often go astray is in their claim that such truths necessarily entail visible and irreversible victories in the present that result in a life free from persecution, suffering, or demonic assault. It's the notion that since I'm a "child of the King" I have a right to live in financial prosperity and complete physical health, free from that "groaning" under the lingering curse of the fall which Paul appears to indicate will continue until the return of Christ (cf. Romans 8:18-25). I'm talking about that often arrogant and presumptuous triumphalism that belittles those whose "lack of faith" has resulted in a lingering, daily struggle from which Jesus came to deliver them.
What I want to articulate is a perspective on the Christian life that celebrates both our legitimate spiritual triumphs and our on-going daily trials. Nowhere in Scripture is this dynamic tension any more evident than in 2 Corinthians, where Paul can speak of being "afflicted in every way, but not crushed" and of being "perplexed, but not driven to despair" and of being "persecuted, but not forsaken" (2 Cor. 4:8-9). The life he envisions is one in which we "always" carry about in ourselves "the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (2 Cor. 4:10).
Perhaps the best way to explain what I have in mind is found in Paul's description of his own ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17. In this meditation, I want us to look at v. 14. There Paul writes: "But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere." Many will undoubtedly say: "But Sam. There it is! God always leads us in triumph! So why are you so down on triumphalism?" A closer look at what Paul means will help answer that question.
The Greek word translated "triumph" or "triumphal procession" (thriambeuo) is used in the NT only here and in Colossians 2:15. Most agree that the term refers to the Roman custom in which a victorious general would lead his conquered captives in triumphal procession, often to their execution. However, a number of other interpretive suggestions have been made.
The KJV renders this word, "causeth us to triumph" (a view embraced by Calvin: "Paul means that he had a share in the triumph that God was celebrating" [33]). However, as several have noted, the accusative following the verb is never the triumphing subject but always the object of the triumph.
C. K. Barrett popularized the view that the image is of a victorious general leading his troops, not his conquered enemies, through the city streets in a triumphal celebration. On this view, Paul is one among many soldiers, all of whom are triumphant conquerors.
Some have rendered this, "God triumphs over us," in the sense that all Christian converts are "conquered" by God at conversion. Paul, then, would be alluding to his encounter with God on the Damascus Road. Others acknowledge the imagery of the Roman triumphal procession but limit its application to the shame endured by those who were captured. Thus, Paul is simply identifying himself with the humiliation of those prisoners who were put on parade.
The most probable interpretation is the one which recognizes an obvious paradox in Paul's use of this metaphor. On the one hand, it is God who leads Paul (and by extension, others who likewise preach the gospel as he does) in triumph. Yet, on the other hand, to be led in triumph by someone else implies captivity and suffering. Paul Barnett provides this helpful explanation:
"There is paradox here, as implied by the metaphor ‘lead [captive] in triumph,' which points at the same moment to the victory of a conquering general and the humiliation of his captives marching to execution. The metaphor is at the same time triumphal and anti-triumphal. It is as God leads his servants as prisoners of war in a victory parade that God spreads the knowledge of Christ everywhere through them. Whereas in such victory processions the prisoners would be dejected and embittered, from this captive's lips comes only thanksgiving to God [v. 14a], his captor. Here is restated the power-in-weakness theme (cf. 1:3-11) that pervades the letter. . . . [Thus], to be sure, his ministry is marked by suffering, but so far from that disqualifying him as a minister, God's leading him in Christ as a suffering servant thereby legitimates his ministry. Christ's humiliation in crucifixion is reproduced in the life of his servant" (150).
Thus Paul is not boasting of his victories but compares himself to conquered captives who are being treated rudely and subjected to humiliation while yet in the glorious service of God. Paul asserts that it is precisely in his weakness and suffering as a captive slave of Christ that God receives all the glory as the One who is triumphantly victorious. Compare this passage with how Paul described his apostolic calling in 1 Corinthians 4:9 - "For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men."
It was also customary for those being led in this procession to disperse incense along the way. However, the reference to "aroma" (vv. 14,16) and "fragrance" (v. 15) probably also points to the OT sacrifice and the odor of the smoke that ascended to heaven, in which God took unique pleasure. Thus Paul portrays his proclamation of the gospel of Christ as a strong fragrance, "unseen but yet powerful, impinging on all who encounter Paul in his sufferings as he preaches Christ wherever he goes. In the victory parade metaphor of this verse, the apostle is God's captive, whom God leads about spreading the knowledge of Christ - incense-like - by means of the proclamation of Christ" (Barnett, 152). Or again, "as God drags Paul around as his slave, the knowledge of Christ emanates from Paul wherever he goes" (Witherington, 366).
