A Challenge To Old Friends

I was not baptized for the remission of my sins until October 2003. At the time, I was 18 years old. Now, I'm 28, so it's been almost ten years. I've been acquainted with the "church of Christ" for just four months longer. Prior to that, I was very involved in a number of denominational churches and before that, I wasn't a church-goer (for most of my life).

When I made the decision to be "re-baptized" in October 2003 and to join the church of Christ in Lexington, my family reacted with confusion and even anger, but more than anything, they were very concerned. In their minds, I had joined a cult. I remember my uncle predicting that I'd soon be shaving my head and preaching in the airport in a purple robe. I had many conversations with members of my family and even with friends from high school and from my former church affiliations. It was clear that my decision had erected a barrier between me and my friends and family. Things have never been the same.

I stay in touch with a lot of these people through Facebook. Former youth pastors and fellow "youth-groupers," friends from high school, and of course, family. For the most part, the concern surrounding my conversion in 2003 has subsided, and I highly doubt that they give it much thought anymore. However, I'd like to issue a challenge, or a request, to all of my friends and family members who, in hindsight, disagree with my decision to abandon "traditional Christianity" for a stricter, more exclusive form of what I consider to be "biblical Christianity."

Here's my challenge, or request: if you are concerned about the direction I've taken these past ten years and if you disagree with my affiliation with "churches of Christ," please make an effort to convince me that I'm on the wrong path. There are a couple of ways that you can do this...

• You have the option of disproving my stance on key issues that have compelled me to leave behind denominationalism in favor of undenominational "churches of Christ." Here are a few of the issues that MUST be addressed in order for me to even consider a change:

1. At the top of that list is the true purpose of water baptism. The majority of modern churches teach that water baptism is simply an act of obedience that one does after they are saved. My position now is that water baptism IS essential for salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-5 and 1 Peter 3:21, just to name a few). Scriptures such as this must be individually addressed, and it must be shown that baptism cannot be a part of salvation.
2. Secondly, you need to address the issue of "doctrinal division." In other words, most religious people believe that the doctrinal differences between churches do not really matter. However, when I read verses such as Romans 16:17, 1 Timothy 1:3 and 2 John 9, I conclude that we must not only strive for doctrinal unity, we must not tolerate teachings and practices that are unscriptural. If I'm going to once again embrace traditional Christianity and denominationalism, you have to prove to me that these doctrinal differences don't really matter in the end. Can you do that?
3. Finally, you have to specifically address the identity and work of the church. When I read the New Testament, I conclude that Jesus established "one body," or church (Eph. 4:4-5) that has a scripturally-defined identity. I also conclude that the church's purpose and work is primarily spiritual, not social, physical or recreational. Can you prove to me that we have the liberty to redesign and restructure our local churches today?

• If you do not or cannot address these specific issues mentioned above, you also have the option of disproving my general approach to the Scriptures. I approach the Scriptures with extreme care and precision. I believe that we need to seek scriptural authority for all that we do (Col. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 John 9, et al). What we specifically do in worship must be based upon the authority of Scripture (John 4:24). For example, this is why we reject the use of instrumental music in worship; there is no New Testament authority for it. This is why we use the designation, "church of Christ" - it's a scriptural designation (Rom. 16:16). You could avoid a lot of these individual issues by proving that my overall approach to the Scriptures is flawed. Maybe you can prove to me that the New Testament was never intended to be a pattern, or that we don't need authority for how we worship, what we teach, how we structure the church, etc. Maybe you can prove to me that faith and zeal are all that matter in the end, and that such strict obedience has nothing to do with our hope of heaven. Can you prove the fallacy of my approach to the Scriptures?
• Finally, you have the option of proving to me that there is a greater and more current authority than the Scriptures. Is it the Catholic church and the Pope? Is there a more modern revelation such as the Book of Mormon that supercedes the Bible? Should I be putting my faith in some other organization or holy book? This will be tough, but you're welcome to try this route.

Am I just being argumentative or arrogant by issuing this challenge? That's not my intention. I am just THIS determined to practice the truth in my life, and I try to always remain humble and open to criticism or rebuke. If I'm missing something and if I have embraced a religious system that is unbiblical, I sincerely want to know it. At the same time, perhaps this will result in opportunities to discuss the Scriptures with people I have cared about for years. Maybe I can provide some clarity, or maybe they can. Either way, no time is lost when we are opening and studying God's word with the intent of seeking greater unity.

