Author: Jimmy Day

Since I decided to follow Jesus, I have loved reading and studying the Scriptures. But I can’t say that my relationship with the Bible has been easy-going. That’s mainly because of how I understood the Bible to work and how it should be read. I’ll explain:

The Uniform Way

For the first couple of decades of my Christian life, I read the Bible as a uniform text where every word has equal authority. The justification for this approach to Scripture is 1 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” There it is in plain language, “all Scripture.” It’s all equal, all important and all the same. Except I have never met any Christian who lives the Bible this way – me included! So, what did Paul mean?

Paul is writing to his dear son, who led the Ephesian church. Timothy struggled with the burden of his role, so the apostle wrote to encourage him. Amongst other things, Paul reminds Timothy of his devotion to “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

All Scripture is helpful, but that doesn’t mean that all Scripture is applied equally. The problem with the uniform way of reading the Bible is that it doesn’t account for this difference. More on that next week.

The Progressive Way

The Progressive Way views the Scriptures as a developing story “where all the words accumulate in a crescendo of consistent truth.”[1] In recent years, I have become much more comfortable with this way of reading Scripture as it embraces the evolving narrative of God’s love for people and his desire to “reconcile the world to himself in Christ.”

The Bible is living, dynamic, and energetic. Just like flowing water, the Bible’s message is heading somewhere. It’s got momentum, and it’s progressing. For example, the Bible shifts from a revenge perspective to a way of grace and kindness personified in Christ. We witness the Bible’s progression in many ways, including slavery, women’s rights, interracial marriage, illegitimate children, war, capital punishment, and gender diversity. The Bible is not a static book. But there’s still a better way to read and understand the Scriptures.

The Jesus’ Way

The Bible itself calls Jesus the Word. Notice the capital W. When speaking about Scripture, the Bible employs a small ‘w’. Jesus is the Big W Word, the One to whom the written word must bow because Jesus is Lord! If Jesus Christ is Lord, he is supreme even over the Bible.

That’s how Jesus understood Scripture. Consider his Sermon on the Mount, where he altered several Old Testament verses. “You have heard that it was said to our ancestors,” said Jesus, “But I tell you…”

Jesus abolished the food laws (Mark 7:19), and Paul agreed (Romans 14). Goodbye Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and hello bacon!

At other times Jesus disagreed with Scripture (Mark 10:1-9) or chose not to argue about individual verses and extend kindness instead (John 5:1-14; 8:2-11), something we Christians would do well to imitate.

The Revd. Peter Bartel put it this way, “Read the Bible. When anything in the rest of the Bible disagrees with Jesus, listen to Jesus.” Jesus is Lord!

A Beautiful Example

Luke is the only gospel writer to include the amazing story of post-resurrection Jesus walking and talking with two of his disciples. Luke tells us that the men, Simon and Cleopas, were kept from recognising him.

Jesus gave them the most amazing Bible study as they chatted: “Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” Wow! I have wondered why Luke didn’t document Jesus’ words. I can only think that it was because we are supposed to read and study Scripture for ourselves. Christians are to read the Bible like that, the Jesus’ way.

Final Reflections

C.S. Lewis wrote, “It is Christ himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to him.”

Neither Lewis nor I are devaluing the Bible. We are simply putting it in its proper place. I am not teaching a low view of Scripture but a high view of Jesus. I fear that making the Bible an idol is possible as if the Trinity consisted of Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word of God! The primary revelation about Jesus is found in the small w word. Each page points to him. And so, as you read the Bible, Jesus’ Way ask: 

  1. How does this point to or reflect Jesus?
  2. In what way(s) does this draw me into intimacy with Jesus?
  3. Does this verse or story align with what I know about Jesus?

For a Christian, it’s the only way to read Scripture!

 

[1] A More Christlike Word. Dr Bradley Jersak (P. 41).

Jesus sent out his Twelve Apostles with a mixture of warnings and encouragement, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard…” He goes on to warn them about persecution because of the gospel.

Jesus is speaking in proverbs and comparing people with types of animals: sheep, wolves, snakes and doves. Israel viewed themselves as sheep amongst the Gentiles (wolves). Both Jesus and Paul warned about people who were like wolves in sheep’s clothing!

In Matthew 10, Jesus only sends his twelve apostles to Jewish people saying, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” And so, it is likely that the wolf-like people would also be Jews, particularly Jewish religious leaders who wanted to protect the status quo against this new sect of Judaism.

Paul’s Experiences

Paul’s ministry was constantly resisted by a group of Jewish Christians who insisted that followers of Jesus were saved by a combination of God’s grace and human effort. They held that a true disciple would obey the Mosaic Law, and men were required to be circumcised.

These men follow Paul around. As soon as he moved on, the Judaizers moved in. Many of Paul’s letters were written to the churches he established to correct the false doctrine spread by these men. To the Philippians, he wrote, Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. He was even blunter to the Galatians wishing these agitators “would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”

Interestingly, Paul was once one of the wolves but had been radically converted when Jesus appeared to him. Opposition would also come from the Roman Empire, but this opposition would usually be at the behest of the Jewish religious leaders.

Back to Jesus

In his instructions in Matthew 10, Jesus mentions four kinds of animals to guide his disciples’ conduct. Sheep were viewed as timid and unassuming, unlike wolves, which could be assertive, aggressive, and dangerous. Jesus instructed his disciples to adopt a meek posture as they taught and demonstrated the kingdom of heaven.

They would sometimes face persecution for the gospel but were not to become aggressive in return. They were to conduct themselves with humility and grace and not be antagonistic. Let that sink in. Followers of Jesus are to clothe themselves with meekness, humility, and kindness, not antagonism. Watching some Christians behave poorly during the lockdowns grieved me deeply during the recent pandemic. We should be known as people of compassion, not condemnation.

Snakes and Doves

After the contrast between sheep and wolves, Jesus tells the Twelve to be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Unlike the previous proverb, Jesus’ followers are to embrace the qualities of both animals, snakes and doves, and imitate two virtues, namely, wisdom and innocence. What’s Jesus teaching here?

Be as shrewd as snakes. The Greek word (phronimos), translated by the NIV as “shrewd,” comes from the root of the English word “diaphragm.” The diaphragm regulates our breathing from the inside out, often involuntarily. In fact, until now, you have been breathing without thinking about it, except now you are!

And so, Jesus encourages his followers to practice being wise, sensible, intelligent, and practical until it becomes a natural part of who they are without thinking.

Snakes and Wisdom

Wisdom is not something that we usually associate with snakes in our culture or faith. The first snake in Scripture is the talking serpent, later identified as ha-satan (the adversary). Now the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. “Crafty” is used here negatively, but the word can be positive. Depending on the context, it can mean wise, sensible, and intelligent. The Hebrew word is translated in all those ways in the scriptures.

The idea of the serpent as symbolising wisdom entered most Eastern nations’ early parables.

Snakes and Healing

You’ve probably noticed the caduceus or The Rod of Asclepius, but maybe you didn’t know what it was called. It’s the Medical symbol with one or two snakes on a staff. The sign is based on a Bible story in the Book of Numbers. On the way to the Red Sea, the Israelites grew impatient and started complaining against God and Moses, “Why have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” As punishment, the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people, and many Israelites died. This brought the people to their senses, and they begged Moses to ask God to remove the snakes. Here was God’s remedy:

The Lord told Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So, Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

Be Like Snakes!

Snakes in the wild demonstrate wisdom in quickly assessing and escaping danger. Jesus taught his followers to evaluate trouble or persecution and move away from it if possible. Christians should not seek persecution as if it were a badge of honour.

