Tentpegs

Some more questions about demons came in at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com so let’s deal with two of them today.

My friend did a study of demons and says that because only God is omnipotent, Satan doesn’t know everything that is going on and he relies on his demons to give him information.  She said that I am probably not important enough for Satan to know who I am but that his demons are everywhere and can cause me trouble.  She also says that if we don’t voice our weaknesses and temptations, the demons won’t know how to get to us.  What do you think?

There is a lot that is correct in your friend’s statements but I would like to sharpen them a bit if I may. Again, I would highly recommend the readable (but thoroughly researched and footnoted) God at War by Gregory Boyd as a primer on evil, God, the devil, and the cosmic war we find ourselves in.

Satan is not omnipotent or omniscient (the latter word is the one I think your friend meant to use). He is not the polar opposite of God and we do not live in a Dualistic universe, i.e. a universe which is being disputed by two equal but opposite powers. Satan certainly does have power and evil is swarming over our planet, but God is far more powerful and, as your friend assured you, He knows what future He has declared will occur (we’ve discussed this when we went over Open Theism). It is also very possible that the devil doesn’t know your name and hasn’t noticed you, but it is frankly impossible for you to have escaped the notice of some of his angels. He has quite a multitude of them and they are afoot going from here to there and up and down upon the earth.

Demons have varying powers, skill sets, and preferred ways of doing their work. The Jews worked out a great deal of this from scripture, experience, and their greatest thinkers all coming together and much of their work was verified by the New Testament when Paul speaks of various powers and authorities in the heavenlies and Jesus tells the 70 that they would have power over snakes and scorpions (most probably not referring to reptiles and insects, but demonic powers — but I have no interest in arguing the point!) and that "this kind only comes out with prayer and fasting". (Matthew 17:21)

There is no place in scripture where the Bible expressly says that the devil or his angels can read your mind. Amazing, but true. That is not the same thing as saying that we can be certain they are unable to read our inner thoughts, though. That might be a very deadly assumption to make. Regardless, they can certainly read our actions and figure out what tempts us and what doesn’t. Once they find our weak areas, they can take twenty or forty years to work us into a place where we can be destroyed. Vigilance is a must. I often use the illustration of the night we moved into our new house in Michigan. I took my son out in the snow and dark and we looked at the house. I said, "It is our job to break into this house. How do we do that?" We looked around and found one glaring weakness that a robber could exploit and we promptly fixed it. It is useful to look at our lives and see where our weak points are, where an enemy could approach, and then take steps to remedy the situation.

I was recently in a conversation with a therapist colleague.  He asked me if I thought that Christian counselors should always address the idea of generational cursings with clients.  He seemed to believe that most people who were in therapy were experiencing some degree of difficulty due to the effects of God cursing his previous family members "unto the fourth (or more) generations" and that the only real cure was a "deliverance" from this previously imposed family curse from God.  He was quite serious about this.  I didn’t really know how to respond to him without getting into a debate about scriptural interpretation and potentially find myself being seen as an adversary to Christian thought and practice.  I suggested that not every Christian viewed the Scriptures the same way and that a Christian therapist could help someone with a particular problem (our discussion was initially focused on treating co-occurring disorders) without creating a "deliverance" experience for them.  I don’t think he was particularly pleased with my response.  Any guidance for me on this?

I absolutely believe that people can be harassed and demonized (a better definition for the word usually translated "possessed") by demons. However, I would find myself in disagreement with your colleague on several key points.

First, I do not believe that God curses anyone. When God told us that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and fourth generation, that was not the result of God’s curse but man’s action. For example, when a man is an alcoholic, his life sends waves and ripples into his family that can disrupt it for generations. God didn’t cause it, plan it, or want it — it was a man’s choice. God goes so far as to explicitly state that He does not hold the sons guilty for the sins of the father, or vice versa (Ezekiel 18:18-20).

Can a family be cursed? I think the answer is ‘yes.’ There is a term used only once in Scripture but which shows up frequently in Jewish writings on this subject: Familiar Spirit. A familiar spirit is one who is familiar with your family, who knows the in’s and out’s of your behavior, weaknesses, and reactions and, therefore, tends to exploit one generation after another. Should we then start out all counseling appointments with a hearty round of power encounters with demons? 