I love Paul's imagery: knowing Jesus is like a sweet aroma! There is a spiritual and emotional pleasure in knowing Jesus that can best be compared to the physical delight we experience when our nostrils are filled with the fragrance of the choicest of perfumes or the soothing aroma of our favorite food. Simply put, knowing Jesus smells good, a glorious reality that God makes known through the suffering and struggles of his children.
There is much that is already ours, spiritual triumphs to enjoy for which we give unending thanks. But there is also much that we do not yet possess, blessings that are reserved for the age to come. It's not always easy to discern when we should, by faith, confidently claim our inheritance and when we should, in humility, embrace the weakness of living in a fallen world. May God grant us the wisdom to know the difference.
Sam
Satanic Stratagems (2 Cor. 2.11)
Sep 11, 2007When it comes to the life and unity of the body of Christ, Satan is anything but a passive, innocent bystander. Although he may be invisible to the eye and undetected by physical means, you may rest assured that he is present, employing every imaginable device (and some unimaginable) to undermine the integrity of God's people and to sow seeds of discord and confusion. Paul was himself extremely careful and deliberate in how he sought to resolve the problem in Corinth, lest they all "be outwitted by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs" (2 Cor. 5:11).
Make no mistake: Satan has a plan. Although sinful, he is not stupid. He does not act haphazardly or without a goal in view. He had "designs" for the church at Corinth and he most surely does for your congregation today as well. In Ephesians 6:11 Paul referred to the "schemes" (lit., methodia, from which we derive our word "method") of the Devil. He has cunning and wily stratagems not only for the individual believer but also for the corporate body of Christ. It is essential, therefore, that we be aware of them and fully prepared to respond.
Here in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 we are made aware of his determination to incite disunity and division. This appears to be an instance in which Satan seeks to exploit the otherwise good intentions of the church. Certain people in Corinth, ostensibly to maintain the purity of the church, were reluctant to forgive and restore the wayward, but now repentant, brother. This harshness would give Satan an opportunity to crush the spirit of the repentant sinner and drive him to despair, most likely resulting in his being forever cut off from the church.
What are some of Satan's other "designs" and "schemes" and activities in both the church and the world? Here are a few.
1. He works in active opposition to the gospel, blinding the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the truth about Christ (2 Cor. 4:4). There are at least two factors in spiritual blindness: fleshly, sinful, self-resistance to the truth, on the one hand, and satanic/demonic hardening or blinding on the other. Before we ever arrive on the scene with the gospel, Satan is exerting a stupefying influence on the mind of the unbeliever. In other words, we face more than merely intellectual obstacles. We face supernatural opposition. How does Satan do it? There is any number of possibilities. For example:
He distracts them when an opportunity to hear the gospel is at hand: interruptions, day-dreaming, the phone rings, an emergency of some sort, the sudden remembrance of a job or other responsibility that needs immediate attention, the intrusion of a friend (cf. Acts 13:7b-8), etc.
He stirs up hostility and suspicion in the person's mind concerning the competency and integrity of the person presenting the gospel. The unbeliever suddenly imputes sinister motives to the Christian: "He's in it for the money," or "She only wants to gain control over me," or "He's just looking for another notch on his Bible so he can boast to others of one more convert," etc. Sometimes the unbeliever will excuse his/her unbelief by questioning the intellectual and academic credentials of the believer ("he/she is so uneducated; what does he/she know anyway").
Satan also stirs up the non-Christian to distort what is being said into something the speaker never intended (cf. John 2:19-21; 6:48-52; 7:33-36; 8:51-53). He prompts them to draw false conclusions or implications from the gospel that make it seem absurd. He inclines their minds to link the believer with people who've disgraced Christianity in the past, giving him an excuse to reject what is being said (i.e., guilt by association). "All you Christians are just like those hucksters on TV! You're in it for the gold and the glory!"
He puts in their minds all sorts of questions and convinces them that if they can't get completely satisfying answers, Christianity can't be true. Right in the middle of witnessing to someone, he/she suddenly blurts out questions like: "What about evil?" "What about all the hypocrites in the church?" "What about the heathen in Africa?" "Why is there only one way? It seems egotistical." "Why are there so many denominations?"
