Author: Jimmy Day

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.

 

One of the things that stands out in the Bible’s early chapters is the age at which some people lived. I mean, Adam was 130 years old when he started a family! Even the thought of that is exhausting.

And that’s not the least of it. Lamech lived to the ripe old age of 777. Adam was 930 when he died. Methuselah was 969, the oldest person of all time. Noah became a dad for the first time at 500.

Ancient texts from many cultures have listed life spans most modern people find unbelievable. For example, the 4,000-year-old Sumerian King List details the reigns of kings in Sumer (ancient southern Iraq) as exceeding 30,000 years in some cases. It also mentions eight kings who reigned for 241,200 years. No one would take that literally.

Explanations

As with almost everything in the Christian world, there are various opinions and positions on the ages in Genesis. Some will take these ages literally, as that’s how they regard Genesis. God created the world in six 24-hour days, made a woman from a man’s side, and people lived for hundreds of years.

First-century Roman-Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it.”

Metaphor

While some people consider these ages literal, others believe they’re metaphorical. Most Jewish theologians think Genesis chapters 1 to 11 to be symbolic. Many Christians agree. I’ve written about this elsewhere. You can also listen to my teaching on this on the Digging Deeper podcast.

The stories up to Abraham are to be understood metaphorically rather than literally. Long lives and old ages are a way of saying the person lived for an extensive time or has seen a lot of events. We still use Methuselah as an example of longevity today with the Idiom, “He’s as old as Methuselah.” When we say this, we don’t mean it literally. No one is suggesting the person is 969 years old. It’s used to communicate that someone is very advanced in years. Other similar idioms include “She’s as old as the hills.” (or “over the hill”) or “They have one Foot in the Grave.” None of these sayings is considered factual, but they all communicate the truth.

Other Considerations 

Some interpret the ages as an ancient form of bragging. Another consideration is how time was measured and viewed in the ancient world. For example, Jesus said, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40). But that is not literally true. Jesus was crucified on Passover (or the day before Passover according to John’s gospel) on a Friday. He died about 3 p.m. He rose again early on Sunday morning, meaning he was in the grave for about 40 hours, not 72 hours. Jesus’ statement is not literally true.

An understanding of the Hebrew mindset is helpful here. Ancient Hebrews considered time as a “part for a whole.” In other words, a portion of a day was still considered as an entire day, a concept known as Synecdoche. We use expressions like this too. For example, cattle are counted by “head.” But the “head of cattle” doesn’t discount the rest of their body. Someone may comment on your car by saying, “nice wheels.” Of course, they’re referring to the entire vehicle. And so, Jesus’ statement about three days and three nights takes in Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, even though Friday and Sunday were only part days.

Was time measured and viewed in the ancient world as it is today? Probably not. A metaphorical understanding of the Bible’s old ages sits well with me. But you decide what is comfortable for you. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Is it a truth that affects the way we live today? Not at all.

Finally,

If you hold a literal view of this subject and feel strongly that you must defend it, it would be helpful to ask yourself why. Why is that important to you? Does it affect your life or that of others? Do you have a “House of cards” view of Scripture? – If this is wrong, nothing in the Bible is correct. The Bible doesn’t behave that way; sometimes, it doesn’t behave at all. We mustn’t make the Scriptures into something that they were never intended to be. The Bible is alive, active, inspired, and ancient and contains truth that powerfully impacts us today even though it comes to us from times past.

 

We find the most in-depth insights into the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the resurrection chapter. Please read and ponder verses 35 to 50, in which Paul states his case and then illustrates it with several mini parables. He begins with two questions asking how the dead are raised and what kind of body they will have.

Question one is answered in the first part of the chapter. The dead are raised because Jesus has defeated death through his resurrection. Because Jesus has conquered death, we can, too, as we place our trust in him. Paul then turns his attention to question 2: With what kind of body will they come?

The Example of the Seed

What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed, he gives its own body.

The seed is a body that first must die. In John 12:24, Jesus said unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. No doubt, Jesus was speaking about his impending death. He died as just one man, but his resurrection has cultivated many “seeds” – the billions of people following him.

That body (seed) dies, and God gives it a new body different from the one that perishes. That’s excellent news. Your resurrection body won’t have the same limitations of tiredness, hunger, and sickness endured by the human body.

As Kenneth E. Bailey says, “the new plant that arises from the soil is not created out of the vegetable matter found in the seed. Paul is not telling his readers that in the resurrection the (flesh) will magically reform and arise using the same bone and flesh with which it died.”

This is important because sometimes Christians are unsure about organ donation and cremation because they fear it may affect the resurrection. But your new body will be made of different stuff, so have no fear.