And Doves

Jesus tells the Twelve to be as shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. The word innocent can mean simple, unsophisticated, sincere, blameless, or have pure motives.

Using this proverb, Jesus instructs his followers to be inherently wise, humble, and uncomplicated in character. I encourage you to consider the character qualities Jesus teaches his people to embody. Christians are to be meek, modest, wise, kind and straightforward. Clothe yourself with these things, and you will be like Jesus.

 

Reformed theology includes a system of belief that traces its roots back to the Protestant Reformation over 500 years ago. It also contains many of the doctrines taught by Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries.

A brief history

The Reformation was an extensive religious revolt against the abuses and authoritarian control of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers included Martin Luther in Germany, Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, and John Calvin in France. These men protested the unbiblical practices of the Roman Catholic Church and encouraged a return to sound biblical doctrine. The triggering event of the Protestant Reformation is generally considered Luther’s posting of his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church on 31 October 1517.

The Theses focused on sin and forgiveness, mainly how people were to seek pardon and salvation. They protested against the Roman church and how it was selling forgiveness and pardon through indulgencies (A letter of indulgence was given in exchange for a monetary gift or a charitable deed). Indulgences often led people into poverty and reduced the amount of charity people could do. People experiencing poverty, Luther said, should be helped.

A copy of the Ninety-five Theses was sent to Rome, and efforts began to convince Luther to change his tune, but he refused to keep silent.  In 1521, Pope Leo X formally excommunicated Luther from the Catholic Church. The Reformers, their followers and successors, formed a theology that they believed better represented the original intention of scripture and Jesus for his church.

Reformed theology

Reformed theology is not a new belief system but seeks to continue apostolic doctrine. In summary, reformed theology holds to:

  • The authority of Scripture.
  • The sovereignty of God.
  • Salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.
  • The necessity of evangelism.

Reformed theology is also called Covenant theology, Calvinism, the Doctrines of Grace, or Augustinian theology. It is alive and well in Reformed Churches, some Presbyterian churches, some Baptist churches, Lutheran Churches, and the Acts 29 movement, a global family of church-planting churches that adheres to Calvinist theology.

Recognising the good

There is much in reformed theology that is good. I appreciate the high regard for scripture, the focus on Jesus and salvation, and the desire for others to experience the gospel. I acknowledge that there are various streams of reformed theology and that not all reformed theologians hold to all its tenants of the faith.

In addressing my concerns about reformed theology, I am not critical of individuals or churches. I acknowledge that people who hold to reformed theology love Jesus and are part of the Christian family. Christians have and do differ on all sorts of doctrines. I appreciate the words of 17th Century Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” Having said that here are my chief concerns with reformed theology:

* Reformed theology denies people’s free will

Augustine wrote, “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of the human will has been completely lost … we have lost the free will to love God.” Martin Luther said, “For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?” I believe reformed theology has an unhealthy emphasis on sin and people’s lack of free will not to sin. Their doctrine of total depravity states that human nature is thoroughly corrupt and sinful due to the fall.

While I believe the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” and that no one is righteous outside of God’s grace, we witness human beings exercising their free will to do good. Most people are NOT depraved. Scripture also attests to people’s inherent goodness. The Bible starts at Genesis One, not Genesis Three, with people created in God’s good image. While the image has been marred, it has not been destroyed.

Reformed theology denies personal accountability

The blame for every person’s sinfulness is placed on Adam. John Calvin noted, “Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his fall, into eternal damnation.” Whether we like it or not, we’re all going to hell, and it’s all Adam’s fault. Reformed theology buys into the blame game of Genesis Three – Adam blamed God and “that woman”. Eve blamed the snake, which didn’t have a leg to stand on.

Reformed theology has a harmful obsession with original sin. Scripture teaches that each person is responsible to account for their sins.

Reformed theology denies Christ died for everyone

Aussie evangelist Joshua Williamson said, “If Christ died for everyone, everyone would be saved.” And yet, the New Testament is replete with verses that use words like EVERYONE and ALL. The New Testament affirms that Christ died for all people. God’s boundless atonement does not make salvation automatic but available for everyone. **

Reformed theology teaches an unhealthy view of predestination

There are some horrific statements made by reformed thinkers about the destiny of the “unsaved”. Consider John Calvin, “not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing.” Let that sink in. Author Alan Kurschner said, “God desires that his people are saved. He does not desire that every single individual who has ever lived live in glory with him forever. If that were the case, we have an incompetent, unhappy, and impotent God.”

Erwin Lutzer (former Senior Pastor Moody Bible Church, Chicago) said, “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.” Seriously? Does God have a hidden will? And John MacArthur comments: “[God’s] patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all of His own …” The rest be dammed.

Have you noticed that people who say these things are always in the “saved” category? How easily we condemn people who are not us. Contrast the above quotes with Jesus, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” The apostle Paul wrote, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive.

For in-depth teaching on Romans 9:12-21 and why I believe those who embrace reformed theology misinterpret these verses, listen to my podcast on predestination.

Reformed theology pushes the sovereignty of God too far

Martin Luther believed, “God worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked …” John Calvin stated, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.” It reminds me of the meme, “You’re telling me that when God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit that he really wanted them to?”

While it is true that, because of free will and the laws of nature, God created the potential for bad things to happen in the world, to say that God works wickedness in the wicked is to deny the heart of God, who is LOVE and GOODNESS. *** James is especially concerned that we’re not misled: Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Reformed churches diminish the role of women

Reformed churches are invariably complementarian, believing that men and women are equal but different. Valid, except in these churches, men are usually more equal than women, to misquote George Orwell.

Complementarianism holds to exclusively male leadership in the church and home, and women should not have church leadership roles that involve teaching or authority over men. Women are expected to support and submit to male authority. I recently saw a Facebook post where a pastor shared his joy about a retreat with his fellow pastors (all men) and thanked the wives for “holding the fort”. I have written about complementarian elsewhere and recorded a podcast outlining my views that complementarianism does an injustice to scripture and women.

For these reasons, I believe Reformed Theology could do well to experience another Reformation.

 

* Lev. 18:29; Deut. 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-6; Eze. 18:20; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-6; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:11-12; Rev. 22:12.

** Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2, Jn. 3:14-17; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:11; Rev. 22:17, Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1.

*** Gen. 1:31; 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 19:5, 32:35; Isa. 5:4; Zeph. 3:5; Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 6:10; Lk. 7:30; 1 Cor. 14:33; Heb. 1:9; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5

The unsettling story of Ananais and Sapphira is found in Acts chapter five. The first two verses summarise the story:

“Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.”

Their duplicity, described by Peter as “lying to God,” led to their untimely death.

Interestingly, Peter makes such a big deal of this deceit, especially in light of his betrayal of Jesus. Peter received nothing but grace for his error and yet is quick to pronounce judgment on others. I’m glad Christians don’t behave like that anymore! So, how should we understand the disturbing story of Ananias and Sapphira?

A Parable?

The story may be a parable rather than a literal historical event. For example, the Bible Background Commentary reveals some rabbis allegedly disintegrate foolish pupils with a harsh look. We still talk about someone giving a withering look, but the “look” doesn’t literally shrink the person. We understand the expression metaphorically.

The New Interpreter’s Study Bible says about this story: “Theological and pastoral questions arise. Why is Peter so harsh in not offering the couple an opportunity to repent? Does God really punish sinners in such a drastic manner? The story is more folklore than historical and is meant to underscore the serious breach that occurs when members of the community lie to one another.”