If you'd like to take me up on this, please contact me on Facebook, comment below, or email me at queenwaycoc@yahoo.com. I hope to hear from you soon!

Social Functions In Church Buildings

Next month will mark ten years that I've been a Christian, and for almost that entire time, I've been preaching for various churches of Christ...in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Kentucky, and now Nevada. 

From the very moment that I was baptized, I have taken a stand against what many call "the social gospel," which is the belief that local churches have the right (for edification and evangelism purposes) to sponsor, support and facilitate social functions such as potluck meals, banquets, sports and recreation. 

Of course, all the major denominations practice this, but this is also an issue that has divided "churches of Christ" for a very long time. There are those churches which have fellowship halls and even gymnasiums attached to the same church-owned buildings where worship and Bible classes are conducted. In most of these cases, these social/recreational activities are promoted and advertised in church bulletins and in the community. But then there are churches like the ones with which I have worked that oppose such "additions," arguing that the church has no scriptural authority to sponsor such social and recreational activities. 

If you're not a member of a "church of Christ," then you probably think I'm crazy for making this an issue. If you ARE a member of a "church of Christ" who happens to disagree with me...well, you may still think I'm crazy, but I'm sure that you at least understand where I'm coming from.

Why do I oppose such activities?

To make a long story short, I oppose such activities because:

• When I read the New Testament, I don't find any evidence that the early churches ever sponsored social meals and/or recreational activities. Sure, they did provide meals to the widows and to Christians in need (Acts 4:35; 6:1-2), and yes, Christians did eat together in their homes (Acts 2:46), but I don't see the early churches (as churches) organizing Sunday potlucks or chicken dinners for social or even "fellowship" purposes. And if there is no scriptural authority for such, then we MUST avoid it lest we be guilty of sin (2 John 9).
• And even though this interpretation of the text is disputed by many, I do firmly believe that Paul plainly commands us NOT to incorporate social meals or common meals into the work of the church based on 1 Corinthians 11:22, 34. It's true that Paul in this text was condemning the Corinthians' perversion of the Lord's Supper, but even still, he made a clear distinction between what the church assembly was for and what the private home was for. "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?" (vs. 22). And in verse 34: "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment." Sounds pretty serious!

HOWEVER - and this is the main point of the article - it has occurred to me recently that this really shouldn't be an issue. Allow me to explain.

For nearly 2,000 years since the establishment of the church in the first century, men have fallen further and further from God's design for the church and SO MANY human traditions have crept in. The Catholics first emerged, and over the centuries, constructed cathedrals in the likeness of pagan temples and the Jewish temple of old. The concept of "God's house" became very physical, and was tied to a building rather than the people (1 Peter 2:4-5). Of course, during the Reformation Movement, as men began to break away from the Catholic Church, they carried with them many of these same concepts. The "church" came to be the building itself, and for hundreds of years, Christianity has been as much about the buildings as what goes on within them. Again, this line-of-thinking originated, not in New Testament teaching, but in the apostate frame-of-mind where Christianity was redefined in more ways than this.

So today, even among "churches of Christ," so much emphasis is placed on the building...as if the building is an integral part of the church's identity and work. Most churches not only OWN their own buildings, but own very ornate and elaborate buildings.

But this was NOT the case in the first century.

The "church" (ekklessia) referred to an "assembly" of people, not to a church-owned building. In the book of Acts, we learn that the early churches met in a variety of places: on Solomon's porch at the Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46; 5:12), in houses (Rom. 16:5; Philemon 2) and in "upper rooms" (Acts 20:7-10, whether of members' homes, or rented, I don't know). We know that Paul disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9); perhaps the local church met here as well. We might identify a few other locales where churches assembled in the first century, but it's clear to me at least, that the early churches placed very little emphasis on where they met.

NOTE: Some argue that in James 2:2, the word "church" (sunagoge rather than ekklessia) indicates a building owned by the church. After all, the Jewish synagogues (same word) were physical buildings, and James here refers to "the church" using that same term. However, in my studies, I've found that the Greek word sunagoge can just as easily refer to an assembly of people (Acts 13:42-43). So by no means do I consider this to be proof that early churches owned buildings.

