Paul wrote to the saints in Corinth that, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony (1 Corinthians14:33 MSG). That’s a good thing, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ. Certainly it is something much to be desired and sought after far more than disputation and discord. After all, who would want troublemakers in our midst? The word translated by the Message as "confusion" is the Greek "Akatastasia" that is also translated as "tumult," "commotion" and "confusion." Who would want someone around causing nothing but trouble, constantly disputing what we are preaching and teaching? What Paul wrote to the Corinthians he said applied to all churches without exception. Probably, then, that would apply to us today as well. Some caution might be suggested by the fact that the following verse of Paul’s letter says, Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak (v34).

Understandably, some churches have elevated his comments about harmony to the level of doctrine saying, basically, if you don’t like what you hear you can and you are invited to go someplace else. Now that may seem a bit harsh, but isn’t it understandable? Preachers today would be no more likely to encourage or tolerate those in their congregations who disagree with them than Paul would have in his day. the works of the flesh, Paul enumerates are antagonism, envy, rivalry and combativeness, quarreling opposition and dissension, defiance and disobedience that are ranked right up there with adultery, fornication, hatred, murder, witchcraft, sedition and heresy. Quite a list. One might well consider shying away from the accusation of being involved in such unacceptable behavior.

But, surely one must ask if the opposite of sedition is conformity. Is harmony to be achieved at any price? John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible suggests that harmony is a "byproduct" of teaching the Gospel, "truly, sincerely, without any adulteration." That’s a far cry from contemporary preachers demanding (for sake of "harmony") that their congregations unquestioningly accept their teachings? Its also a far cry from so many "sermons which are a blend of the Gospel interspersed with their philosophy of life and their wisdom. As a matter of fact, most translations suggest preaching the truth is the precursor to peace and harmony within the congregation. Over and over again, it is "truthful speech" rather than edicts and demands for conformity. Even in his letter to the Romans when he wrote, Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another (Romans 14:19), his call is not open-ended but rather refers to those things that "edify." That means we are to "build up" one another; help each other grow in "Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness (ref.). The truth corrupted by mixtures of philosophy, psychology and other expressions of human wisdom is simply no substitute. It is doubtful such preaching would or should produce harmony.

To whom was Paul referring when he wrote, Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) pastors, ministers or all Christians? Over and over again (ref.) we are warned to be on guard against false prophets. We are specifically warned Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God by the Apostle John (1 John 4:1). Doesn’t this suggest that we, the Body of Christ, are to study the Word ourselves to be able to evaluate what is preached and taught? It certainly does not seem to suggest a vacuous, passive acceptance every word that proceedeth for the mouth of the preacher. Might not one be suspicious of a preacher demanding absolute obedience to his teaching? If such perfect knowledge were humanly possible, why did Jesus promise and send us the Holy Spirit? Such demands are one of the measures of a cult. According to the Apologetics Index, "A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader…"(ref) Another of the foundation’s 14 characteristics of a cult is that "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished." Worshiping the "right way" is being true to God’s Word. That’s when He will bring harmony into our midst instead of confusion.

Return to the page directory

Is it "who we are trying to reach" or "what we are trying to teach?" The question is relatively new to Christianity and virtually non-existent in other of the world’s major religions. Formerly, in days gone bye, the answer would have been what we are trying to teach. A few years ago, Christians knew it was our God given ministry to "preach the Gospel." Now it appears we’re not so sure. The emphasis seems to have shifted

Part of the reason for this transformation concerns evangelism – reaching the "unsaved." We don’t even want to call them "unbelievers" or "unsaved" for fear of offending. Instead, we call them "seekers" and some "churches" pride themselves in being "seeker friendly." One pastor, at the forefront of this avant-garde movement, states, "You can’t communicate with people until you find something you have in common with them. Perhaps, but it is his next statement that really sets the stage for what we are calling "democratic Christianity." "The ground we have in common with unbelievers is not the Bible, but our common needs, hurts, and interests as human beings. All well and good if the core of Christianity is God meeting our "felt needs." If not, when/how is the disciple of "consumer Christianity" converted to "servant Christianity?"

There is a second issue. In order to be "seeker friendly," we must preach to people’s "felt needs," what they find interesting and appealing with the hope that they will come back. To assess what will "capture their attention," the "successful" (large/mega) churches have become marketing savvy. What "right thinking" pastor would consider starting a church in a new community without surveying what the people wanted? Could one hazard a guess what such a survey of "needs" and "interests" will come up with? If you were to go to such a church’s web sites and search, for such Biblical words as "sin," "salvation," "resurrection" you’d get a list that would include such topics as basketball, blended families, cycling, bowling and bridge, hiking and hockey instead. You will probably find his statement on baptism and basic beliefs nestled somewhere between.