And so, what KIND of truth is found in Acts 5? Is it factual, or is it symbolic, a parable designed to teach truth while itself not being a true story?

People sometimes get hung up on facts rather than truth. For example, instead of trying to work out how a large fish swallowed Jonah, ask yourself what truth is being taught in this story. What can we learn, and how can we apply this truth daily?

An Ancient Teaching Method?

A well-known educational tool in the first century was comparing positive and negative examples. Acts chapter four ended with a general statement of the church’s generosity and then a specific instance – Barnabas sold a field he owned, and laid the money at the apostles’ feet.

And then Luke, the author of Acts, compares this with the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who also sold a piece of property. Remember, there were no chapter divisions in Luke’s letter.

Many people who had become Christians were from different nations and had stayed in Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 2). These people had no means of support – no social security benefits. The church was their lifeline, and there were no churches beyond Jerusalem.

These freewill gifts were entirely at the discretion of the giver. The land was sold and placed “at the apostles’ feet,” indicating that the offering was not for the apostles but for them to distribute to those in need. Barnabas demonstrated the right way to do this. Ananias and Sapphira displayed the wrong way.

The message in these stories is this: when you give, do it like Barnabas and not like Ananias and Sapphira.

An Older Story?

The story of Ananias and Sapphira contrasts with the account of Achan in Joshua 7, in which the sin of one man brought death upon many others—in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, the demise of two people brought purity to a community rather than death. God takes the corporate holiness of his people very seriously.

Honesty is the Best Policy

The Acts 5 story shows that God takes sincerity in claims very seriously. Pastors should remember this when asked about the size of the church we lead. Far too many of us become evang-elastic in our answers.

The whole scenario with Ananias and Sapphira was utterly unnecessary. They were likely a very wealthy couple (Sapphira was an uncommon name and always found amongst rich women). The property was theirs. No one had asked them or forced them to sell it. It was a matter of their own volition.

Furthermore, they had conspired to keep some of the money but made out they were giving it all, exposing their pride in the pretence. They lied to and tested the Holy Spirit (God). Was this a form of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Was this sin unforgivable? Whatever the case, one truth that stands out in this story is honesty is the best policy.

A Harsh Sentence

The Dead Sea Scrolls excluded such an offender from the communion table for a year. But here, a much stricter sentence is imposed. There’s no mention that God did the killing. Peter pronounced the sentence, possibly operating a gift of the Holy Spirit. Was he a novice in using these powers? Did he learn from this? To my knowledge, there is no record of anything like this happening again. And I’ve never had anyone die during an offering at Bayside Church – not yet, at least!

Concluding Comments

The punishment doesn’t appear to fit the crime. Far worse sins are recorded in the New Testament Scriptures without death as the punishment. Consider the case of a young man committing incest with his stepmother and Peter’s rank hypocrisy that Paul condemns to Peter’s face. But Peter doesn’t drop dead as a result.

If this is a literal historical event, my only thought is that the apostles wanted to protect the baby church. Such protection wasn’t needed as the church matured.

A literal understanding of this story troubles me because it doesn’t appear to reflect God’s nature of unfailing love and forgiveness. Neither does it demonstrate Jesus’ statement, “the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:56)

If Ananias and Sapphira were real people, they were a part of the church and Christians. They would have been considered “saved.” There is no pronouncement that they were “lost”. I hope they’re in heaven.

The Bible gives us an incredible revelation of the goodness of God. But some parts of it seem to present God being anything but good. Sometimes, God overreacts, becomes extremely violent, appears volatile, and then regrets his behaviour.

Some have attempted to explain this disparity by suggesting there are two gods ~ the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. Professor Richard Dawkins puts it like this: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”  But there aren’t two gods, only the One True God, and sometimes he doesn’t come across as very pleasant. What are we to make of this?

Awful Examples

There appears to be some truth to Dawkins’ words. Consider Deuteronomy 20:16–18, in which Moses gave these instructions to the people, “However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” In other words, I know you people lack self-control and might get led astray, so let’s kill everyone and remove all temptation!

The Hebrew word “destroy” means to devote something to God by eradicating it. We are outraged by the terrorism we witness in the world, yet here it is encouraged, indeed commanded, by God.

From Joshua chapter six onwards, we see the systematic destruction of thirty-one cities and their inhabitants – men, women, children, and all the animals. Entire towns were slaughtered with no terms of surrender and no chance to relocate to another land. And according to the author, God is right there cheering on the massacre.

I’ve read the Bible many times. When I was young, these were great war stories about my faith heroes. Then, I began to feel uncomfortable with them and would skip over these sections pretending they were not there. Except they are. We need to face it. The Bible records some pretty awful stuff.

Most pastors NEVER teach or read them to their churches. We’re embarrassed that they are in the Bible. But they ARE there. So, what do we make of them? To discover the answers, we need to understand how the Bible works.

The Bible is Inspired

Paul told Timothy that God inspires all scripture. Inspires means God-breathed and “expresses the sacred nature of the Scriptures (their divine origin) and their power to sanctify believers.” God breathed into Adam, and he became a living being. So, God gives life to his word.

People Wrote the Bible

Throughout time, God has chosen to work with and through imperfect people. God is still doing that now by acting through you and me. In forming the Scriptures, God used the authors’ knowledge, culture, personality, language, and idioms to communicate. People wrote scripture inspired by their interactions with God, one another, and the world around them. Then God breathed life into their words.

God could have given us an A4 Sheet of paper with “things to do” on one side and “things not to do” on the other. But he didn’t. God chose to reveal himself to people through people. And so, what we see in scripture is an unfolding of God’s nature as people increasingly comprehend.

The Bible is Ancient

The oldest parts of the Bible (Job and some Proverbs) are almost 4,000 years old. The newest sections are some New Testament writings, like John’s gospel, written in the final decade of the first century (1,900 years ago). Life was VERY different back then.

Consider how things have changed during our lifetime. For example, we have witnessed massive advances in technology. When our eldest daughter was born (now 24), she enjoyed cassettes, compact discs, and videos. Next came DVDs. These days she (and the rest of the family) streams her music and programs.

Consider the changing attitudes to smoking. From the 1930s to the 1950s, advertising’s most powerful phrase—”doctors recommend”, was used to promote cigarettes. Today, we know that smoking causes all sorts of illnesses. Why did we EVER think that breathing smoke into the lungs could be anything but bad for you? And these days, we’re facing a younger generation repeating history by vaping.

So, if life has changed dramatically in the last few decades, how much have things changed in the past 3000 years? We must remember that when we’re reading the Bible.

The Bible Doesn’t Erase History

The Bible includes questionable things. It details cases of rape, incest, genocide, and violence. Regarding the genocide passages, we must understand these in the context of life in the ancient world. Three thousand years ago, if you left one of your enemies alive, they would live to take revenge and kill you. So, if you wanted to live a long life, you’d wipe out your enemies.

The Scriptures don’t censor the stories or erase history. They report the good, the bad, and the ugly. At that time, that’s how wars were fought. That is what life was like in the ancient world. We look at life differently now.

The Bible is not Static

The Bible is living and active, dynamic, and energetic. Just like flowing water, the Bible’s message is heading somewhere. It’s got momentum, and it’s progressing.

This progression of truth is called the Arc of Scripture. Over time, the Bible shifts from the revenge mentality to a better way. The Bible’s arc shows how people’s view of, and relationship with, God has matured over time.

For example, when God instructed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham didn’t blink an eye. Why? Because in the ancient world, child sacrifice was an accepted form of worship. In the Genesis 22 story, God met Abraham according to his cultural understanding and then shifted him from child to animal sacrifice. It’s not that God was fussed about animal sacrifice either, as we read later in the Scriptures, but killing an animal is preferred to slaying a child.