With these facts in mind, I really don't believe that the issue of church-sponsored social and recreational activities was ever an issue in the first century. Churches simply met where they could. The evidence points to the fact that when they came together, it was to worship together, pray together and study together (1 Cor. 14). At the same time, churches often met in homes, and there is no doubt that they ate in these same buildings (as Acts 20:7-11 makes clear). More importantly, the Christians spent a lot of time together, much more time, in fact, than we do today. In the face of such severe persecution, the Christians of the first century were totally dependant upon one another. They often came together in members' homes just to pray together (Acts 4:23-31; 12:5, 12). Furthermore, it was common for the Christians to travel, and when they did, they stayed with other Christians (Acts 9:43; 18:3).

My point is this: the church was a way of life for the early Christians. They assembled together often for spiritual purposes, but then they also spent a lot of time together on a more private basis. Church wasn't so much a place that you went to because churches often were meeting in homes; it was something they did; the location was incidental.

No doubt, there were occasions in the first century where the Christians failed to understand these distinctions (1 Cor. 11:22-34; 1 Tim. 5:1-16). But for the most part, the "social gospel" issue was not an issue then like it is now. For them, "church" was about worshiping and working together on a spiritual level with those of like-precious faith. But because their faith was a way-of-life, they spent so much time together from day to day. I doubt they ever had conversations about incorporating social meals and recreational activities into the "work of the church." I doubt they ever considered building fellowship halls or gymnasiums. "Church" was about spiritual nourishment, but their faith bled over into their individual lives.

It's only in our age of "redefined Christianity" that we have come to view "church buildings" as an integral and essential part of faith. And it's because churches own buildings that the issue of what we (churches) do inside those buildings is even an issue. And this is really, really unfortunate.

But here's the thing, folks...

As much as I hate that this is such a divisive issue, and as much as I think that it shouldn't be an issue, the fact of the matter is, it IS an issue.

While it's true that Christianity has been redefined in a number of ways, and while I hate the emphasis placed upon church buildings today, I do know, based on the Scriptures that:

• There is a difference between the church and the individual. While the church consists of individual members (1 Cor. 12:27), the local church as an "institution" is unique and its characteristics are defined in Scripture. The local church has organization (Acts 15; concept of elders, deacons), commands that are unique to its assembly (i.e. the Lord's Supper), administers discipline (1 Cor. 5), and is plainly told in places like 1 Timothy 5:16 NOT to support certain works that ought to be relegated to individual responsibility.
• Again, in 1 Corinthians 11:22-34, Paul is clear that there are certain things that are proper at home that are improper in the church assembly. In other words, when we come together as a church, it needs to be for the purpose outlined by God in His word.
• Because we must abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) and seek His authority for all we do (Col. 3:17)...and because the Lord is obviously concerned about what churches are doing, then we need to respect God's design for the church and respect the distinctions found in His word.

So should it be an issue today?

I may disagree with the modern obsession over "church buildings," but the fact is, I don't believe they're unscriptural. As a matter of expediency, I believe that church buildings are just as authorized (by general authority) as song books, pews, serving trays for the Lord's Supper, Bible classes, etc.). In other words, because the church is to assemble (Heb. 10:25, et al), and because "church buildings" are a means of facilitating that command, I believe they're permissible. They're FAR from necessary, but they are techincally authorized.

And IF the church is going to purchase/own a building using the church's funds, then of necessity, the church building must be used for that which the local church is authorized to do. Because we have to make those distinctions.

In conclusion, our modern desire for and use of "church buildings" has created an environment where this is such a divisive issue. I can't help but think that if there were no "church buildings" and if we stopped treating the church like a business, these barriers that we've erected over the years would be toppled. It really wouldn't take much to get back to the mindset of the first century. But...it is really difficult to shake age-old traditions like this...which means that we're simply going to have to show extra caution when it comes to how we view and use "church buildings."

I know this has been a long article. I know I've rambled. But I do hope and pray that my thoughts are somewhat coherant to you.

Resculpturing Peita

There may be a few people in this world who have been blessed with a solid, spiritual upbringing in a Christian home and who, because of wise parents and wise choices, have led outstanding moral and spiritual lives. Sure, they've made mistakes and have sinned; all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), but they've not been through the "valley of the shadow of death," so to speak (Ps. 23).

But most people have been raised in a home where God's standard was not upheld as it should have been, and therefore most people have memories of a dysfunctional home and/or very poor choices that have resulted in some degree of chaos in their lives and that have left scars. Then there are those who, despite having been raising in a "Christian home" still dealt with their fair share of dysfunction and chaos.