Not even close, and here’s why. First, it might not be a demon. Our enemies are three: the world, the flesh, and the devil. While the devil is the power of this world and the prince of this world, the world’s systems are constantly giving a Siren call, luring us away from God, reorganizing our priorities and plans for its own profit and our own destruction. The flesh is weak, as we all know, and cries out for its appetites to be fed regardless of consequence, ethics, or what we wish our self image, our reality, to be. The devil can and does use the flesh against us, but the flesh can sometimes trip us up without outside help. Stating that every psychological struggle is first and foremost a spiritual one is just wrong. (Even Jay Adams, the father of Christian counseling, asserted that every psychological problem had its root in sin. I cannot agree with that because I see genetics, family systems, and situation as source points for a multitude of problems that did not originate in the sufferer’s sin)

But what if you treat the individual with counseling, therapy, or medication when the real issue is a familiar spirit? Wouldn’t that guarantee failure? Here is an interesting, surprising, but true bit of information: your therapy will usually work, at least for awhile, giving the client time to gather strength and learn new coping/thinking/behavioral skills. Why? Because the enemy of all demons is truth. Reversing the lies told to the client (or that the client has told himself) and turning on the light tends to, shall we say, scatter the cockroaches. Is the solution permanent? Often it isn’t (Matthew 12:43-45) but most often, it is.

I can’t remember whether it was Minirith or Meier (they wrote books together. Both were Christian psychiatrists if I remember correctly) but one of them said, when asked about how to deal with demons and whether or not they were the cause of serious psychopathology said something like, "Maybe, but I’ve never found a demon yet that wasn’t allergic to Haldol." His point was that with proper medication and counseling, the demon’s hold on the individual was broken, the lie was disrupted, a chance for light and truth to enter was given and that usually resulted in amazing healing. Whether or not we agree with everything their statement assumes, I thought it was a great answer. The books of M. Scott Peck would seem to indicate he agrees.

Sometimes roofs leak because they are twenty years old and it has nothing to do with the devil hating you. Sometimes you wrestle with bi-polar disorder because of a specific genetic fault, not because the devil has your number. And sometimes you are despondent, depressed, and possessed of a poor self image because you had rotten parents or a rotten experience, not because the devil jumped in you. To think every issue is caused by sin or the devil is to fall prey to that old error often voiced: "to him whose only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." 

We are coming right back to a discussion of demons and angels. A few more questions came shooting in at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com and it seems that I really need to answer them quickly as people are concerned about the issue. I am taking a very quick break to answer a short question this evening as I rest from the Dream Cruise and watch some Olympics.

"We have a lot of Bibles that have been left behind at church over the years. Some of them are in really poor condition. How should we dispose of them?" And another questioner asked how to dispose of her and her husband’s Bibles that had fallen apart due to age and constant use. She asked if they were to be burned and if it was appropriate to have a ceremony.

Because we love our Lord, we love the book that tells us about Him. Because we see people treat sacred things in profane ways it is understandable that we are concerned about how to treat the Bibles in our possession. The American flag certainly has a list of rules concerning how to treat it with respect. Old, worn out flags are to be burned or buried, for example, and never just tossed in the garbage can. Flags are to be flown only during certain weather conditions and are never to touch the ground. Surely the rules for dealing with the Bible must be more strict since our love and loyalty towards God are to trump our love and loyalty towards our nation, right?

No. It is very easy to fall into the trap of Bible-olatry. Remember that our focus is on Jesus. The only reason the Bible is precious to us is that it tells us about Jesus. The book we have in our hands can be highlighted, notes written in the margin, weddings recorded on its title page, etc. but it is merely a book — a blending of ink, paper, leather and glue. It is what the Bible points to that is precious, not the Bible itself.

It is rather like trying to point out something to your dog. Point at anything and the dog will immediately focus… on your finger. Nothing you can ever do will change that. Dogs just don’t get the whole concept of pointing. If you want them to look at something, you have to look at it with rapt, overwrought attention. (it helps if you "woof" a little when you do so) When the Bible points to Jesus, it has done its job. When we use the Bible like a legal book or as a club to beat our brethren (or unbelievers) with, we have stared at the finger and missed the…uh…point.

There is nothing sinful or disrespectful about tossing an old Bible into the trash. If you want to bury it or burn it, then do so but please make sure that you do not forget that the Word of God is Jesus (see John 1:1-4). The story of God’s dealings with man is a real, tangible, recoverable artifact. We can put it on paper in a wide variety of styles, translations, covers, etc. But it is the story, not the created book, that is precious and THAT is only precious because it leads us to Jesus.

It is best not to treat the Bible — or flags — as idols. We can certainly show both of them respect in ways that are culturally sensitive, but we don’t have to play by over-the-top rules. I fly our flags every day and night in all kinds of weather. Why? Because our boys are in the field in all kinds of weather. It helps me remember them. I don’t put my Bible in some out of the way place. Why? Because I need to see it as I walk through my TV room. It helps me remember. But it is not the sacred thing in my life and neither is the flag. Jesus is what is sacred and we must remember that.

Thank you for sending questions into tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com and sending me encouraging emails and comments. I am constantly amazed at how many people are reading this every day. I wish I could update it more often but my day job intrudes. Thanks to all who are praying for me. That is the only way I make it through my busy schedule. 