We witness the Bible’s progression on many other subjects, including slavery (Cf. Ex 21:20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46; Luke 12:47; 1 Peter 2:18); and Eunuchs, who were at first excluded, then welcomed, and then pursued (Cf. Deuteronomy 23:1-4; Isaiah 56:3-8; Acts 8). Other examples of the Bible’s progressive revelation include women’s rights, interracial marriage, illegitimate children, war, capital punishment, gender diversity, LGBTIQA+ rights, and dozens of other examples demonstrating that the Bible is not a static book.

God’s Final Revelation

If the Bible is motionless, and every part of it equally applies today, we’re in serious trouble. But, if it is active and developing, we can equate troublesome stories to how ancient people viewed life.

They were nomadic tribes that were often at war. To them, God was a warrior who gave them victory over their enemies and endorsed their enslaving captured enemies. They saw God through the culture of their day. God met them where they were but then took them on a pilgrimage of discovery and understanding.

Jesus is God’s final revelation to humanity, showing us what he’s like – a redeemer who does not kill or destroy. John Wesley said, “As the full and final revelation of God, Jesus is the criterion for evaluating Scripture, the prism through which the Hebrew Scriptures must be read.” 

While Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Scriptures as the authentic Word of God, he did not endorse every word in them (Cf. Matt. 5:44). When the disciples wanted to destroy a Samaritan town by calling down fire as Elijah did (Luke 9:51-56), he said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

James and John, the “Sons of Thunder“, were ready to consign Samaria to destruction because of the inhospitality of a few people. Jesus clarified that the “manner of spirit” that would exterminate people was alien to God’s character. The vengeful spirit that dehumanises, depersonalises and demonises an entire town, nation, or race is not of God.

We must understand the Arc of Scripture and that the Bible is progressing (growing, improving, developing); otherwise, we will cherry-pick random verses and use them to condemn others or shut down conversations. Christians are to live by the Royal Law and the Golden Rule: love your neighbour as yourself and treat others the same way you want them to treat you. That is how the Bible works.

On the long weekend, I watched The Kingdom twice. I encourage you to watch it too.  The Kingdom is a documentary in which Australian journalist Marc Fennell “investigates the successful but scandal-plagued megachurch Hillsong, stepping back into the world of Pentecostalism that he left behind and asking what happens as the Hillsong kingdom crumbles.” Unlike other documentaries on Hillsong, The Kingdom interviews people from various standpoints and looks for the good in Pentecostalism and the not-so-good.

And so, I write this blog NOT as another voice to knock Hillsong, but rather to ask what we can learn to ensure the church’s future is better than its past. I write as someone from within the church who loves and values the church and wants the church to be everything Jesus had in mind when he started it.

My Experiences

I attended Hills Christian Life Centre in the mid-80s while studying full-time at Bible College. Hills was in a school hall, Geoff Bullock was on piano, and the place was jumping. I stayed with Hills CLC as it moved into a factory. Eventually, I joined a small outreach from Hills, Westside CLC in St Marys, and was on the Ministry Team for over two years. We had a Sunday afternoon service and headed to Hills for Sunday night. It was an exciting, vibrant Pentecostal church. I loved every minute of it.

Since relocating to Melbourne in the late 80s, I have observed Hillsong from a distance, watching its phenomenal growth and influence. My interactions with Hillsong have mainly been positive, but I realise that is only the case for some. So, what can we Pentecostal Christians learn from all the scandal, negative press, and the multitudes who have been hurt and disillusioned by their experiences in our churches? What lessons can we learn to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself and that the future is safer and, simply, more like Jesus?

As I reflect on these questions, I am not targeting Hillsong or any other church. I have identified some of these negatives in my ministry and church leadership approach and have worked hard to address them in the past few years.

American Influence

The American version of the church highly influences Australian Pentecostals. It’s no secret that Brian Houston’s trip to the US in 1989 proved a turning point for his church as he bought into the health, wealth, and success doctrines that had gripped the US church for a decade. As Hillsong leapt from success to success, many other Australian churches copied them, myself included. All this led to the second major problem amongst Pentecostal churches.

The Frenetic Pace

Marc Fennell said, “The insatiable growth of Pentecostalism has left far too many casualties.” I agree. The church growth movement of the 1980s focused our (pastors) attention on growth at all costs. At pastors’ conferences, the most often asked question was, “How many people do you have in your church?” It was like comparing sizes in the boys’ locker room at school. “How many are you running at Bayside these days?” The pressure was filling facilities, starting more services, opening campuses, and planting churches. Bayside Church had five services over three campuses every weekend at one stage. We were successful and exhausted.

I watch other pastors do the same thing and hear of their burnout and need for time off. I recently saw a Facebook post by a young man outlining his ministry schedule in the US, touring Australia, speaking at churches and conferences, producing a podcast and vlog, and running a youth conference. I wanted to comment, “It sounds like a recipe for burnout.” I didn’t, but it is. I know; I’ve been there. Not all growth is good. Cancer is growth, and we cut it out! Scripture says, “God doesn’t count us; he calls us by name. Arithmetic is not his focus.” (Romans 9:31 MSG)

Unholy Expectations

Many years ago, a pastor friend stepped away from Pentecostal leadership and accepted a pastoral role in an evangelical church. He told me the difference was stark. The people expected so much less, and his job became manageable rather than exhausting.

Pentecostal churches have created a harrowing “success” cycle. Everything always has to be better. This year’s conference was phenomenal but wait for next year’s; it will be the best ever. Today’s service was incredible; next weekend will be even better. Once you’ve set the bar so high, you must keep performing to attract more Christian consumers. You can’t have great music one Sunday but an average band the following weekend. And no, you can’t take a break because the show must go on. The best is yet to come!

The expectancies of the senior leadership on their people are enormous, and the congregation return the compliment—the demands of leadership overwork volunteers and leaders are exhausted by the people’s expectations. I bought into this kind of churchianity in the past. I do so no longer, but I know that I’ve hurt some people on the way. And for that, I apologise unconditionally.

Being driven by success and wanting more people, resources, services, and campuses becomes more like an enterprise than a church. These are unholy expectations.

I feel deeply for Brian Houston. Keeping the show going for so long has taken its toll on him, and he’s turned to medication, alcohol, and other unhealthy practices to cope. He looks tired and shaken. I pray that he will take the time to heal and be restored. But how do you stop when you’ve been doing this for so long? I loved John Sanderman’s words in The Kingdom when he was asked what he hopes will happen for Brian: “that he takes time out, and he goes and does something of redeeming value that gives him pleasure and hope. He does not try and be what he was before.”

Manipulative Offerings

I have listened to more than my fair share of coercive offerings over the years in which people are made to feel guilty for not giving or not giving enough. “God has told me fifty people here will give $1000 each in the offering.” “Invest in this offering for your God-given breakthrough.” Don’t get me wrong. I believe in giving, tithing, and generosity to God and the work of a local church, but there’s a fine line between teaching Scripture and the high-pressure tactics of some Pente preachers.

Paul wrote this to the Corinthian church: “you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” The Greek word translated as “compulsion” means “to bend the arm.” I promised Bayside Church at its first service in 1992 that I would NEVER pressurise people to give. I vowed to teach the Bible and present needs when they arose but never to compel anyone. I have kept that promise.