As adults, if we're in the latter category, and again, most of us are, we struggle in many ways (sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly) to find healing and to move forward. Even grown Christians are weighed down by this baggage to such an extent that it impedes their pursuit of total self-sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2).

I found this quote in a book I'm reading called "Making Peace With Your Past." I think it applies to what I'm talking about here:

"When a fanatic dealt several damaging blows to Michelangelo's Pieta, the world was horrified. It surprised no one when the world's best artists assembled to refashion the disfigured masterpiece. 

When sculptors arrived in Italy, they didn't begin repairing the marred face immediately. Rather they spent months looking at the Pieta, touching the flowing lines, appreciating the way each part expressed suffering yet ecstasy. Some spent months studying a single part such as the hand until finally the sculptors began to see more and more with the eyes of Michelangelo and to touch and feel as the master artist would have done. When the sculptors finally began repairing the face, the strokes belonged almost as much to Michelangelo as to themselves. 

Not Michelangelo but rather God's sculpturing hand fashioned us from soil-dust into a masterpiece which surpassed even the Pieta (Gen. 2:7). It should not surprise us that God constantly refashions us - that as soon as we disfigure ourselves, He's already sculpturing the pieces back together. 

When we ask for healing, we shouldn't immediately rush into it. Rather, we should start knowing ourselves as does our Sculptor. We don't see the depth of our need for healing until we know our infinite value. The least self-centered blow destroys more than any blow to the Pieta. "We are God's work of art created in Christ to live the good life as from the beginning He meant us to live it" (Eph. 2:8). When we thank God for the gifts He gives us, we begin to see ourselves no longer from our own eyes but from His. If we know our giftedness, then we know how we require healing and thus we can become all that our sculptor envisions." 

(Matthew L. Linn and D. Linn, Healing of Memories, 11-12) 

I Could Be Wrong

Those who really know me well know that I'm a man of conviction, especially when it comes to matters of faith and religion. I know what I believe and more importantly, I know WHY I believe it. 

And I truly believe that this is the way God wants us to be...

"For we are not writing any other thing to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end" (2 Cor. 1:13).

"Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Prove yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? - unless indeed you are disqualified" (2 Cor. 13:5). 

"by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4).

"Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17).

"Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (1 Tim. 4:16). 

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). 

 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15).

"These things I have WRITTEN to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE to believe in the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13). 

God doesn't want us to be ecumenical or half-hearted! Jesus didn't die for us so that we could be filled with uncertainty or doubt. The good Lord didn't expend so much time and energy on the revelation, inspiration and compilation of the New Testament scriptures only to find out that we, His humble servants, could not and cannot possibly understand or know His will for our lives and for our churches.

We are to be men and women of conviction...at least in matters where God has expressed His will.

Having said that, I am also human. As a human, I am fallible. I am capable of being short-sighted, of making mistakes, of misunderstanding the Scriptures, and I am certainly capable of being wrong. With this in mind, I always try to keep an open mind. Maybe I've missed something. Maybe I'm overthinking something. Maybe you know something that I don't, or have seen something in the Scriptures that I haven't seen.

You see, there is a difference between confidence and arrogance.

Someone who is confident believes that they are right. They've done the research, have studied, and have come to certain conclusions that they believe are true (i.e. convictions).

Someone who is arrogant, however, not only believes that they are right, they believe that they cannot possibly be wrong. Such an attitude is condemned throughout Scripture, especially in Proverbs. God desires that we be confident, but He loathes arrogance! We must always be willing to listen to what others have to say.

Even Paul said, "For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:4). The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were "more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Both of these examples teach us that while we ought be assured that we're right, we ought to always remain humble enough to reconsider and reexamine the tenets of our faith...to recognize our own fallibility and to be open-minded to what others have to say.

Yes, I am a man of conviction. Most of you know this about me.

But at the same time, I am very aware of the line that can be crossed from confidence and conviction to arrogance and closed-mindedness. I have thought and prayed so much about this. And I pray often to God that He will keep me humble, and that when my faith is challenged, I will not clam up or revert to traditionalism or ritualism...but to a fresh study of the Scriptures.