Just as the gospel is beginning to make sense, Satan stirs up pride or produces feelings of independence and self-sufficiency: "I don't need a religious crutch. I'm my own man!" Before serious consideration is given, Satan snatches the seed of the gospel (Mt. 13:4,18-19) from their mind: on the way home from church the car breaks down, or the conversation turns to politics or sports, or a sexy billboard diverts attention, or something on the radio captivates his mind.
Satan might suddenly prompt him/her to place a higher value on things he/she might lose if one were to become a Christian: friends, fame, money, fleshly pleasures, approval of others. Satan stirs up feelings of hopelessness: "Not even this will work. There's no hope. My life is a lost cause. Not even Jesus can help."
Satan will do all he can to oppose and disrupt missionary endeavors (1 Thess. 2:18), by disrupting travel plans, influencing the minds of state officials to delay or deny the issuing of visas, inflicting illness, provoking military conflict, etc.
2. He is often (but not always) the source of sickness (cf. Acts 10:38; Mt. 8:16; Mark 9:17-18; Luke 13:10-17).
3. He can inflict death as well as provoke the paralyzing fear of it (Heb. 2:14; see Job 1:13-19; John 10:10).
4. He plants sinful plans and purposes in the minds of men (Acts 5:3; John 13:2; Mt. 16:21-23). It is instructive to observe that in the case of Acts 5 "it is not through some act of terrible depravity, but through an act of religious devotion, that Satan brings about the downfall of Ananias and Sapphira. . . . It is sobering to think that the very good that God's people attempt to do can be their undoing" (Sydney Page, 132).
5. On occasion, Satan will himself indwell a person (John 13:27). By speaking of Satan as "entering" Judas, John uses language reminiscent of demonization (cf. Lk. 8:30-33). It is important to note, however, that Judas's motive was also greed and nowhere is he exonerated from his action simply because he was indwelt by the devil.
6. He sets a snare or trap for people, perhaps with a view to exploiting and intensifying their sinful inclinations. According to 1 Timothy 3:6-7, Satan is able to exploit any blemish on the reputation of a Christian leader. In 2 Timothy 2:25-26, Paul appears to speak of believers who have been led astray through false teaching. Satan thus strives to hold people captive to do his will by deceiving them to believe what is false and misleading. If nothing else, this text emphasizes how crucial sound doctrine is.
7. He infiltrates the church and plants within it his own people (Mt. 13:37-39).
8. He tests or tries Christians, the malicious "sifting" "like wheat" of Peter's faith being an excellent example (Luke 22:31). Clearly, Satan is unable to act outside the parameters established by the will of God but must first ask permission. He wanted to destroy Peter by inciting him to deny Jesus. But God's intent in permitting Satan to do it was altogether different. God's purposes with Peter were to instruct him, humble him, perhaps discipline him, and certainly to use him as an example to others of both human arrogance and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration. This points to the fact that often we cannot easily say "Satan did it" or "God did it". In cases such as this, both are true (with the understanding that God's will is sovereign, supreme, and overriding), but their respective goals are clearly opposite. Sydney Page's comments concerning this incident are important:
"Luke 22:31-32 reveals that Satan can subject the loyalty of the followers of Jesus to severe tests that are designed to produce failure. So intense are the pressures to which Satan is able to subject believers that the faith of even the most courageous may be found wanting. Satan is, however, limited in what he can do by what God permits and by the intercession of Jesus on behalf of his own [cf. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1]. Furthermore, those who temporarily falter can be restored and, like Peter, can even resume positions of leadership. It is implied that Satan cannot gain ultimate victory over those for whom Jesus intercedes" (124).
9. He incites persecution, imprisonment, and the political oppression of believers (1 Pt. 5:8-9; Rev. 2:10).
10. He is the accuser of the Christian (Rev. 12:10).
11. He performs signs and wonders to deceive the nations (Exodus; 2 Thess. 2:9-11).
12. He seeks to silence the witness of the church (Rev. 12:10-12).
13. He promotes false doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Rev. 2:24; 2 Cor. 11:1ff.).
14. He can manipulate the weather (but not by virtue of his own inherent power; it is only to the degree that God permits, as is clear from Job 1:18-19; cf. Mk. 4:37-39).
15. He influences the thoughts and actions of unbelievers (Eph. 2:1-2). It is a stunning thought, similar to that in 1 John 5:18, that Satan is at work in and energizes the disobedience of all unbelievers. This does not mean that all non-Christians are demonized, but it does imply that their unbelief and unrighteous behavior are stimulated and sustained by the enemy. Yet, they remain morally culpable for their actions.