I feel for the many good people in Pentecostal churches who have succumbed to coercion and given to the point where they are struggling financially because they’ve given more than they can afford. Seeing their leaders flying in private jets, receiving luxury gifts, money laundering, evading tax, and getting and providing huge offerings rubs salt in their wounds. People feel hoodwinked and often quietly walk away from the church and sometimes from Jesus.

But Wait … There’s More!

Time doesn’t allow me to detail every concern about the Pentecostal church or outline everything Marc Fennell raised in The Kingdom. So, here are a few other considerations:

  • Sexual misconduct is sometimes common and invariably covered up. When sin is discovered, pastors take the role of victim and victim-shaming—blaming people and the devil instead of taking responsibility for mistakes.
  • The power trap. When I first joined the Pentecostal church, we were on the fringes of society and the church world. And that’s where we thrived. Gaining power and respectability have not done us any favours. We don’t do well when we’re in charge.
  • A lack of accountability, honesty, transparency, and good governance.
  • The celebrity pastor who is beyond questioning or critique.
  • Entertaining Christians rather than making disciples. It is my experience that many people from this church background have a wafer-thin understanding of Scripture and what it means to follow Jesus.
  • Reserved seating for VIPs and famous people flies in the face of James’ injunctions to the church to treat all people equally (James 2:2-4). These churches also discriminate against women (men dominate) and LGBTIQ+ people. I have a gay friend who used to attend Hillsong Sydney, and when he came out, he was stepped down from all ministry. He said, “All they’d let me do is tithe.”
  • Toxic positivity. We can’t just celebrate the good. We must own the damage that’s been done.

The Pentecostal / contemporary church must do better. Paul’s words to the Romans ring true here, “And Israel, who seemed so interested in reading and talking about what God was doing, missed it. How could they miss it? Because instead of trusting God, they took over. They were absorbed in what they themselves were doing. They were so absorbed in their “God projects” that they didn’t notice God right in front of them, like a huge rock in the middle of the road. And so, they stumbled into him and went sprawling.” (Romans 9:31-32 MSG)

Of course, thousands of pastors are getting it a good deal right, and we should thank God for them. These days my goal is to know and serve our people at Bayside Church, whether they be few or many, a shepherd that leads, teaches, loves and guides. People are precious; they are not numbers to make me look good at pastors’ conferences. People are not there to serve the pastors. Christians are called to support one another with humility and grace (John 13:1-17; Matthew 20:25-28; Philippians 2:1-7).

Marc Fennell ended The Kingdom by stating that he didn’t belong in a Pentecostal church anymore. And that’s fine. Pentecostal Christianity is just one flavour of Jesus’ church; not everyone will enjoy every aspect. The supernatural power of God attracted me to Jesus four decades ago, and I remain very much at home in that space. But people will explore their spirituality differently and should not be coerced or controlled in their search for meaning. God does not do control, and neither should his people!

Hillsong has given a gift of incredible worship songs to the church. I, for one, will keep singing them. After all, we sing songs (psalms) by people who are all equally flawed. In the meantime, let’s keep our eyes firmly fixed on Jesus, and whenever you encounter someone who’s been hurt by a church, listen, refrain from judgement, apologise, be kind, and don’t preach at them. They’ve had enough of that.

In last week’s blog, I explored the principal theories offered to describe and define the atonement, what Jesus achieved on the cross. There’s one more belief that requires more space than I could have given it last week, so that’s the subject of this blog ~ the limited atonement theory.

Defined

The idea of limited atonement is a theological doctrine associated with Calvinism or Reformed theology. Limited atonement suggests that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was intended only for the salvation of a specific group of people who are “elect” or the “chosen.”

However, limited atonement is debated among Christians, and there are valid arguments against it. Like me, those who disagree with limited atonement argue for a broader understanding of God’s redemptive work and emphasise the universal scope of Christ’s sacrifice.

Defended

The concept of limited atonement is defended by its proponents through a series of clever arguments. For example, they say that the Israelite sacrificial system, the prototype of atonement in Scripture, consisted of offerings given to Israel alone by God, to be performed by Israel alone to God, and whose benefits applied to Israel alone to the glory of God. In other words, it was limited.

In the New Testament, the limited reach of salvation is supported by verses like Matthew 1:21, “Jesus…will save his people from their sins.” “His people” being the Jews.

John 10:11 is also quoted in support of limited atonement. Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Jesus goes on to distinguish between those who are His sheep and those standing there who were not (v.26), suggesting that his atonement does not apply to them.

In Romans 8, while reflecting on Jesus’ death (32), Paul asks: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?” (33) Limited atonement supporters use these verses to say that Christ’s death is restricted to the people God chooses, and not for everyone else.

Denounced

While it’s true that the Jewish sacrificial system was just for Israel, God’s intention through Israel was that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ultimately, I believe, that blessing came through Jesus the Messiah.

Matthew’s statement that Jesus came to save his people from their sins is the same. One occasion, Jesus stated, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” He said this to a Gentile [Canaanite] woman who asked Jesus to heal her daughter. It’s a fascinating discussion in which Jesus banters with the little lady and draws out her great faith. He compliments her and heals her daughter showing that he did NOT just come for Israel but for Gentiles too.

Some of Jesus’ final words express this truth: “Go and make disciples of all the nations.” Nations (ethnos) refers to the world’s Gentile people groups. Why would Jesus instruct his followers to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” if, in fact, he only intended to save Jewish people? The gospel is universal in scope.

Demonstrated

Rather than Jesus’ work being limited, it is the opposite. Here are some of my reasons for this belief:

God’s desire for all to be saved: The Bible repeatedly expresses God’s passion for the salvation of all people. For instance, 1 Timothy 2:4 says God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The idea of limited atonement conflicts with this inclusive message.

The universality of sin: The Bible teaches that all humans are sinners and need redemption. Consider Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” If sin affects all people universally, Christ’s atoning sacrifice should likewise have universal significance. And let’s not forget the next verse, “and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Notice the word “all.” ALL have sinned; ALL are justified. Not a limited few.

God’s love for the world: One of the most well-known verses in the Bible, John 3:16, speaks of God’s love for the world and offer of salvation to all people.

The extent of Christ’s work is evident in John’s statement in chapter two of his first epistle. The entire chapter refutes the idea that Jesus’ death was in some way to appease God’s wrath against us. John writes, ” [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Christ’s sacrifice is not limited to a specific group of God’s favourites. Everyone is welcome and worthy, including YOU.

 

For much of this year, I’ve been teaching about the cross, what it means, what it achieved, and how it has impacted our everyday lives hundreds of years since the event. The cross is central to the Christian faith. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, our faith is futile.

Much of the New Testament was written to explain the reasons for the cross, and, as my recent teaching series has explored, there is not just one intention in the cross. The problem arises when we attempt to simplify the cross of Jesus and illuminate one truth above another. Overly simplistic statements emerge that claim, “THIS is why Jesus died.”

Because of this propensity, several theories about the cross have arisen. Many contain nuggets of truth; some are left wanting, while others are just plain wrong. So, let’s explore these atonement theories.

Penal Substitution Theory

The first sermon in the Cross-Examined series was titled “Did God Kill Jesus?” The message addressed this atonement theory which teaches God’s justice demanded the death of Jesus for him to forgive people of their sins. It was popularised during the Reformation and went something like this:

God loves you but is also angry with you because of your sin. Because God is just, he cannot simply forgive you. God’s justice must be satisfied. And so, because he loves you, he punished his Son instead of you. Jesus’ death on the cross appeased God’s wrath. You no longer need to bear God’s wrath if you believe this. If you reject this, you must take the punishment of God’s anger both now and forever. In summary, God killed Jesus for your benefit.