Could I be wrong in my belief that baptism is essential for salvation? Could I possibly be wrong in using Scripture to condemn the practice of denominationalism? Could I be wrong in saying that it's sinful to incorporate instrumental music into church worship? Could I be wrong in condemning church-sponsored social and recreational activities? Could I be wrong in my view of divorce and remarriage? Could I be wrong in my view of the return of Christ? Could be entire approach to Scripture (hermeneutics) be off-base? These are all issues that I have discussed and debated with others over the years. 

Yes. It's possible. I could be wrong in any number...or in ALL of these areas.

Two young Mormon "elders" came by my house yesterday. I told them - and I meant this with all sincerity - that I wanted to learn more about the Mormon faith, and that if they could prove to me that Mormonism offers the true path to God and salvation, that I would become a Mormon. I've said the same thing to Jehovah's Witnesses in the past. And to Catholics, and others.

Am I contradicting my former claim to conviction? I don't believe so. I have convictions in all of these areas and will continue to preach those convictions. But hey, if I'm wrong and you can show me how or where I'm wrong, please do so; you'd be my friend and I'd be so thankful if you'd love me enough to correct me or to deepen my understanding of God's precious Word.

I read verses like these two and I tremble...because I do not want my Lord to say this of me:

"These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:8-9).

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Mt. 7:21-23). 

I am always asking the people I speak with, correspond with and study with to put their trust in Christ, not in their feelings, or their families, or their traditions, or in the majority opinion. I always ask people to be open-minded and to reconsider what they believe. 

I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't do the same.

Stricter Judgment (James 3:1)

"My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).

As a full-time "teacher" (i.e. evangelist), I'm very well-acquainted with this verse. While I don't believe James is truly discouraging the act of teaching the gospel, he is clearly offering a disclaimer to those Christians who want to pursue active teaching responsibilities...and that disclaimer is: don't take this work lightly! To teach the gospel of Christ is such a huge deal. 

Clearly, teachers ought to understand the gravity of what they're doing. No teacher should "abuse the pulpit" or approach his studies and presentations lightheartedly. After all, we "shall receive a stricter judgment."

But here's the real question: who is imposing the "stricter judgment" upon the teachers?

It's tempting for believers to assume this role of judging teachers. They might read this verse and think that they have the right to micromanage or be hyper-critical of teachers. Then again, a person doesn't have to read this verse to be that way. A lot of people simply tend to be more critical.

With that in mind, I'd like to remind you (from a teacher's perspective) of certain criticisms to avoid in your examination and/or dealings with teachers.

• Please don't nitpick our words. Teachers are usually expected to speak for up to 45 minutes or an hour at a time. To speak for that long isn't easy. Please understand that we're all going to make mistakes. It may be a matter of semantics or phrasing. Have a lot of patience with us in these areas. Now, if someone shows himself to be consistently careless, then absolutely, take him aside and urge him to be more careful with his words. But if you're going to disagree, make sure that it's substantive.
• Please don't expect a dozen disclaimers for every controversial point. Over the years, I've preached and taught on a number of controversial topics. Now, I try to be very careful in how I present the truth in these areas, and so, yes...I do usually offer disclaimers for the sake of avoiding confusion. But even still, it's not reasonable to expect every teacher to cover ALL bases when dealing with controversial topics. "Now I'm not saying that..." "This doesn't mean that..." "Please don't misunderstand me, I do believe that..." You get the point. We'd never get through a lesson if we sought to clarify every potential point of confusion.
• Don't assume he's talking about you. There have been occasions where I've preached a sermon or taught a class and either someone came up to me afterwards or I hear through the grapevine, that they took it personally...as if I was calling them out or using the pulpit to "bully" them. Don't get me wrong, there ARE cases where a preacher misuses the pulpit in this way, but for the most part, don't take sermons personally unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
• If you have a substantive disagreement with a teacher, go to him. This is one of my biggest pet-peeves as a preacher. If you disagree with something I've said or an approach I've taken to an issue, please don't tell all your friends about it, don't complain to your family or to others in the church; just come and tell me. The principles of Matthew 18:15-17 apply here.
• Hearers have a responsibility, too. There is no question that teachers need to make a concerted effor to "preach the truth in love." We need to choose our words, our tone and our method of presentation carefully. At the same time, those in the audience also have a responsibility to "listen to the truth in love." Try not to judge the teacher's motives. Instead of being overly-critical of his tone, grasp the truth of what he's saying. There are cases where a man's passion may be confused with anger or meanness. Don't write him off because you think he sounds a little rude. I doubt he really intends to sound that way. Or let's say that a man's presentation is a little disorganized or mundane. Be understanding and sympathetic. Don't complain afterwards. Teaching is hard.
• Finally, it's not your right to hold the teacher to a higher moral or spiritual standard. There are many folks who think that preachers should be held to a higher standard. They can wear blue jeans and a nice shirt on Sunday, but the preacher has to wear a suit and tie. They can miss a service, but the preacher can't. "Regular Christians" can be careless with their words and even their comments in class, but if the teacher makes a mistake or miswords something, he can be scrutinized. They can have a nice house and car, but if the preacher makes any such purchase, he's materialistic and/or squandering the church's money. Their families can be dysfunctional, but the preacher's family has to be perfect. You get the point.