Do evil spirits penetrate and surround certain people and can our prayers bind the evil?

I have file drawers full of research, lessons, and notes on this subject. Yet, I must warn all who are interested in it to be very, very careful when you study these things. You see, when you look into the darkness, the darkness looks back at you. I have had many friends who showed a tremendous interest in the dark things in our universe who were then, subsequently, swallowed by them.

Yes, I believe in a real being known by many names such as the devil, Satan, etc. I believe in many, many evil angels with varying degrees of power. I suggest three books for those who are interested in these things. None of them are the sensational, power encounter, showy, "kick the demons" type of books. Second Peter and Jude warn us against taking these beings lightly or slandering them, so be careful. The three books are C. S. Lewis’ classic The Screwtape Letters and two books by Gregory Boyd, God at War and the follow up volume, Satan and the Problem of Evil.

Without Jesus in our lives, we are open to being "demonized" (a more literal translation of the term usually translated "possessed"). I define this as a high degree of harassment, delusion, and distraction that walls a person away from God’s influence. The Bible plainly teaches this and also teaches that demons (and angels) claim territories such as nations and tribal groups — so "places" as well as "people." This needs to be stressed because many Christian religions, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, do not accept the fact that demons can possess things. Yes, they can.

Our prayers, if we pray in the name of Jesus, can bind and cast out demonic influences. Some demons are harder to remove than others, according to Jesus, and will only come out with prayer and fasting. In other words, it isn’t an instant fix. Some will run to the passage that says "resist the devil and he will flee from you" and assume that means this is easy. However, the word "resist" there is a sporting term that was used in a particular type of wrestling match — one that ended only with the death of one of the wrestlers. We will have to resist the devil the rest of our lives but he will never be given our souls if we belong to Jesus. While the devil can, according to scripture, bring disease, physical and metaphysical storms, and trouble into our lives, our faith can keep us strong and our Lord can guarantee our eternal survival, our eventual victory.

Sometimes the basics need revisiting…

Since we are to find all of our doctrine in the Bible, where does it say, exactly, that sex between two people who love each other but who are not married to each other is sinful? is sex outside of marriage always wrong?

The Bible is very clear on this point. First Corinthians 6:9,10 tells us that fornicators and adulterers are among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The same chapter says we weren’t built for fornication (v.13) and, therefore, we should run as fast as we can away from it (v.18) for it is a sin against our own body as well as an offense before God.

We need to update some definitions here because our English language has changed and taken these words with it. "Fornication," in English, means sex between two unmarried people. "Adultery" means sex between two people, one or more of whom may be married, but they are not married to each other. The NIV does a good job in bringing back the meaning of the words in Jesus’ time by usually translating "fornication" as "sexual sin." It is a much broader term than our current, English, legal one. "Adultery" is also a broader term in the New Testament. It certainly would include sexual sin commited by married people but it carries with it a meaning of "broken covenant." When the people of Israel turned to other gods, Jehovah told them they had commited adultery with wood and stone. When they made an alliance with Egypt, he accused them of adultery. With that said, most of the time the term is used in scripture it refers to sexual sins of married people who go outside their covenant and have sexual relations with someone not married to them.

Fornication is more than sexual activity between people who are not married though it certainly includes that. It covers a host of sins including bestiality and other perversions. First Corinthians 10: 6-8 reminds the Corinthians (and us) that God takes this very seriously indeed, even to the point of killing thousands in one day because of their sin. Galatians 5:19-21 puts fornication (NIV "Sexual sin") right there with other works of the flesh and the devil. First Thessalonians 4:3-5 tells us in no uncertain terms to abstain from fornication — and that would include fornication between two people who love each other but who are not married. Marriage, in God’s law, always precedes sexual contact. Ephesians 5:1-5 would be another example of God plainly saying "no" to that activity unless it is preceeded by a marriage covenant.

God takes covenants seriously. I often, when teaching at youth rallies, mention that my wife might be the worst lover in the world (long pause inserted here to give the teens time to be shocked)… or that I might be the worst lover in the world. However, since we are the only people we’ve been with, we are just ignorant enough to be very happy with each other! Neither of us had to audition for the other by having sex once or a hundred times before we sealed our covenant. And neither of us is fearful that the other will drop them if they are not sexually pleasing enough. Our covenant is so powerful that it gives each of us rest and peace about sexuality… and everything else. God’s way is the right way, every time.

At tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com there are several versions of the same genre of question. I will shove them together and present them as two questions.

"The Bible says that we will suffer persecution if we are Christians. I’ve been a Christian for a long time and I don’t think I’ve ever experienced it. Does that mean I’m not a Christian? Am I missing something?"

AND

"Don’t you believe that the persecution we are going through in America — the war on Christmas, the crassification of our culture, the removal of the Ten Commandments from our schools, etc. — is a sign that our nation has been abandoned by God? Is this a sign of the end of the world or will God raise up another country to take our place since we failed?" 

