A Question of Priorities

It’s the old “nature/nurture” debate; the chicken or the egg; the “catch-22”, the irresistible force versus the immovable object. It has seesawed countless times throughout our human dialogue, whether in ecclesiastical circles or society at large. Some clever person frames the question so as to elicit a certain answer, and when the respondent coughs up the reply, he immediately becomes a fool, or worse, an infidel.

Take the question: Do you love souls or do you love God? Or, how can you befriend the sinner without contaminating your relationship with God? Or, should the church strive to be relevant or separate? Or, should we sacrifice vigilance on the altars of a mega-revival vision? Most often, such unresolved conundrums pool up like standing water at a swamp bottom, offer no healthy release, and polarize people into opposing factions.

I’m speaking of progress as opposed to regress; outreach to the sinner versus holiness for the saints; the choice between evangelism and discipleship. For too long, the debate has been posited as one or the other. One school contends for full-bore evangelism, bringing as many of the “great unwashed” as possible into the confines of our steepled edifices, ignoring all the attendant sights, sounds and smells. The opposing view maintains that the overarching principles of true discipleship make purity imperative, and throttle any growth that challenges holiness teachings. The question has no easy answer because variegated perspectives cast it in different lights. Either holiness precludes revival, as the argument goes, or else evangelism simply excuses unrestrained worldliness. Both sides see the other as the agent of destruction.

Unfortunately, these entrenched views mark the beginning of the present dialogue, not the end. With minds made up, with two and three generations invested into one particular side, with years of freely expressing disagreement—-sometimes infused with inflammatory terminology—-the contention turns hot and cold, but never off. For the militant, “compromise” is a vile word, and thus every attempt to reach an understanding or to orchestrate a truce fails before it starts. Absent this understanding, withdrawal and isolation emerges as the preferred path. Yet, these intransigent attitudes need not rule the day.

Evangelism and growth do not negate holiness. If I understand the mission of the church, our number one mandate is to reach the lost. In his gospel, John wrote that Jesus “must needs go through Samaria .” (John 4:4). In his parting words for the fledgling band of disciples, ”Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15 ). The compelling burden for Paul to reach the world drove his entire ministerial career. But if increased numbers watered down the doctrines and practices of the church, then the primitive church would have miserably failed in its mission. We know that didn’t happen. The first church maintained high and stringent standards, even with meteoric growth.

Holiness teachings do not stop evangelism. Clearly, God’s people must be graced with inward and outward holiness. “… and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14). Liberal leanings, which erode biblical holiness, must never characterize the church. At the same time, neither can we succumb to an unreasonable fear of zealous evangelism because it may potentially poke holes in our wall of separation.

It comes down to a question of priorities. This does not mean establishing priorities between evangelism and holiness, but of timing and need. For the lost sinner, holiness means nothing if he is not evangelized. Even if we clean him up to look like a saint, but he still has an unregenerated heart, he remains lost. On the other hand, the church that loses its holiness distinctive has nothing to offer to the lost world. Whatever evangelistic thrust it makes has no meaning beyond the generic programs of countless other church groups and denominations.

For the lost, our priority must be evangelism. In discipling the saint, the priority must be holiness. Contention only erupts when we see the two goals as mutually exclusive. When we achieve the proper balance and timing between the two, the contention subsides. That means that saints and sinners must sometimes rub elbows, and it means we must exercise wisdom in every situation, but it produces the end result of a church that is both growing and healthy.

Jesus provides us with the pattern. “And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.” (Luke 19:7). Love without compromise. Jesus had his priorities in order.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part One)

Searching for Ethical Clarity in Contemporary Confusion

Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Of course you do---or do you? Maybe not. Too many variables, too many difficult judgments and too many opinions in trying to determine the difference between the two present profound dilemmas to citizens in a civil society. A sampling of cases in which monumental struggles continue to plague twenty-first century people include abortion, capital punishment, racial justice, illegal immigration, right to privacy, national health care, gun ownership and environmental law. Anyone who possesses even basic familiarity with arguments on both sides of these issues understands that neither the problems nor the solutions are simple.