I'd like to close with this thought...

When James says, "Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment," he wasn't encouraging Christians to be judgmental of teachers. The "judgment" here is God's judgment and it's the teacher that needs to hold himself to this higher standard. 

Understanding the Godhead, or "Trinity"

I have watched several religious debates on YouTube these last few days (as I've completed mindless activities associated with the preparation and distribution of our monthly newsletter) between supposed Christian apologists and Mormon apologists. While these debates have been very interesting and informative for a number of reasons, one issue that has been consistently raised is that of the Godhead, or what many refer to as the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

The Mormons believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all divine (or so they claim) and yet they argue that they are three distinct persons and therefore take the position (technically) that there are three gods. Of course, they also believe in a "Mother Goddess" and that we can become gods.

On the other hand, Christians generally believe in what we term the "Trinity" which states that there are three personages within one God. The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is just one God.

I'm not as concerned about the Mormon's position on this issue. Mormonism is a false religion and while I am certainly willing to address any of their false doctrines, I am more concerned at this time with the inability of Christians to explain one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible: the nature of the Godhead.

Is it possible that we must simply accept a very difficult position on the basis of faith because, whether we understand it or not, it's taught in the Scriptures? Absolutely. Do I have to understand something to believe it? Not at all. There are a lot of things that the Bible teaches that I don't believe any of us can truly comprehend. Also, the Bible is silent about many things (e.g. all of the happenings of the spiritual realm, God's activities before He created the earth, the exact nature of heaven, etc.) that we may waste a lot of time trying to understand. This is a part of what it means to have faith in God. Even when there are things we can't fully explain or understand, we accept humbly what the good Lord says knowing that He's right no matter what.

And so regarding the Godhead, how do we understand the fact that Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God...and yet there is one God? Wouldn't that be THREE gods? This is the argument the Mormons would make as well as many others. It almost seems laughable to many and totally contradictory to good, sound reason. Again, maybe it is that we CANNOT fully comprehend this and that we just need  to accept it.

But maybe there's a pretty simple explanation.

I believe there is, and I believe it has to do with understanding what is meant by "one."

Regarding marriage, God has said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Jesus says that "the two shall become one flesh" (Mt. 19:5). These verses teach us that, in the eyes of God, when a man and woman marry, there is a sense in which they become "one." Do they become one literal person, one physical entity? Or does the term "one" here merely designate a kind of unity that is achieved between the man and woman?

We are also given a lot of insight into oneness in John 17:20-21 when Jesus says in prayer, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." Here, the "oneness" of God is used as an illustration for the oneness of the disciples. Just as God and His Son are "one" so also are fellow believers to be "one." Again, what are we talking about here? Do disciples coalesce into one homogeneous life-form? Of course not. Jesus is discussing UNITY. In fact, in places like 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4:4, we're told that there is "one body" (i.e. church) that consists of many members.

Here's what I'm getting it (if it's not already obvious): I don't believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is some intangible, unexplainable thing. When I articulate that the Father is God, that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is but one God, not three...what I am referring to is the perfect unity that exists between the three members of the Godhead. They are one in the sense that they are completely and totally unified in mind and purpose.

While our marriages or churches may not always reflect this perfect unity, this is the unity for which we are to strive (1 Cor. 1:10) and thankfully (and beautifully), the Godhead is the perfect model for us in this regard.

More on a Husband's Role

I preached this past Sunday night on marriage roles. The lesson was based in Ephesians 5:22-33 and was specifically called, "Establishing Headship in the Home." I chose this title for a reason. You see, there is no question biblically that a husband is the "head" of his wife (Eph. 5:23), but as I pointed out in my sermon, the command of "headship" isn't given to the husband, but to the wife. In other words, the man is never commanded to establish headship or to ensure that his wife submits to him. Instead, the command of headship is given to the wife. She is instructed to submit to her husband FOR he is her head, just as Christ is head of the church. 