Jesus certainly did say that believers would suffer persecution, but he didn’t indicate that every believer throughout the ages would be persecuted. He was speaking to a specific group at a specific time. When reading such things we must remember who was speaking, to whom were they speaking, why were they speaking, and what was going on at the time of their speaking. All of those questions help us when we try to "rightly divide" the Word.

I do not believe that every Christian will be persecuted, but I DO believe that every Christian should be willing to suffer persecution — or suffer financially, personally, or career-wise — for the Kingdom’s sake. Living out your faith in a real and vital way often means you are more likely to be persecuted… but not everywhere. Christians can be the butt of jokes and prejudice in America, but I cannot call what happens here persecution. If you can’t be a Christian in America, you can’t be a Christian. We have Christian radio, Christian TV, Christian movies, Christian fiction, Christian nonfiction, Christian colleges, Christian elementary schools…. it keeps going and going, doesn’t it? You can sit at your computer and read dozens of versions of the Bible for free, download tens of thousands of sermons, and get newsletters and emails to help you raise your children, love your spouse, pay off your debts, witness to your friends… you get the idea.

This is a safe and easy place to be a Christian. Sure, you can take on a hard job such as racial reconciliation or feeding the homeless or praying for a crime ridden neighborhood and that might bring you into harm’s way, but you will have more back-up and support here than anywhere else I can think of (and I’ve lived in a good number of other places!).

I don’t care if they take the Ten Commandments out of schools. While I might wish they could stay there, it isn’t the school’s job to raise, socialize, or teach our children about doctrine. We should be teaching our kids about God’s ways at home. In my own informal survey done a few years ago (I was given the idea by my son-in-law, so kudos to him), almost none of the people who were upset that the 10 Commandments had been removed from an Alabama courthouse could actually name more than half of them!

Real persecution is out there. The UN and other agencies have estimated that more Christians died for their faith during the 20th century than in all other centuries combined. As I have done before, I ask you, as a personal favor to me, to go to www.persecution.com and sign up for the newsletter from the Voice of the Martyrs. Consider buying the new version of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and sharing some stories with others. Read the DC Talks books on martyrdom ("Jesus Freaks") that have helped many teens (and their parents) realize the importance of prayer and sacrifice.

See the women who, after having their breasts cut off because they were Christian, have forgiven their attackers and continued in their faith. See the men who have had arms cut off, houses burned down, and seen their children killed because of their faith… and see their faith continue in the midst of their agony and THEN tell me you’ve been persecuted because the greeter at Wal-Mart said "Happy Holidays." Uh… no.

If you have never experienced persecution, don’t feel bad about it! Instead, thank God for that and then do something for the persecuted church. Pray, give, visit, serve… just don’t sit there because, one day, it might be our turn to be under the hammer and those we have served can come and save us in turn. 

What do you suppose is meant by Matthew 7:6 (Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.) I occasionally hear this passage used to justify ignoring or giving up on people who seem to turn a deaf ear to Christ and the gospel. It’s explained as if we are to try a few times, then give up when they aren’t receptive. (Matthew 10:14 is sometimes used as an example…). Thanks!

I think you might already know what this means…but that that meaning is so terrible to contemplate that you would rather it meant something else. I’m right with you! The fact is that God’s patience is not without end. The Old Testament is full of examples of God deciding that this or that person/nation/tribe had had enough chances to turn themselves around. The only exception seems to be the Jews. No matter how many times they wandered away from God, He worked hard to bring them back around. Is this the exception that proves the rule? (by the way, exceptions don’t prove rules. Exceptions reveal that there is no rule) No. God’s patience ended shortly after their rejection of His Son. He allowed Rome to destroy the Temple and the Jewish religious system in a great "day of the Lord" in 70AD.

Time is limited therefore we must be wise in how we use it. The Matthew 10:14 example is of a specific mission journey and might not apply to any other outreach program. Jesus sent out scores of folk to reach all of the Jews with the gospel. If they were not welcomed, they were to turn away, shake the dust off their feet (a Jewish expression meaning to get over it and get moving on), and go to the next place. That makes sense; when you are on a clock, you don’t want to spend all of your time in a place where fruit is unlikely.

Let’s imagine: Let’s say that you knew the world was going to end in two years. Being a good person who wants to save as many as possible, you decide to spend those two years in full time missionary work. Where would you go? Would you go to a solidly Muslim country such as Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? Unlikely. Would you go to an exceptionally secular nation such as France, Canada, Russia, or New Zealand? Probably not. You would most likely go to an African country or somewhere in Central or South America, places where people have shown themselves ready to receive the good news of Jesus. It isn’t a matter of God not loving the good people in those other places, it is a matter of time and resources and rate of return.