This theory makes God somehow less than God. God loves you and wants to save you, but he can’t until his justice is satisfied. See the problem? It makes justice greater than God. Justice is in charge here, and God becomes its servant.

Recapitulation Theory

Irenaeus proposed the Recapitulation theory in the second century. To recapitulate means “to go over the same ground again, to repeat or reiterate.” The theory suggests that Jesus went over the same ground as Adam, only he did it in perfect obedience. The Recapitulation Theory has ground in scripture, especially in Paul’s letters (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Romans 5:13-19).

The problem arises when this concept is pressed too far by saying that Jesus identified in every way with the first Adam, including experiencing sin. The Scriptures are emphatic that Jesus never sinned (1 Peter 2:22), even when experiencing temptation (Hebrews 4:15).

Satisfaction Theory

During the middle ages, Anselm (an Italian Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109) suggested the Satisfaction Theory of atonement. The theory is based on the feudal system of Anselm’s time. “In feudal society, an offender was required to make recompense, or satisfaction, to the one offended according to that person’s status. Thus, a crime against a king would require more satisfaction than a crime against a baron or a serf.” A crime (sin) against the eternal God requires the ultimate satisfaction of eternal death. But Jesus satisfied that requirement on the cross.

The satisfaction theory, a central tenet of Roman Catholic theology, virtually ignores Jesus’ actual substitution for sinners: his death on their behalf.

Moral Influence Theory

Another medieval theory was introduced by French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard as a reaction against Anselm’s satisfaction theory. Abelard rejected the notion of God as offended, harsh, and judgmental and focused instead on God’s love. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of sinners, turning back to God.

I agree with Abelard that the most crucial reason Jesus died was to demonstrate God’s extravagant love. But I don’t think that’s the only reason for the cross.

Example Theory

The Example Theory was propagated by Faustus Socinus, an Italian theologian, during the 16th-century Reformation. This theory (also dubbed the Moral or Martyr Theory) suggests that the cross was an example of obedience that should move people to regret their sins and live like Christ. The theory is popular amongst universalists who must perform theological gymnastics to explain away so much of the New Testament to embrace this idea.

Governmental Theory

Dutch lawyer and philosopher Hugo Grotius made this view famous in the 16th century in reaction to Socinus’s example theory. Grotius taught “that Christ upheld the principle of Government in God’s law by making a token payment for sin through His death.”

The Governmental Theory holds that Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve. Still, it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. The cross allows God to forgive sin. And this is problematic because any theory of atonement that makes God subservient to something else – his wrath or justice – should be rejected. God is no longer sovereign if he can’t forgive people without the cross. His wrath or justice becomes supreme.

Ransom to Satan Theory

First proposed by Origen in the early third century, this opinion holds that people are held captive by Satan, like prisoners of war (cf. 1 John 5:19). Origen taught that at the cross, a ransom was paid, not to God, but to Satan, based on verses like Matthew 20:28, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Cf. 1 Tim 2:6; Heb. 9:15). But there is no hint in scripture that the ransom was paid to Satan. God would be indebted to Satan if this were the case. We were bound to sin, and Jesus paid the price to free us. Paul put it this way, “having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” (Col. 2:14).

There’s one more notion of Christ’s atonement that I’d like to spend some time on, the Limited Atonement Theory. I’ll make that the topic of next week’s blog.

None of the atonement theories adequately explain the many reasons for the cross. For a fuller explanation of Jesus’ death, I invite you to watch the Cross-Examined series.

We regularly awaken to the news of another mass shooting in the USA. Several people have recently been shot for simply arriving at the wrong house. They were mistaken or lost and killed or seriously injured. Add to that the mass shootings in schools, churches, and shopping malls, and it appears that America is highly unsafe.

My main concern in this blog is the people who follow Jesus, claim the Christian faith, are staunch defenders of gun ownership and the Second Amendment, and use the Bible to endorse their point of view. How does this align with the teachings of Jesus?

Self-Disclosure

I want to be transparent about my emotions on this topic because I feel very passionately about it. It is also a cause of enormous frustration to me as the US appears unable or unwilling to act on this significant problem. While I am not anti-firearms per se, they should be strongly regulated. I acknowledge some people love hunting, but I’m not one of them. I struggle with the concept of killing animals and calling it a sport. I understand that sometimes culling is necessary, but there’s a big difference between culling and killing for fun.

I greatly appreciate our government’s decisive action to reduce the number of illegal firearms in Australia. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, our new Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced a gun amnesty in which 600,000 firearms were handed in. Gun deaths by homicide and suicide plummeted, and Australia has not seen the likes of Port Arthur since. The same cannot be said for the US.

Back in the USA

There were 647 mass shootings in the US last year. A mass shooting is where four or more people are shot or killed, not including the attacker. With this definition, shootings of under four people are not included.

In 2022, there were only 97 days when a mass shooting was not recorded. So far, in 2023, there have been 185 mass shootings. Last weekend saw eleven mass shootings, but we only heard about the worst one. There are so many that it’s not worth reporting on the smaller ones.

Why’s it Getting Worse?

The trend has risen sharply in recent years. In 2022, there were 44,290 gun-related deaths, a 31% increase on 2019. Nine of the ten deadliest mass shootings in the US occurred after 2007. There are several reasons for this:

Gun ownership is on the rise. And no wonder, there is so little regulation that even a 13-year-old can legally buy a gun. If you don’t believe me, watch this short clip from Bryant Gumbel’s Real Sports. US gun laws are lax, irregular, and ineffective. For example, US Federal law does not require that background checks be made on private sales of guns, including at gun shows or online. Regulations on the safe storage of firearms are also lax in some states.

A fractured society. America was already politically divided well before Covid-19. The Pandemic only made things worse.

Rampant Conspiracies. I know this firsthand as I’ve watched some dear friends descend the rabbit hole of ridiculous plots. They believe in a Deep State Cabal that controls the government. They love Trump because this Cabal does not govern him, so they want him back in power. They believe the Port Arthur massacre was a false flag operation, an excuse for the government to strip Australians of firearms so the government can control the masses. Senator Pauline Hansen peddled this rubbish just a few years ago. Many Americans (including Christians) buy into this and fear it is happening in the US.

Toxic masculinity. 98% of shooters are men.

Financial or personal hardship. Undoubtedly, the gap between the haves and have-nots is getting wider. And this resentment can fuel frustration and anger that can lead to violence. But people face these things in Australia and other countries without resorting to shooting others.

The Second Amendment

Christian Nationalism, a perversion of the Bible and the gospel, is sadly rising in the USA. I know several conservative American Christians who love their God and their guns. They view the US Constitution as sacred and defend their beliefs from Scripture.

The Second Amendment states, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The militia refers to the American people.

The Second Amendment needs to be amended. It was first enacted on 15 December 1791, long before semi-automatic weapons. Muskets were the order of the day. Muskets were inaccurate, had a 30-second reloading time, and couldn’t shoot as far as 100 metres.

Misquoting Scripture

Christian gun activists quote Luke 22:36 & 38 to defend their beliefs. Jesus told his disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied. There you go. Jesus told his followers to buy weapons to defend themselves, so we should own guns. But is that what Jesus is teaching here?

Jesus is speaking to Peter and John just before his arrest. When Judas betrayed Jesus, his followers saw what would happen and said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51).

Why did Jesus tell Peter and John to ensure they had weapons if they weren’t supposed to use them? Because those arresting Jesus came fully armed with swords and clubs (Luke 22:52-53), but Jesus didn’t want his disciples to behave that way. Impetuous Peter misses the moment and the message and gets it wrong again.