Flesh and Sun

Paul continues this thought in the following parable. The resurrected body will be different from the natural body we possess now. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

He then speaks about Heavenly bodies. Paul isn’t referring to Hollywood actors here; he has the sun, moon, and stars in mind. The sun has one kind of splendour, the moon and the stars another, and each star differs in brilliance. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead.

From our point of view, the sun dies each night and is resurrected in the morning. Even though the sun doesn’t move, we speak of it rising and setting. The moon and stars die each morning and get resurrected each evening. In the same way, death and resurrection are part of each day’s cycle.

Adam and Jesus

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Paul continues by using the example of the first man, Adam, and the last Adam (Jesus). The first Adam inaugurated the long chain of perishable human bodies. According to Bailey, “the last Adam, Jesus, launched a new age where the incorruptible will inherit the eternal kingdom in the new creation. Paul is referring to the coming of the kingdom of God in its fullness at the end of the age.”[1]

In this present life, all people are like The First Man, having a natural body of the “dust of the earth.” (Genesis 3:19). Almost 99% of the human body’s mass is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Almost all of the remaining 1% comprises another five elements: potassium, sulphur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. Our natural body, says Paul, is perishable, sown in dishonour and weakness as typified by the first Adam who disobeyed, lied to cover it up, blamed his wife, and then blamed God.

As was the earthly man, so are those of the earth. In other words, we can all relate to Adam’s story because it is our story too. We blame others and God rather than take personal responsibility. We are sinners, but that is NOT the end of the story. Like a seed precedes a plant, the natural body precedes the spiritual body.

Paul writes, “just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.” Paul refers to Jesus as the last Adam, the second man, and the heavenly man, and makes several statements about the resurrection body which is:

Raised imperishable. The resurrected body will not decay or perish (John 3:16). It will be immortal.

Raised in glory. Possessing qualities of integrity, reliability, and wisdom.

Raised in power. The ability to express the life-giving power of love like Jesus demonstrated through the cross.

Raised a spiritual body. The natural (physical) body is sown into death, and, just like a grain of wheat, it springs up as a spiritual body. This body is constituted and directed by the Holy Spirit, thus one that cannot sin, as was God’s original plan.

A Body Like Jesus’

In the resurrection, we will acquire a body that is like Jesus’ resurrection body – tangible, physical. We will not be disembodied spirits floating around on clouds playing the harp. Thank goodness! After his resurrection, Jesus walked, talked, and ate food with people. He was seen by them but also vanished and reappeared in different places. He moved with ease between physical and spiritual dimensions.

Kenneth E. Bailey writes, “In the resurrection, the believer will have a Spirit-constituted physical body. The brokenness and decay of the old body will be gone. The new body will be a physical body like the resurrected body of Christ. Such a glorious vision and promise calls for an exuberant hymn of victory,” which is how Paul ends this chapter:

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Hallelujah!

[1] Bailey, Kenneth E. Paul through Mediterranean eyes, p. 460.

We, humans, are fascinated by death and life beyond the grave. Before becoming a Christian, I frequently pondered these things and was riveted by discussions about reincarnation and communicating with the dead. One of the things that attracted me to the Christian faith was the assurance that this life is not all there is to life. So, let’s dive into some questions about heaven, resurrection, and immortality.

Do we go Straight to Heaven When we Die?

Christians differ on the answer to this question. Some believe as I do, that we go straight to heaven when we die. Others believe the Bible teaches Soul Sleep, that the righteous sleep until judgement day.

By heaven, I’m referring to the third heaven, which is God’s home and where Jesus is now. It is this third heaven that Paul said he visited either bodily or in a vision.

Jesus taught about the Kingdom of heaven, which is the impact of God’s nature on the earth. This is the emphasis of the New Testament and teachings of Jesus and is to be the focus of all followers of Jesus. In other words, our attention is on the here and now rather than the hereafter.

Searching the Scriptures

What does the Bible teach about going to heaven? Paul had much to say about this, particularly to the Corinthian church:

2 Cor 5:1, “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” Notice that he refers to the body as a tent. A tent is a temporary dwelling place rather than a permanent home. It’s a beautiful comparison.

2 Cor 5:6-8, “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” You can also read Philippians 1:23 and 2 Tim 4:18 to gain more of Paul’s insights.

Peter wrote about heaven as our imperishable inheritance (1 Peter 1:4). The author of Hebrews spoke of the Old Testament saints longing for a better, heavenly country (11:16) in which to dwell.

Jesus spoke of a time when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. It appears that upon death, the soul of the faithful person goes to be with the Lord in his presence.

Soul Sleep

Some Christians believe that a person’s soul sleeps from death to the resurrection. Martin Luther believed this, as does Nicky Gumbel of Alpha Course fame. Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 4 are used in defence: “we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of humanity, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” (13-14).

I believe the sleep here is metaphorical, like Jesus spoke about Lazarus when he died, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

Proponents of soul sleep believe people’s souls are awoken for the resurrection at Christ’s return. But resurrection ALWAYS refers to the body, not the soul.