Sometimes we can spend so much time trying to get our cantankerous, miserable, mean uncle Bob to come to Christ that we don’t reach anyone… we’ve spent all our time and efforts, all our emotions and heart, on someone who has announced they are unreachable. That was an unwise and ineffective use of our lives. Paul tells us to redeem our days — to buy them back from the thoughts and pursuits that have eaten them up — because there is evil in the world. If we get distracted or bogged down in a mission that won’t bear fruit, we run the risk of letting far more reachable people die without Christ.

Confession time: I am a big fan of "hard missions." That is my own term for those works where it is unlikely that we will see results for years and years. I can be a fan of them because we don’t know that the world will end in two years and we aren’t running out of resources or time. In every congregation I have served I have encouraged them to sponsor missions in an open and receiving nation and in a harsh and difficult nation. I believe that someone needs to work in Belgium, Italy, etc. even if it means that for the first two or three generations they see little in the way of results. Before someone can harvest, the rocks need to be removed, the weeds cleared, the land plowed, then planted, then nourished. We aren’t the 70 on a limited time mission. That means we are allowed to stick around when we are rejected.

The whole "pearls before swine" thing is similar. There are times when it is wise to speak and there are times when our wisdom should lead us to move along to the next person, town, or mission. For example, were I asked to come on the Jerry Springer show and talk about God’s view of sexuality, I would say "Thanks, but no." Why? Because that show isn’t there to hear or reveal truth. It serves the same function as the freak shows outside the traveling circuses of the early 20th century. It is there for people to hoot, yell, and be insufferably rude to each other. Taking the pearls of the gospel into that arena is to toss them before swine. I have been in many situations in which I chose not to share my faith for precisely that reason. While I do not shy from combat — of any kind — nor do I hesitate to speak of the reasons for my faith, some arenas aren’t designed for that. They are lions waiting for a Christian, not gladiators waiting for an opponent. No matter what you say, you will be hooted down so… why bother? Put your efforts to work in a more fruitful arena.

This one didn’t come via tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com but through one of my personal email accounts. I think it is interesting enough to answer here. For those who wonder, I only move questions from my email accounts to Tentpegs when the identity of the questioner cannot be ascertained by the question, thereby assuring them of privacy. 

I was talking to a friend here recently about speaking in tongues. He does it and people at his church do it…..he goes to a fairly progressive community church. Obviously being from [my religious tradition] I haven’t been around it. Actually it’s been seen about as common as a seizure in church. So I did some research and found 1 Corinthians 14 and started reading.

When I think of tongues and read it in the Bible, I try to see it as "language" because it kind of weirds me out to think of speaking in tongues and to me it makes more sense for me to think of it that way. This can be inserted into most of that passage and still be contextually correct. When he said that he would rather speak 5 intelligible words so that people would understand him rather than his tongue…..well I can see that as you wouldn’t want to speak french to a group of Japanese people. But one verse tells me different.

1 Corinthians 14:2…..Paraphrasing: When man speaks in tongue, he speaks to no man, but to God.  Doesn’t this mean that it’s a language that no one would understand? This would have to be speaking in tongues, right?

Since the Holy Spirit acts as sort of an interpreter to/from God, is this method of speaking in tongues a way to bypass the translation?

But, I was also thinking…..if you have no idea what you are saying during the ordeal…..is it really communicating to God?

Things like this and acts of prophesy are pretty foreign to me and I just wanted to find out what you thought about them and give me some direction.

Good stuff! My religious tradition does not speak in tongues. I have many friends who speak in ecstatic utterances during worship and/or private times of prayer. They believe it is of God and that it is very helpful; a sign of God’s blessing. I do not question their experience and I respect them though I believe they are in error in the way they interpret the scriptures. Their error — if I am right and it actually is an error — is that they believe the "tongues" of scripture are unknown, unearthly tongues.

The Greek words for tongues in scripture always refer to human languages. The questioner is right that languages can be plugged into each mention of tongues and the passages make sense. On the day of Pentecost the apostles preached and each person heard in their own home language. This is significant because there were 12 apostles and twelve languages present. No one said anything about not being able to understand what was going on. The message itself concerned many so they decided to dismiss the apostles as being drunk but that was just because they didn’t like what they were hearing, it wasn’t a matter of hearing garbled speech.

In Corinth, people were given the gift of tongues (which can be defined as immediately knowing languages they did not study) so that others could be reached with the gospel. That was always the reason for the gift — evangelism and outreach. Corinth being… uh… Corinth, they started using their newfound knowledge as a way to elevate themselves rather than reaching the lost. During worship, they would break out in speaking in their new language. Paul said that helped nobody and that the only way it would be acceptable was if there were an interpreter present. This is an "argument to the absurd," a standard rhetorical device that Paul used several times. You see, why would someone preach in their new language and require an interpreter when they could just speak in their home language to begin with dispensing with the need for an interpreter? Sadly, while Paul was a brilliant rhetorician, most people wouldn’t recognize a rhetorical device if it wore a T Shirt saying "I am a rhetorical device."