16. He attacks married believers in regard to their sexual relationship (1 Cor. 7:5). Paul approves of the decision by married couples to refrain from sexual relations to devote themselves to prayer, but only for a season. To abstain entirely for a prolonged period of time exposes oneself to unnecessary temptation (i.e., lust and the satisfaction of one's sexual desires outside the bonds of marriage). Again, we see here an example of how the enemy takes an otherwise godly intention and exploits it for his own nefarious purposes.
17. He exploits our sinful decisions, most likely by intensifying the course of action we have already chosen (Eph. 4:26-27). Note that Satan is not credited with or blamed for creating the anger in the first place. We are responsible for it. Satan's response is to use this and other such sins to gain access to our lives and to expand and intensify our chosen course of behavior.
18. He confronts us with various temptations (1 Chron. 21:1; Mt. 6:13; 1 Thess. 3:5).
Yes, Satan has "designs" and "schemes" all of which, in one way or another, are intended to undermine our enjoyment of all that God is for us in Jesus. May God grant us both the wisdom to discern his stratagems and the strength and resolve to resist him at all times.
Sam
Reflections on Church Discipline
Sep 07, 2007I know this may be a stretch for many of you, but I'd like to ask that you meditate with me today on the subject of church discipline. That's right, church discipline. The fact that your immediate and instinctive response is probably somewhat (or considerably) negative reflects how far removed we are today from the spirit of the New Testament. As we'll see, a commitment to discipline in the local church is indicative not only of one's love for holiness, as well as those lingering in sin, but most of all for the Lord Jesus who "gave himself up for her [i.e., the Church], that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). With this in mind, let's read Paul's words of counsel:
"Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure - not to put it too severely - to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs" (2 Cor. 2:5-11).
There is considerable debate among commentators as to the identity of this individual. The older commentaries (especially Philip Hughes) insist that this is the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5. More recent commentators argue that this is the person who opposed Paul and worked to undermine his apostolic authority. This man "may have been connected with the sexual aberrations in Corinth that involved a number of people and that appear to have necessitated Paul's recent unscheduled visit (12:21-13:2). It is quite possible that the man also supported the practice of ongoing attendance at temples in the city (6:14-7:1), despite Paul's warnings in the First Letter (1 Cor. 10:14-22). . . . Perhaps this man resisted Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians during his second visit and was himself the major reason that visit was so painful for Paul" (Barnett, 124).
In any case, the church had imposed discipline upon him, most likely by prohibiting his presence at the Lord's Table and withdrawing routine fellowship. The good news is that it worked! "For such a one," says Paul, "this punishment by the majority is enough." He had evidently repented and Paul now calls for a reaffirmation of love for him and his restoration into the life of the church.
Paul is concerned lest immoderate severity destroy this man. Thus he encourages the Corinthians "to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow." The tendency of human nature is to hold the offender at arm's length, to forgive but not forget, to say "I receive you back" but to treat the person like a leper. Philip Hughes reminds us that "discipline which is so inflexible as to leave no place for repentance and reconciliation has ceased to be truly Christian; for it is no less a scandal to cut off the penitent sinner from all hope of re-entry into the comfort and security of the fellowship of the redeemed community than it is to permit flagrant wickedness to continue unpunished in the Body of Christ" (66-67).
Perhaps the best way to approach this topic, if only briefly, is to ask and answer a series of five questions.
First, why is church discipline so neglected, if not ignored altogether, in our day? Among the many reasons that could be cited, here are a few. Perhaps the principal cause is a pervasive ignorance of biblical teaching on the subject (many believe that it is infrequently mentioned in Scripture and therefore unimportant; others are ignorant of the purpose of discipline and see it only as destroying the person).
Another factor is calloused, insensitivity toward sin; a failure to take seriously the offense of sin and a tendency toward unsanctified mercy in our treatment of the unrepentant. Undoubtedly the spirit of individualism also plays a role. We have lost the sense of community and mutual responsibility one for another. How often has it been said, as a way of justifying our passivity toward sin, "Well, it's not really any of my business, is it?" Discipline is costly because my brother's/sister's business now becomes mine.
A misapplication of our Lord's words in Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, that you be not judged") has certainly put hesitancy in the hearts of many in regard to dealing with sin in the local church. The fear of rejection also comes into play (i.e., the fear of being told by the offending party: "Mind your own business. You have no authority to tell me what I can and can't do").