And so my sermon articulated two primary points:

1. The wife, by her submission to and respect for her husband, elevates him to the position of leadership and headship in the home.
2. The husband, rather than focusing on his right to headship, is commanded to "love" his wife just as Christ "loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Eph. 5:25).

Many Christians fail to approach the passage in this light. Women misunderstand the role of submission and men abuse the concept of headship, thinking that it is their right and sometimes even their obligation to MAKE SURE the wife submits to their rule. In my sermon, I tried to correct these misnomers and provide insightful, biblical recommendations on HOW to properly understand this text and fulfill these roles in the home. That sermon can be accessed HERE.

However, I spent so much time introducing the material and then explaining the wife's role that I didn't spend as much time as I had hoped on the husband's role. In this article, I'd like to further explain Paul's comments to the husbands in Ephesians 5:25-33.

First of all, as I mentioned above (and in my sermon), the husband is never directly commanded to BE the head of his wife. Is the husband the head of the wife? Absolutely. That is God's design. But the husband's emphasis, according to Paul, is not on headship, but on love. "Husbands, love your wives..." is the command in Ephesians 5:25. In Colossians 3:19, after telling the wives to submit to their own husbands, Paul turns to the husbands and says - guess what? - "Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." And again, in 1 Peter 3:1-7, Peter specifically instructs the wife to be submissive to her husband...but then tells the husband, "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered" (vs. 7).

So many Christian men enter marriage with the mistaken notion that they must take the reigns of leadership and if necessary, force their way to the top of the pyramid. This can be disastrous! Not only do women often resent and rebel against such a pressured approach, but men are often left feeling angry and insecure when any of their "commands" are rebuffed.

Yes, the husband is the head of the wife. But instead of focusing primarily on this concept of headship, husbands ought to focus primary on not only expressing love for their wives, but pursuing a deeper, more scriptural understanding of this Christ-like love. That needs to be the priority! And if men will do this, not only will their decisions be more readily accepted, but the wives will more willingly submit to such sacrificial, selfless leadership.

The second point that I'd like to make regarding the husband's role is that the husband is plainly instructed to model his role after Christ's. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Eph. 5:25). In my sermon, I did discuss this at length, but please bear with me as I elaborate on this here.

Obviously, Paul draws specifically upon Christ's sacrifice as the ultimate expression of His love for His bride, the church. Even when "the bride" was undeserving and far from pleasant, Jesus went to the cross and did what was best, not for Him, but for His bride. He gave His life! Likewise, husbands must have this same sacrificial mindset. Physically, this is certainly true; a husband must be willing to lay down his life for his wife/family. But more than that, this selfless, sacrificial mindset will prompt the husband to preface all major decisions with the question, "What is best for my family?" Not for me. But my family. Headship doesn't grant the husband unlimited access to a life of pleasure and self-service while the wife and family are forced to "submit." Headship is a burden in this sense. It's a position of incredible responsibility.

Even though Paul only specifies Christ's sacrifice as the model of love in Ephesians 5:25, I believe there is great value in exploring ALL of Christ's subtle displays of love.

• Despite His clear authority, He didn't flaunt it and rub it in the disciples' faces. He wasn't arrogant or prideful or dictatorial. While there were certainly times when Jesus taught on His authority and Lordship, He spent MUCH more time leading by example.
• He was compassionate and sympathetic towards the struggles and plights of His followers and those He encountered from day to day. In John 11, when Mary and Martha and all the Jews were weeping about Lazarus' death, we're told that "Jesus wept" (vs. 35). And how did Jesus treat the woman caught in adultery in John 8? Did He flaunt His authority over her? No! He recognized her pain and her sorrow and showed her compassion when the Pharisees wouldn't. I am reminded of Peter's admonition to husbands in 1 Peter 3:7: "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding." Husbands ought not be cold, calloused, unfeeling leaders; they need to make every effort to sympathize, understand and reach out to their wives.
• My favorite display of love is in Matthew 14:1-21. After Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, was executed by Herod, He was full of grief and sorrow and sought solitude. He was always so busy. He was always thronged by the people. Always serving and working. So He had a right to some solititude and rest, right? And yet what did His followers do? They followed him. Jesus didn't react by saying, "Give me some space!" Instead, he "was moved with compassion" for the multitudes (vs. 14) and sought to further serve their needs. Husbands can learn a valuable lesson here. Even when they are tired from a long day of work, and even when they are laden with stress, they must rise above their weariness and put their family's needs first even then.
• And finally (for this article), consider the powerful message in John 13:1-14. Here we find Jesus, the Son of God, the Lord of lords and King of kings, actually washing the disciples' FEET. This was such a humbling task...an undesireable work...and certainly NOT something that the Master would do for the servants. But Jesus did it. And it shocked the disciples! "...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:28). Headship is not about "the right to rule." It's the ultimate role of service. Husbands who strut around with the expectation that their wives and families will serve them and bow to their every whim are completely and shamefully abusing their position.
• Many other comparisons could be made from the life of Christ.