If, Paul further said, they really, really wanted to speak in their new language, the only one who could hear and understand them would be God. That robs the gift of tongues from its intended purpose — evangelism, not personal prayer. 

In the New Testament, tongues were used for the rapid spread of the gospel throughout Asia and the Near East as well as portions of Southern Europe and Northern Africa. The gifting did not seem to be a "once for all time" gift. Peter, for example, used an interpreter in his later years (history and tradition tell us this was John Mark, perhaps the author of Mark which is really a collection of Peter’s stories about Jesus).

Ecstatic utterances — vocalizations that are not tied to any language — have appeared in every major religion including Islam (several major sects use them), Hinduism, Taoism, Christianity, Mormonism and nature worship. In every instance that I can find, they are used as a proof of the presence of God or a god. Because of that I cannot accept "tongues" as a sign of God’s blessing — it would make God a schizophrenic or, at least, say that the devil can produce tongues as he produced snakes from Pharaoh’s magicians… and, in this instance, God can’t come up with a better snake (so to speak).

Jimmy Jividen wrote a book called "Glossalalia: From God or Men" quite a few years ago that is still available used at several internet sites. It is a good overall view of this subject even if Jimmy is a bit harder on those who believe in tongues today than I would be. I’ve even heard some call them a demonic delusion and that is offensive. If someone prays privately in tongues, Romans 14 would seem to indicate that I am to leave them alone. However, if they insist that I am a lesser Christian because I do not seek tongues, Romans 14 would seem to indicate that they are in error.

Some will say that their tongues are the "tongues of angels" spoken of in First Corinthians 13. Two major problems — at least — exist with that idea. The first is that the word "angels" is the same as "messengers" and was often used for those, like Paul, who brought the gospel to a people. That interpretation fits extremely well in the whole discussion from chapter 12-14. Some don’t like that interpretation because they are uncomfortable with the "men and angels" dichotomy but I can live with that. I hear Paul saying that if he speaks like a regular Joe or an apostle and doesn’t have love, he has nothing. The second problem is that heavenly angels are not physical beings and don’t have tongues or a variety of languages. Every linguistic study of tongue speaking has shown that, far from discovering a new angelic language, the pattern of sounds, pace, and intonation are all learned from the community in which they appear. In other words, tongue speaking in Alabama is different from that in Uganda… and from other places in Alabama. Tongue speaking is a local, not a universal, event that can be traced to a specific earthly locality.

Of course, all of us — especially me — should remain open and teachable on this and every other doctrine that currently divides us. We have much to learn and, as long as we all realize that and admit it, studying together will only draw us closer to each other and our God.

Interesting stuff coming over the transom at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com and I love it. This one made me go back to my books for awhile but it was fun.

"I hear a lot about churches being full of modern day Pharisees, how we aren’t supposed to be Pharisees, etc. but what about the Sadducees? Are there modern day Sadducees?"

Absolutely! But let’s start with a bit of historical review. Hundreds of years before Jesus, the religious and political world of Israel was murderously divided by two opposing forces. The Pharisees were a restoration and purity movement. Their name originated with either the word perusim (separated ones) or parosim (specifiers). They believed that Israel could once again be the great nation it once was if it separated from the world’s power systems and if its people kept the law of Moses scrupulously. The Sadducees were the religious left. Not only did they not separate from the world’s power systems, they were enthusiastic participants in them. They were Hellenists — people who wanted their ignorant and backwoods countrymen to come into the modern world. They were embarrassed by the Pharisees but weren’t in a position to do much about it. 

Herod had given the Sadducees power but kept a tension between the two groups so that he could play puppet master… and so the Sadducees weren’t able to consolidate enough power to give him a problem. The Temple duties were divided between the groups. The common people greatly preferred the Pharisees so the Sadducees stuck to the religious courts, Sanhedrin, and circles of secular power and let the Pharisees call most of the shots around the Temple and in the public square. Nobody wanted to go back to the time when their differences broke out into warfare that cost thousands of lives (one Sadducee/High Priest crucified hundreds of Pharisees, slitting the throats of their wives and children in front of them while they died). They both treaded carefully.

Pharisees came in two flavors, or schools of thought. The School of Shammai was fierce and unforgiving. They took the brunt of Jesus’ wrath in Matthew 23. They elevated their interpretation of the law over peoples’ needs, ignored the poor and widows, were arrogant, and yet… they were comfortable with their own sins. They were hypocrites. The School of Hillel wanted to restore the law, but they were not nearly as mean and hypocritical about it as their Shammai brethren. Jesus supported the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2) but attacked them for their unforgiving spirits and hypocrisy. Paul, Nicodemus, and other prominent Pharisees became Christ followers (while staying Pharisees — see Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5-9).