Many years ago a book titled The Lonely Crowd lamented the passing of what the author called the "inner-directed" person and the advent of one he labeled the "other-directed." It was this other-directed whom he categorized as the "lonely crowd." "Other-directed" because, having lost, or never found, a solid foundation in moral judgment, such persons are like a ship adrift, subject to the whims of tides and winds of popular opinion – majority rule at its "best." They are a lonely crowd because, surrounded by their peers, they are nevertheless uncertain of what is "in" and what is not from moment to moment. They are constantly on guard not to be out of step with those who are, for the moment popular – the "trend setters," constantly sensitive to any clue that what was once but no longer is the "in" thing in speech, thought or action. In simple and old-fashioned language this is the "herd mentality – something like sheep – so easily led. Is today’s "church" a "lonely crowd?" Has it abdicated its moral leadership; surrendering to majority rule?

At one time we knew what Christianity stood for. According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology doctrine played an extremely important part in the early teachings of the apostles. It is generally agreed that early doctrinal statement consisted of three principles: (a) Jesus is the Messiah – Acts 3:18, (b) that He rose from the dead – Acts 1:22, 2:24,32 (c) that salvation is by faith in His name – Acts 2:38, 3:16. What we heard in Christian homes and churches was Christian Doctrine - Scriptural teaching based on theological truths. Those days, when we might have likened the Christian community as "inner-directed," governed by their sure and certain "internal gyroscope" of Biblical Truth, appear to have passed on. While we might have tried to find some common ground with the unsaved in order to share the Good News more effectively with them, they never became the dictators of what we taught or believed. We would seek to change them not become them. It’s one thing, however dangerous and ill advised to go into a bar to evangelize and something else to become a drunkard to demonstrate we are "one of the boys." Christians were once the trendsetters, not the followers. Much of what is taking place in this Country stems from the fact that we have long ago lost the "moral high ground" becoming pretty well indistinguishable from everyone else. Seeking not to offend has been elevated to a moral virtue. It’s almost as though we have adopted the Rodney King plea, "Can’t we all just get along together?"

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Return to the page directory

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:53

John records that, as Jesus was being seized in the Garden, Peter drew a sword from his side and cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave Malchus (John 18:10). It is that act that prompted Jesus’ response recorded in Matthew 26:53. It is a rebuke on many levels. Peter presumed to take charge – he was a "take charge kind of guy" like so many of us. Jesus is in charge – or should be. Should Peter have asked were there some doubt about his appropriate response? Should he have known as Jesus points out that, But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled (Matthew 26:56)?

What may be even more uncomfortable for many of us is that this was also a rebuke of the use of violence. Jesus said, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52). Was this, unlike the way we apply the rest of Scripture, just a one-time utterance not to be taken out of context and applied in a larger sense? Surely Jesus the Christ was not condemning the use of force suitable circumstances was He? There is a difference of opinion. The People’s New Commentary states it is "A general law. The violent usually die violent deaths." John Gill's Exposition of the Bible gives four exceptions to Jesus’ proclamation: (1) governments may conduct war, (2) "ministers of the word for good," (3) revenge for evil deeds and (4) self-defense. That’s comforting isn’t it? But, the Four Fold Gospel Commentary states that by rebuking Peter, "Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom."

Paul writing to the saints at Corinth said, For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3). Gill seems to suffer a lapse of memory, because in this case, he writes, "every Christian's life is a warfare with Satan, and his principalities and powers …not done "after the flesh"; in such a manner as the men of the world wage war with one another … but in a spiritual way." What about Jesus’ statement on revenge, But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39) and forgiveness, Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22).

And what of our enemies, are we not morally justified to take up the sword and slay them? Isn’t that the natural, the normal thing to do? Yes. But is that how we Christians are to respond toward them? You know the answer – it is NO! Jesus said But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you (Luke 6:27) Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44). In Mark 11:25 He said, And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. That doesn’t sound very vengeful. To the saints in Roman Paul wrote, Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12:9). Be not afraid of them that kill the body (Luke 12:4).

Jesus restrained His hand didn’t He? If anyone was ever justified in taking up His sword against evil and unrighteousness wouldn’t it be He? Instead, the Son of the Living God in His entire ministry preached love and forbearance didn’t He? In James we find, From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? (James 4:1) Scriptures simply don’t support the idea that under some circumstances violence is justified. What is also striking in Jesus’ teachings is the absence of any suggestion or recommendation that violence ever is to be used.

My, what a difficult lesson to accept. To reject violence is to discard the idea that, ultimately, there is something we can do to correct injustice and achieve that which cannot be obtained in any other way. We may not be ready to totally reject violence as a means to some ends – however Scriptural that may be. Notwithstanding the thought of love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, in as much as you have done it unto the least of one of these, pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you along other rather emphatic Scriptures speaking against its use strongly suggests it should be the least desirable choice – one of last (not first) resort. Our trust should be in the Lord. He is our rock and our salvation, not the sword.

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain:
ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. James 4:2

Return to the page directory