I strongly suspect that fear of legal reprisal in the form of lawsuits has paralyzed many. Many people (even church leaders) simply dislike confrontation. Talking directly about personal sin with an offender is difficult; it makes us feel uneasy and uncomfortable; so why rock the boat? Many think that if we simply ignore the problem, in time it will go away. "Time heals all," or so they contend.
I've known instances where discipline stalled from fear of driving the person away, especially if the offender is a major financial contributor to the church! Related to this is the fear of dividing and ultimately even splitting the church over whether and how and to what extent discipline should be applied (invariably many think the discipline was too severe, while others are convinced it was too lenient).
Many struggle with a false concept of discipline because of observed abuses. In their minds discipline is associated with heresy hunts, intolerance, oppression, harshness, mean-spiritedness, self-righteousness, legalism, etc. Related to this is the fear of being labeled a cult if we insist on too strict a code of conduct for our members.
Others resist taking disciplinary steps because it entails change. In other words, the power of tradition is hard to overcome: "We've never done it before and we've done o.k. Why risk messing things up now?"
So, secondly, why is discipline necessary? To be brief, there are several reasons: (1) to maintain (as far as possible) the purity of the church (1 Cor. 3:17; Eph. 5:25-27); (2) because Scripture requires it (Mt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; etc.); (3) in order to maintain a proper witness to the world; the church corporately, as with the elder individually, is to have a good reputation with "outsiders" (1 Tim. 3:7); (4) to facilitate growth and to preserve unity in the body (Eph. 4:1-16); (5) to expose unbelievers (1 John 2:19); (6) to restore the erring brother/sister to obedience and fellowship (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6,7,10; Gal. 6:1; 2 Thess. 3:14-15); (7) to deter others (1 Tim. 5:20); (8) to avert corporate discipline (Rev. 2:14-25); (9) because sin is rarely if ever an individual issue: it almost always has corporate ramifications (2 Cor. 2:5); the whole of the body (or at least a large segment of it) is adversely affected by the misdeeds of one member; and (10) evidently Paul believed that the willingness to embrace the task of discipline was a mark of maturity in a church's corporate life (2 Cor. 2:9).
Third, in what instances or for what sins should it be exercised? Unrepentant moral evil, as in the case of the incestuous man of 1 Corinthians 5, would certainly qualify. Divisiveness and serious doctrinal error are also mentioned in the NT (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:9-10). Paul speaks of more general, unspecified transgressions in Galatians 6:1 as calling for disciplinary intervention (see also 2 Thess. 3:6-15).
Fourth, how is discipline to be done? What are the procedural steps to be pursued? Matthew 18:15-17 recommends the following steps:
First, private rebuke (Mt. 18:15) - Do it gently, in love, out of compassion, seeking to encourage; the purpose for private rebuke is to resolve the problem without fueling unnecessary gossip.
Second, if private rebuke is unsuccessful, plural rebuke (Mt. 18:16; see also Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Num. 35:30) - Who are these "others"? Church leaders? People who know the person? People who know of the sin?
Third, if plural rebuke is unsuccessful, public rebuke (Mt. 18:17)
Fourth, if public rebuke is unsuccessful, "excommunication" (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:11; Titus 3:10; possibly 2 Thess. 3:14)
Fifth, if repentance occurs, restoration to fellowship and reaffirmation of love (2 Cor. 2:6-8; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Gal. 6:1)
Sixth, Mt. 18:18-20 affirms that whatever decision is made in the matter, whether the offending person is "bound" or "loosed", reflects the will of God in heaven. When a church is united in its application of discipline it can rest confidently in God's promise that he will provide wisdom and guidance for making the correct decision. Thus, the verdict of heaven, so to speak, is consonant with that of the church, before which the matter was adjudicated.
Fifth, by whom is discipline to be administered? Certainly the Elders of the church are to take the initiative and provide general oversight for the process (cf. Acts 20:28ff.; 1 Thess. 5:14; Heb. 13:17). But the congregation as a whole must also be involved (2 Cor. 2:6; this latter text raises the question of whether there may have been a minority in Corinth who dissented from the action taken).
In sum, the motivation for discipline is love (for the errant believer) and the goal of discipline is restoration. If Christ himself is so passionately committed to the purity of the church that he would sacrifice his life on her behalf, in order to present her "to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing" (Eph. 5:27), we can hardly afford to turn a blind eye to repeated and unrepentant sin in our midst. May God grant us the grace and wisdom so essential for this delicate and crucial task.
Sam