As far as we can tell, no Sadducee ever became a Christ follower.

Modern Pharisees are legalists, hypocrites, or people who profess one way of life only to live a different one. We see them everywhere and, if we are honest, many of us have been them from time to time!

Modern day Sadducees are, like their historical antecedents, religious liberals. The Sadducees acted as if there would be no Day of Judgment. They denied the resurrection, angels, demons, miracles, etc. They rushed to embrace any current fad in lifestyle or thought. They believed in linking arms with the State in order to do good. Their children today are the religious left who want to feed the poor, lift up the fallen, etc. by using government action, not personal sacrifice. They tend to embrace anything from gay marriage to the sanctuary movement to global warming alarmism all in the name of being faithful to Jesus. They aren’t afraid to toss away any Biblical verse, passage, or book if it gets in their way (the Sadducees of Jesus’ time only accepted the first five books of the Bible and their own writings. Modern ones only accept the passages they like… and their own writings).

The only antidote to this nonsense is to limit ourselves to teaching the good news of Jesus, living what we say we believe, taking personal responsibility for doing good, and not getting entangled in the affairs of this world… or its governments and cultural fads.

Coming over the transom at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com was a follow up to the last question. Two sent it in so I’ll just paraphrase them both as:

That helps a lot about how we got some of our ideas about Sunday worship, but what about Wednesdays? Our elders say it is a sin to miss Wednesdays, but I can’t find anything about that in the Bible. What gives?

You’ve stumped the Patrick! Try as I might I couldn’t find definitive information about how we started Mid-Week Bible studies. I found that most of them were originally "prayer meetings" and that was handy because another questioner asked:

What are prayer meetings? Do people really meet just for prayer? How did they get started?

As to the matter of how they got started, I would assume it was a logical and natural outgrowth of the desire of a Christian community to approach their God in prayer as a group. "Prayer Meeting" means different things in different church cultures, however, and only rarely does the term really mean to spend the entire time in prayer. I have been a part of a church that used prayer meetings as just that: a time to gather as a family and pray. We even had a bonus hour of prayer every first Friday of the month (starting at 7 and ending promptly at 8 or earlier so that people could go on to ball games, dating, etc.). I enjoyed them immensely when we weren’t bogged down by requests to pray over a long list of people we didn’t know and weren’t connected to ("please pray for the sister in law of the lady I work with. She is sick with something, but I’m not sure what…").

Most "prayer meetings" include some songs and teaching time. Churches of Christ and some other religious tribes dropped the "prayer meeting" designation as being not adequately descriptive as a term. We usually call our meetings just "mid-week services", "Wednesday nights", or "Bible Study." A short devotion and a song or two might be done as a family and then they split into classes (or, in some churches, the short gathering is at the end). More and more congregations skip the devo and songs, spending the entire hour in separate classes.

As to how they became mandatory, that one’s easy: start something good that has some benefit and very shortly it will become a part of your identity and culture. To refuse to engage in it is seen as a refusal to be identified with that group, or as a judgment on the wisdom of those who came before  you. What was once done because it was good and beneficial beccomes a weight and burden instead. I strongly support Wednesday night gatherings and, in fact, I worry about those who don’t think those gathering times are worth their time. I wonder if they aren’t growing apathetic, content with their current level of spiritual knowledge and growth.

So… I confess: even though I understand that these times together aren’t a requirement, I find myself becoming legalistic when I think about them very long. They ARE good and, if done right, are highly beneficial… but God didn’t order us to attend them and elders overreach when they make a law God’s wisdom didn’t require Him to make. At the same time we must humbly realize that "daily and from house-to-house" was the pattern of the early church. We’ve cut that down to a couple of hours on Sunday and an hour or so on Wednesday and STILL we chafe under that "burdensome"  duty! What a bunch of wienies we are!

If anyone has info on how we picked Wednesday as the one night we would gather, let me know. We gathered on Thursday nights at one church I attended because the denominations in town had a vibrant and active Wednesday program and we didn’t want to compete with them. We thought it might help us get them to visit us. It didn’t and I hated it anyway… because Thursday night had SO much better TV than Wednesday and I was missing it. There. I said it. Hate me if you must.  

Again, it would be great to have an historian write the answer to these kinds of questions, but I’ll give it a go…

I don’t know if this question is out of context, but I am curious about something. When did the service or worship become confined to one hour on the Lord’s Day?

Acts 2 and 4 are very specific: worship, fellowship, sharing, and common love were daily activities in the first churches. People had jobs (and you didn’t get Sundays off!) so all this had to be a "come and go" affair but that made it an even more vital part of their lives. There was no chance that worship and sharing would become static because it was what you did when you weren’t at work. Therefore, it changed every day.