Doesn't this add such meaning and power to Ephesians 5:25? Yes, Christ was and is the "head of the church," but when writing to the husband, Paul instructs husbands to focus specifically on Christ's "love" for the church. This should be every husband's model!

But the passage doesn't end in verse 25...

Paul goes on in verses 26-28 to further describe Christ's goals for the church. Not only did He love the church and give Himself for her, but His ultimate desire was the glorification of His bride. He died for her and continues to be a husband to her so that "He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish"  (vs. 28). Many husbands today are concerned about their own appearance. It's pride! But Jesus has always sought the betterment of His bride, the church. Husbands, are you investing in your wife? Are you helping her to become a better person, a better Christian? Do you inspire or repress her?

Then, Paul FURTHER makes the comparison to the Christ-church relationship by emphasizing the church, not as the bride of Christ, but as the body of Christ (vs. 29-30). He says to husbands: "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" (vs. 28-29). I always thought that Paul was almost recommending a somewhat vain and selfish approach to marriage here, and was therefore baffled by the language. Why would Paul so definitively encourage an attitude of sacrifice only to turn around and use vanity and self-service to illustrate the same point? Love your wife as your own body. He who loves his wife loves himself. Vain? Selfish? Not actually!

The more that I've studied this passage, the more I've come to realize that Paul is really stressing the unity of marriage here. After all, "the two shall become ONE flesh" (vs. 31). A husband and wife are "one body" together in this sense. In 1 Corinthians 7:4, Paul similarly states that the wife's body belongs to the husband and the husband's body belongs to the wife. A husband and wife are not two mutually exclusive entities that co-habitate. God's plan is that the husband and wife always chase after a greater sense of oneness...and those Christian couples who have been working at their marriage for years know that this is indeed what happens. It's beautiful, really! 

Husbands, your wife is your body! Love her. Cherish her. Care for her. 

If you neglect her or abuse her in any way, you're only hurting yourself. And so don't allow your marriage to dissolve or break apart. Don't allow your relationship with your wife to become detached and distant. Don't allow your selfishness and pride to destroy the holiness and sanctity of your union. Again, care for her and love her just as Christ cares for and loves His body, the church.

And finally, in Ephesians 5:33, Paul says, "Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

This is critical...

So many times in marriage, we act as if our responsibilities are contingent on our spouse fulfilling their responsibilities. A wife will say that she can't submit to a bad leader or to a jerk. A husband will say that his wife isn't worth leading or loving. We play the blame game and act as if our obligations are conditional. But dear reader, they're not! And that's Paul's point here! A wife, no matter what, must be submissive and respectful to her husband. Likewise, a husband must "see to it" that he loves his wife, even if she isn't the ideal spouse, even if she's hard to love.

Marriage is hard. It's a daily struggle. We're all humans and not only are we full of faults, but we make mistakes every day. However, in Christ, there is hope because we can lay aside our own inadequacies and model ourselves after someone who is MORE than adequate. We can strive for His standard. And His standard works so beautifully because it demands that we give up self, and live and act selflessly...just as our Lord did for us.

I hope that this LONG article has been helpful to you. 

If you're a woman, feel free to share this article with your husband, but don't rub it in his face. Again, YOUR focus needs to be on submitting to your husband just as the church has submitted to Christ. If your husband is unwilling to listen to Scripture, follow the wisdom of Scripture by being a daily example of submission and purity for him (1 Peter 3:1-6).

Men, I hope and pray that this article has helped you to better understand your role in marriage. It helps me to meditate upon these thoughts and to be reminded. I need to be reminded often.