Jesus wanted to show that they weren’t leading an armed rebellion, so Luke 22:36 is not teaching American Christians that they should own guns. Jesus teaches the opposite by telling Peter, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” That could be a prophetic word for the United States, a nation living by and dying by the gun.

I invite you to pray for the US and the American church. I wonder what will need to happen before the nation and some sections of the church come to their senses and act in unity to stem the shedding of innocent blood. How many more people will need to die before a change is made?

I shared some of my experiences with the Potter’s House Church in last week’s blog. One of the damaging doctrines in that church, and sadly in some other contemporary churches, includes an emphasis on male headship and women’s submission. These are two traditions that go hand-in-hand.

I find it hard to believe that we’re in 2023 and still having to address such things. Women were allowed to vote a hundred years ago, yet women’s rights are still being fought for, even within the church. And so, let’s investigate these doctrines, how the Bible is used to justify and enforce them, and what I believe the scriptures teach.

What is Headship?

The word headship is not found in the Bible. But to be fair, the word Trinity isn’t in scripture either, but the concept is. The idea of male headship is based on Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 11:3, I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Other translations, like the ESV, say that the head of the wife is her husband. And there you have it, plain and simple. A teaching that has influenced churches as diverse as Potters House, Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church, and the Amish Community.

Headship is about leadership, control, and authority. And it is very easily abused. In fact, according to a report by the ABC, “Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically.” What an awful indictment on the church.

Context, Context, Context

After his comment about who is the head of who, Paul dictates the proper use of head coverings and hair length for men and women. I find it interesting that the very churches that teach male headship over women don’t enforce head coverings for women (the Amish excepted) or ban long hair for guys. Just look at some of the famous worship leaders. We Christians can be so selective as we cherry-pick our favourite Bible verses and ignore the bits we don’t like.

So, how should we understand Paul’s statement? First Corinthians is composed of five essays. Chapter eleven begins essay four on worship, particularly how men and women lead in worship and teach in church gatherings. Remember that the Corinthian church was full of zeal but lacked wisdom, so Paul is writing to them to bring some order out of their charismatic chaos. The verse in question is in the context of men and women prophesying (lit. divinely inspired teaching). Ah, so women are allowed to preach, then.

Paul is NOT teaching against women in ministry, nor is he against women teaching the word and leading churches. He affirms these things elsewhere in the Scriptures. For example, Acts records that Greek women of high standing were attracted to Paul’s preaching. Such women would not be attracted to a message that didn’t treat men and women as equals (Acts 16:14; 17:4,12,34). Lydia was the leader of the Philippian church (Acts 16:35-40). Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2) is called a deacon (not a deaconess) and a leader.

In Corinth, Paul lived with Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:1-4). Priscilla was a teacher of scripture and, along with her husband, taught the famous Apollos (Acts 18:26). This is an example of a woman instructing a man, something that complementarian churches like those mentioned above are dead against.

What did Paul Mean?

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is not teaching about male superiority to women or prohibiting women from vocal ministries within church gatherings. So, what does the word “head” mean in this context?

The head of every man is Christ.

The head of the woman is man.

The head of Christ is God.

Complementarians say that “head” relates to authority, but is that correct? The Greek word translated “Head” (kephale) can mean one of three things:

  1. A literal head (cranium, skull).
  2. To have authority or status over (the head of the company).
  3. The source of (e.g. headwaters at the start of a river)

For example, the Jewish New Year is called Rosh Hashanah, meaning “the head of the year.” It doesn’t mean that the first day of the year is more important or “in authority over” the rest of the year. It is the day from which the rest of the year flows. It is the source or origin of the year. With that meaning in mind, we could translate 1 Corinthians 11:3 as follows, I want you to realize that the origin of every man is Christ, and the origin of the woman is man, and the origin of Christ is God. This understanding sits very well with the rest of the scriptures.

It’s all About the Source

The origin of every man is Christ. Jesus is the agent of God’s creation, a truth that Paul affirmed earlier in this letter when writing about Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor. 8:6).

The origin of the woman is man, a reference to Genesis 2:21-23 when the woman was taken out of the man’s side. The source of Christ is God means that Christ is the Messiah, and the origin of the Messiah is God.

What About Submission?

Those who tout the doctrines of headship and submission love Ephesians chapter five, especially from verse 22: Wives, submit to your own husbands. But they appear to conveniently ignore verse 21, submitting to one another in the fear of God. The apostle writes about mutual submission without room for domination, control, or abuse. The Greek word hupotassó means “to arrange under.” (Hupo, under; Tasso, arrange). We all do this daily for the healthy running of our society. Obeying the speed limit is a good example.

Jesus submitted to the Father for the plan of salvation. The church places itself under Jesus for salvation. Husbands and wives submit to each other through love and respect, but it doesn’t mean one is more significant. Submission implies that we work together for a common purpose, whether in marriage, the church, the workplace, or society.

In Summary

Paul’s teaching on headship and submission has nothing to do with the superiority of men over women. He is not suggesting that men and women are equal but have different roles, as complementarians teach. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 11, he affirms the equal right of both men and women to teach and preach the word and to lead in church gatherings. By excluding women from active ordained leadership and teaching the Bible, some churches make a grave error that restricts women from their God-given place within the body of Christ and exposes women to the dangers of manipulation and abuse.

I have been following The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes’ investigation into the link between The Potter’s House Church and the Eastern Freeway truck crash which killed four police in 2020. “The truck driver, Mohinder Singh, claims he raised issues about his fatigue and delusions with his boss, Simiona Tuteru, also known as Simon, who laid hands on him and prayed before they agreed Singh would drive one last load.” Tuteru is a senior leader, former missionary, and pastor within the Potter’s House.

I watched the 60 Minutes investigation and read the follow-up articles in The Age this week. It brought back all kinds of feelings and memories of my experiences with this church several decades ago.

A Little History

The Potter’s House Christian Church (not to be confused with Bishop T.D. Jakes Church in Dallas) sprung up in the early 70s during the Jesus People movement, which saw thousands of hippies come to know Jesus.

Pastor Wayman Mitchell was a pastor who experienced hippies joining his church and welcomed them with open arms. The Potter’s House was born, a church focused on evangelism through movies, concerts, and coffee shops. Over the decades, they have established over 3000 churches in the US and 120 nations.

First Encounters

After two years of drifting from Jesus, I returned to my faith in 1979 and joined the local Assemblies of God (AOG) Church. I started sharing the gospel with my friends; many came to faith in Jesus.

My first encounter with Potter’s House was in the early 1980s when an American couple, Lynn & Linda Litton, came from Perth to establish a church in Geraldton. The new church began the aggressive evangelism that Potter’s House is known for and quickly gathered a core group of young people. I attended some of their movie and concert nights, but I didn’t resonate with the ultra-American aggressive approach of Lynn Litton. Neither did I appreciate his long, drawn-out altar calls that sought to drag as many people to Jesus as possible on every occasion.

Over the next few years, some people I had led to Jesus left the AOG church and started attending Potter’s House. I remember being very disheartened about this, but I also understood because there were some profound problems within the AOG church at the time.

Major Concerns

I was not surprised by any revelations about the Potter’s House on 60 Minutes. It showed me that little or nothing had changed in the church since my experiences forty years ago.