After Christianity gained "official religion of the state" status, the state immediately set about controlling it (lessons anyone? Anyone? Bueller?). Worship moved from homes to special built facilities or chapels reclaimed from pagan religions. Mutual ministry was abandoned as — slowly at first — a system of clergy was put in place. That last event occurred in part because people naturally sought replacements for the apostles and, later, those who knew the apostles personally. It also occurred because the government preferred that the church be organized as it was. More than one historian has written extensively about how the hierarchy of what would become the Catholic Church is exactly parallel to that of the Roman government with its cardinals, archbishops, etc. taking the place of Proconsuls, Governors, etc.

Even then, churches were open for business almost every day and night of the week. It is still the tradition for cathedrals to remain open at all times (though vagrants, terrorists, protesters, and radio shock jocks have made it necessary to lock them down more and more often). So how did we get to limit worship to one day a week?

The Protestant Reformation bears some responsibility here as do the various wars between Church and State and the end of the rule of nobles. Once the State no longer was in charge of the church (though it still is in some European countries and in all Islamic countries), individuals were allowed to judge for themselves what to believe and where to go to church. That meant, of course, they were also free NOT to go to church. Or NOT to go to church every day and especially weekends and feast days.

Now, work enters into the picture. The Industrial Revolution kicked in so hard that even schooling took a back seat. The whole family worked in factories; their lives no longer ruled by the sun and rain but by the clock. While there were some miserable conditions out there, this eventually led to the consumer society. People were able to buy things and improve their lives. They could even save money and send their kids to better schools. All this work, saving, buying, and achieving took time, of course, and so the clock had to be divided in such a way as to give a person time to rest, go to school, wash their clothes… and worship.

Worship usually took place all day long on Sunday… in America. In Europe, it was reduced to a few hours a day. Most Protestant churches had their main service on Sunday mornings (often closed to non-members) with an evening time of songs and prayers that was open to visitors. Many Scottish churches still follow that pattern today and, for all I know, so do many other European churches. In America, distances were far more vast. People had to travel a long way to find people with whom they could worship in a way that suited them (and which, they assumed, suited God best, too). After a trip of two or five hours, nobody wanted to worship an hour and then go home! They worshiped for hours with several speakers, tons of songs and testimonies, and meals being enjoyed around the periphery throughout the day. In some ways, it would have looked a lot like an early Christian church gathering in that it was noisy, come and go based, and there was a lot of mutual ministry going on (or ministry by rough and ready unordained ministers!).

Again, work enters into the picture. As roads got better and work’s rewards grew, people sliced that clock like a pie, allocating less time for worship. It was easy to go to worship, return home for a comfortable meal (i.e. not outside being eaten by insects, rained on, or fighting the wind) and then go back for another time of worship if required.

Actually, that second trip was a fairly recent development. Most people went to worship only once a day. Close to the same time that all day meetings were no longer necessary (because of travel times, close proximity of churches, etc.), shift work began. While some churches taught that working on Sunday was a sin, that never really took hold in America where work, individualism, self betterment, and freedom held hands and cast goo-goo eyes at consumerism every chance they got! Many Protestant churches instituted a Sunday evening service for those shift workers. Churches of Christ, my religious tribe, did the same. In my tribe, the communion would be offered for those "providentially hindered" from attending the morning service. Everything in the evening service mirrored the morning service, but with a different message and set of songs.

Soon, the service for the shift workers became a part of the church’s culture and, therefore, attendance was expected. Even today, long after the reason for its establishment has been forgotten and long after the need has passed, there are churches that would rather split and set up rival congregations than to go to abandon the evening service. Many, in fact, DO set the evening service aside but replace it with small groups. (while I am a big supporter of small groups, it amazes me how many people think they need to meet on Sunday night!)

The upshot of all of this is that worship had to be content with a smaller slice of pie/clock. In some churches in my tribe, this was pushed even further (!!!) by the hunger of people for more relevant worship, more fellowship, and more sharing. Elders feared that anything out of the ordinary and common would be a sin, therefore if a special group was to sing or a woman was to make an announcement, they would "close the service" first with a dismissal prayer. Members quickly came to believe that worship began with the opening prayer and ended with the closing prayer. Things that were verboten within those prayer brackets could be welcomed outside them (such as visiting choirs, drama). Fun songs that would have been an abomination on Sunday morning were sung with enthusiasm during Vacation Bible School programs or youth rallies. Such was fine because those weren’t worship services (yikes), i.e. within the prayer brackets on Sunday morning.

So now you have it. It wasn’t one thing but a hundred that got us where we are today. And it won’t be one thing that will get us back to where we should be in our worship, fellowship, sharing, giving, caring, crying, and praying… you know…. that whole "people of God" thing.