Consider Jesus’ interactions with the thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Supporters of soul sleep move a comma, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.” There is no punctuation in the original manuscripts, so it is a matter of opinion.

I believe our spirit/soul goes straight to heaven when we die, but I understand why some Christians believe the soul sleeps until judgement day. Whatever the case, one thing is sure, “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39).

When Does our Spirit Become Immortal?

Is the human spirit immortal, or is it made immortal when we’re born again or when we are resurrected? Once again, there are numerous views on this within the Christian church. In recent years I have come to lean more towards what is known as Christian mortalism, that the human soul is not inherently mortal and that one of the outcomes of Jesus’ death and resurrection is the gift of eternal life. In other words, people do not possess immortality. It is a gift from God.

Scripture says that [God] alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16; Cf. John 5:26). If he is the only immortal being that counts people out.

Consider God’s words in Genesis 3:22-23 after the man and woman had “become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and also take from the tree of life and eat and live forever.” So, the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden.” God acted kindly so that people would not live forever in poor conditions.

People do not live forever. The human soul is not immortal apart from an act of God by granting the gift of eternal life because “Our Saviour, Christ Jesus…has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (2 Timothy 1:10; Cf. Romans 6:23; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Peter 1:3-4; Romans 2:7; Matthew 10:28).

We are given the gift of eternal life when we are born again. I am still determining whether our spirit becomes immortal at that point or when we are resurrected.

Next week, I’ll examine what the Bible says about the resurrection body.

I imagine you’ve recently caught the news concerning a lewd joke about Jesus being told on The Project. Gay comedian and cabaret performer Reuben Kaye was a guest on the current affairs program a few days ago and created a storm over a crude reference to Jesus. What’s happened since is a stream of comments, news reports, and blogs expressing outrage, support, and everything in between. So, here’s another one!

Apologies

Watching the interview, you’ll notice that The Project‘s anchor man, Waleed Aly, was singularly unimpressed with Kaye’s joke. The following day, Aly told The Project‘s audience, “We want to acknowledge the particular offence and hurt that it caused our Muslim and especially our Christian viewers. Obviously, I understand how profound that offence was.” Aly is a devout Muslim. Jesus is greatly revered within Islam and is the most-mentioned person in the Quran.

Another panellist, Sarah Harris, also apologised, “Live TV is unpredictable,” she said. “And when this happened in the last few moments of the show, it took us all by surprise; there wasn’t a lot of time to react in a considered way.” She’s spot on. I interviewed hundreds of people during my radio and television career, and things can be unpredictable, especially when interviewing “live.” We’re all wiser in hindsight. Think about all the times you’d love to go back to THAT conversation (or argument) and say things differently or not at all. That’s what live interviewing is like. You do your best at the time. You apologise when you get it wrong. But, of course, the apology was not enough for some.

The Backstory

Reuben Kaye has spoken about the hate he receives for his sexuality and dressing up in drag, particularly from the Christian community. Pause and think about that. The people who follow Jesus and carry the good news; people who are to treat others in the way they would like to be treated; people who are to love their neighbour as themselves have communicated hatred towards a person, and a community, because they are perceived as more sinful than others. The LGBTQ+ minorities have been singled out by much of the church for special attention and particular condemnation.

And so, should those who frequently receive disdain from Christians not feel justified in firing a few shots back? While I disagree with Reuben Kaye’s joke, I understand why he spoke the way he did. I’d love to hear his story one day if I ever have the chance to chat with him.

Cancel Culture

How has the Christian community reacted to all this? Well, we don’t like it, of course. We’re happy to dish up unkind words to others, but we can’t afford others the right to reply. We cry foul about “Cancel Culture,” then protest against The Project, asking for it to be cancelled. We speak words of judgement and condemnation and act surprised when the recipients of our harshness retaliate.

We argue that our freedom of speech is being threatened, that Christians are under fire, and then whine when someone else expresses their freedom of speech. There’s no hypocrisy to see here; please move on!

But Jesus Got Angry

I can hear the argument already. But Jesus got angry, so we have a right to be angry too. Yes, we do, but let’s reflect on what made Jesus angry. Mark tells the story of Jesus’ anger with the religious leaders who sought to kill him because he was good to people on the Sabbath. Shock horror.

Matthew 23 is an entire chapter that records Jesus’ angry rant towards these same leaders “who shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces,” just like the church has done to the LGBTQ+ community.

And then there’s Jesus’ famous clearing of the temple where he “drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons” – an apparent act of anger. You can’t imagine Jesus doing this with a smile on his face. But why did he do it?

After he cleared the temple court, “the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them.” It’s significant because these people weren’t allowed inside the temple because of their disabilities. The space had been filled with people profiting from religion, and Jesus saw red and made room for those genuinely in need.