The church I remember was legalistic, controlling, aggressive, harsh, and judgmental. The leaders used fear tactics to control the members. For example, the AOG Church I attended had a weekly prayer meeting at 6 am. Because of my work as the breakfast announcer on Geraldton’s commercial radio station, I couldn’t usually attend the prayer meeting. But I did go when I was on holiday and in town. One morning, a young guy (I’ll call him Matt) came into our prayer meeting. He was breathless and agitated. He had slept in and was freaked out that he would miss the early prayer meeting at Potter’s House (our church was closer for him to get to). Matt begged our pastor to phone Lynn Litton and let him know he had been at a prayer meeting. There were consequences that he didn’t want to endure.

Fear Tactics

As highlighted by 60 Minutes, Potter’s House engages in fear tactics to attract new members and retain existing ones. In the early 80s, they repeatedly showed the dreadful “Christian” movies circulating then. Films like A Thief in the Night, A Distant Thunder, and Image of the Beast frightened a generation of young people, myself included. If you weren’t “saved”, this is what would happen to you, and it would all happen very soon. Of course, nothing happened, but we didn’t know that then. I now know that these films are based on a bogus interpretation of the Bible that a cult leader developed.

It doesn’t surprise me that Potter’s House still uses these same tactics on impressionable people. Fear is a powerful controlling agent that churches have used for centuries. Dangling people over hell and threatening them with demonic activity is not Jesus’ way. Attributing every human ailment to personal sin and demonic control is overly simplistic and downright dangerous.

Evangelism or Exasperation?

In Geraldton, Potter’s House started an aggressive campaign of street evangelism and a constant stream of so-called revival meetings featuring American preachers. The town was already experiencing an incredible move of God, and many people were coming to Christ, but the aggressive approach by Potter’s House people got the town offside. Admittedly, their tactics worked on some people, and a few people I knew became Christians and joined Potter’s House, but people were angry that they couldn’t walk through town without being accosted by some street preacher.

But There’s More!

Time and space don’t allow me to address all my experiences in detail, so here are a few other things I witnessed:

  • Potter’s House teaches insecure salvation.

You could quickly lose your salvation; you’d have to be saved again if you sinned. I have seen this more than once.

  • Potter’s House is judgmental of other Christians.

They used a term for those of us who attended other churches. We were “Lukeys”, slang for being a lukewarm Christian. We weren’t considered full-on for Jesus like the Potter’s House Christians. I now recognise this as the gnostic pride that it is.

  • Potter’s House exerts excessive levels of control.

Members of Potter’s House were discouraged from taking holidays (holidays were for lukeys) and told not to watch television or non-Christian movies or listen to secular music. All of these were “of the devil.” And they had to attend every service, prayer meeting, revival, and outreach night.

  • Potter’s House leaders need to be more trained.

Bible Colleges and formal training were the butts of jokes at Potter’s House. Seminaries were called cemeteries because your faith would die there. As a result, the pastors I knew about were untrained and ill-equipped.

  • Potter’s House echoes some of the practices found in cults.

While Potter’s House preaches the Christian gospel, many of their beliefs and practices should ring alarm bells. In my experience, there was an emphasis on getting to know unbelievers only to evangelise them. Those who left the church were shunned; families became divided and broken. Members were encouraged to only marry within the church. They were exclusive and tended to isolate their members by keeping them busy doing “the Lord’s work.”

I understand the appeal of churches like Potter’s House, especially for young people. They are zealous, radical, and uncompromising. Many of my friends were drawn to the church in the 80s, but they have all since left for the reasons I’ve stated above. Many returned to the Geraldton AOG church, which still thrives today under new leadership. Others are active in local churches in Australia and New Zealand.

I have written this blog as an encouragement to remain vigilant. Sometimes a church can look very appealing, but watch out for warning signs and listen to your intuition and the Holy Spirit.

Where does the church belong?

During my four-plus decades as a Christian, and a member of the church, I have heard many declarations of who and what the church is and its rightful place:

We are to be “the head, not the tail.”

We are to rule and reign on the earth.

And take dominion.

Dominion theology, which I will write about in a future blog, is a politically-oriented doctrine that seeks to found a nation governed by Christians, Christian “values,” and understandings of Biblical law. In other words, the church rules society through the government.

But are any of these legitimate statements that describe the church’s role as laid out by Jesus? Let’s find out.

Jesus’ Example

Holy Week, beginning with Palm Sunday is an excellent time to explore the question of the church’s rightful place.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt on the first Palm Sunday, making an unmissable statement to first-century people. If Jesus were on government business, seeking to take control (dominion), he would have ridden the adult donkey, not the colt. If he had sought to overthrow Rome’s regime and found a new kingdom, horses and chariots would have been Jesus’ choice. But Jesus chose a colt, a donkey under four years old. What a statement!

The people treated him as royalty that day, spreading their garments and waving palm branches as they would for a king. A few days later, they demanded the release of Jesus Bar-Abbas (Jesus, son of god, abba) instead of the actual Jesus, Son of God. The crowd is fickle. Nothing has changed.

Imagine a grown man riding a small animal. No doubt Jesus looked anything but kingly that day, but he was making a point. The people, including his followers, expected a king to take charge, overthrow Rome, and establish his kingdom with Israel in control. When they didn’t get their way, they killed him.

Even after the resurrection, his disciples asked, “Are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” They still didn’t get it.

Jesus’ Teaching

Jesus did not come to be served but to serve. He taught and demonstrated this throughout his ministry. The night before his death, Jesus assumed the position of the lowest household servant and washed his disciples’ feet, saying, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”

On one occasion, two of Jesus’ followers talked their mum into asking Jesus if her boys could sit at Jesus’ “right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” The other disciples were miffed. Jesus used this amusing incident to get his point across. He spoke about how earthly rulers exercise authority by lording it over people. You know, taking dominion, being the head and not the tail. Jesus said, “Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave.”

The theme of servanthood then resonates throughout the New Testament.

Getting it Right

The centuries following Jesus’ resurrection have demonstrated what it looks like when the church gets it right – and when it forgets its rightful place and seeks to dominate. Christians and churches are to serve others, not control them. God doesn’t DO control, and neither should his people. Consider all the good in this world as a result of Christians taking their rightful place of servanthood.

“Over the centuries, the church has founded schools, hospitals and orphanages; Christians have campaigned for prison reform, better housing and an end to the slave trade; they have helped to establish a huge number of charities to support the poor, the underprivileged, prisoners and their families, the homeless and those seeking justice. Christians were involved in setting up many of the best-known charities, including Oxfam, the Salvation Army, the Samaritans and the RSPCA.”

Wherever there is poverty and injustice, you will find Christian people who behave like Jesus—serving others amid disasters and advocating for the voiceless in the corridors of power.

But, then …

But, when we forget Jesus’ example and take control instead of serving, we get it dreadfully wrong. Consider the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch trials as glaring examples. One of the worst things that ever happened to the church was Constantine declaring Christianity the Roman Empire’s official religion. The church took charge and became wealthy and powerful. And the world entered the Dark Ages.

More recently, “Christians” have committed child sexual abuse, and churches have covered it up to protect their power and reputation. We’ve sought to dictate and control what others can and can’t do and lobbied against the rights of people we disagree with. When we act this way, we cease to follow the example of Jesus, the servant, and society at large thinks less of Christians and the church. They take a step away from Jesus. The gospel suffers, and the church declines.

The Real Gospel

I want to be understood here. I am not saying that the Christian message is all about good works. But people deserve to see the genuine gospel in action. It is a message of God’s love for people and a desire for reconciliation without “counting people’s sins against them.” When we behave like we’re in charge, when we domineer and always want our way, when we seek to protect OUR rights above the rights of others, we cease to be like Jesus.

Let’s take up the towel and the basin of water and wash others’ feet. That’s the church’s rightful place.