I wonder if you can see parallels between this story and those modern religion has kept out of God’s church.

WWJD?

What would Jesus think of Reuben Kaye’s joke? How would Jesus respond? Would he be as offended as some of his people? I think not. Jesus was reviled plenty during his life, and he rarely reacted. Peter wrote, “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

The gospels tell us that Jesus remained silent before his accusers. Sometimes being quiet takes more strength than talking. How does this enlighten us as followers of Jesus? What if we instead used our voices to speak out against injustice and exclusion? What if we got offended by the things that outraged Jesus?

Jesus is as angry with hypocrisy today as he’s ever been. Any form of Christianity that blocks people from gathering with other believers to grow in grace is NOT the faith that Jesus pioneered. In the gospels, Jesus mixes comfortably with all kinds of people. His only words of anger and condemnation were reserved for religious hypocrites who built walls to keep certain “undesirables” out. Through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus tore the walls down and welcomed all people to come to him and find rest for their souls.

The Project

As for The Project, this has been a challenging time. No doubt there have been lots of discussions and introspection behind the scenes. But I can only speak from personal experience. Waleed Aly and the team at The Project were very kind to Christie and me during the years we advocated for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. They interviewed us and spoke with empathy for the boys. I, for one, would not like to see The Project cancelled. And I hope that we who follow Jesus will speak with kindness and grace and advocate for second (and third) chances for all people, just like we have received ourselves.

Whether you’re Roman Catholic or not, you’ve probably heard of a place called Purgatory. It’s a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of those who die in grace, in friendship with God, but are compensating for some venial sins before going to heaven. It’s an antechamber of Hell, a place of divine cleansing (purging) from which some will eventually emerge as redeemed and united with God.

According to Roman Catholic theology, the living can hasten the purification process through prayers and charitable works on behalf of the dead.

Developing Doctrine

The doctrine of Purgatory was developed during the Dark Ages in the late 500s. The suffering in Purgatory is twofold: physical pain and separation from God. The ideology was primarily based on one passage in the Apocrypha and one in the New Testament.

The Apocryphal reference is 2 Maccabees (Date: 124 BC) 12:44–45, “For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.”

Regarding the believers’ judgment, Paul wrote, “It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work…If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.”

Add to that Hebrews 12:29, “our God is a consuming fire,” and, according to Catholic interpretation of these verses, the souls of the departed are purged and purified by fire in Purgatory.

Correct Understanding?

Though it is not necessary to interpret the Corinthians text to mean the fire of Purgatory, it was common among the Latin Fathers to understand this fire as a reference to some short-lived punishment and purification before the final salvation. Examples of this explanation can be found in the writings of Augustine and Caesar of Arles.

But Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 3 is symbolic. He writes about building on a foundation already laid, Jesus Christ. The way Jesus’ followers build on that foundation is in view here. Our building material is our good works. Paul says they are like gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw. On the Day (presumably Judgement Day), the quality of people’s works will be brought to light, being “revealed with fire.” His allegory is powerful when considering what fire does to these various materials. Wood, hay and straw are ruined, while gold, silver, and costly stones are refined.

While none of this is literal, Paul’s meaning is clear. What Christians do now has eternal ramifications, but our salvation is never questioned because we are not saved by works but by God’s grace flowing through faith alone: “If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved.” The loss is an absence of reward.

Consider Jesus’ words to the repentant thief on the cross next to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43). This man had done nothing to bring that was any good, but Jesus promised him direct entry to the paradise of God. No purging was necessary to pay for his sins because Jesus forgave him completely.

Why Fire?

Scripture frequently uses the symbol of fire when discussing the judgment and reconciliation of all things. Christians hold various views on the nature and purpose of the fire.

Those who believe in eternal conscious torment (ECT) believe fire is punitive. ECT adherents believe Hell is forever, and people will never be able to escape the agony of the flames. It is, in my opinion, a horrendous concept that contradicts the nature of a God who IS love.

Conditional immortality (also known as annihilationism) teaches that fire destroys. Those who believe this do not consider the human soul immortal, which is why Jesus gives eternal life as a gift. On Judgement Day, the unrepentant are sentenced to finite punishment and then cease to exist.

Finally, there’s the teaching of universal salvation and purgatory which view fire as purifying. People suffer a time when their sins are thoroughly cleansed. Eventually, everyone is granted access to paradise to enjoy eternity in God’s presence.

Each of these views has scripture to support them. I’ve written about this in more detail here.

Where to from here? Please do some personal study if this topic interests you. Whatever you believe, never use it to provoke fear in others or as an excuse to live a reckless life. We don’t love God because we want to escape Hell. We love Him because He first loved us.

Suggested Reading

Four Views on Hell (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) (Zondervan)