People who dismiss ethical struggles with a wave of the hand will, in all probability, confront the complexity of right and wrong soon enough. It may come in the form of “pulling the plug” on a loved one. It may involve knowing how to treat the child of an unmarried son or daughter, whether or not one will accept the interracial marriage of a relative, or what to do about a close friend or relative who has just confessed to moral failure. It may come with deciding if he or she should file for bankruptcy, whether or not to prosecute a relative who has forged his or her name on bad checks, what do to about a suspected case of child abuse in one’s own family. Modern life has presented us with a host of new ethical questions that we have never had to consider, or that have exacerbated old questions we thought were resolved long ago.

In fact, the judgment between right and wrong lies at the heart of most human acts and relationships. Virtually everything in the human realm—birth, courtship, marriage, schooling, employment, buying, selling, living, dying—goes by a written or unwritten code. Arguments, feuds and wars erupt because some person or group thinks that a wrong has been perpetrated and must be avenged. While we exempt infants and very small children from this burden, we demand that able-minded persons in society reach an “age of accountability”, or an age at which they know right from wrong. Judges, lawyers, mediators and arbitration experts all find gainful employment in the search for right and wrong. Government entities either determine or enforce what is right or wrong---something we call law. Enormous complexities spawned by technological advances like cloning, genome mapping and fetal tissue research occupy much of the time of ethicists and legal counsel for medical laboratories and hospitals. Regardless of the field of study, the policies in question or the people involved, no one can afford to ignore ethical considerations.

In the past, life was much simpler. Iron-fisted tribal patriarchs decided what was right or wrong. Strong families, guided by either wise or at least domineering leaders ruled many people. Kings, prime ministers and presidents often arbitrarily set the standards for ethical behavior. Today, in democratic societies, we have largely relegated this decision-making process to the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ultimately, the highest court in the land hands down decisions on the most difficult cases.

Those of us who believe in God and accept the Bible as the Word of God, find the ethical dilemmas that confound secular society much more manageable. We seriously strive to follow the precepts and instructions that we find in scripture. This gives us a background, a starting point, and a set of clear and divinely prescribed laws from which we govern all human relationships. In our quest for truth in ethical dilemmas, we always appeal first to the Word of God. If we do not find a specific word or verse that applies to the problem, we search for a larger principle that includes the problem in its scope. In the absence of a clearly defined larger principle, we study the behaviors of those people in scripture who had the blessing and approval of God on their lives. In some way, either by direct chapter and verse or by deductive reasoning from scripture, we can arrive at an understanding of essential rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The process may not be easy. Sometimes it is so difficult that several schools of thought have evolved on particular issues. I submit, therefore, an outline to help guide our thinking about the moral and ethical questions that we confront as we live our lives for God. What I say will not matter to the person who does not believe in God, or who does not accept the Bible as the Word of God. But, I do believe that we can apply the scriptures to our problems, even to modern ethical questions made possible by new technologies, and find a peace about troubling issues.

Ethics and philosophy have intrigued thinking man from the earliest times. Zeno, Democritus, Socrates and other ancient Greek philosophers approached the subject in surprisingly sophisticated ways. They concerned themselves with the nature of man and matter, and searched for the elusive quality of good. Many of them believed in a spiritual aspect to ethics, a belief we now call metaphysics. The philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle were based on idealism and logic, but both tend toward the idea that man discovers true ethical behavior in a quest for his most virtuous and best self. Augustine, probably the most renowned early Christian philosopher, dealt largely with the concept of good and evil, and made man responsible for his moral choices. Many other philosophers offered similar theories and ideas about ethics.

Until the Renaissance Period, most theories about ethical behavior were based upon a belief in God. But by the mid-1400’s, the influence of the church had already begun to decline with the rise of universities and statism. Secular philosophies such as humanism, scientific inquiry and political/social interpretations gradually gained prominence. These ideas denied the intervention of God in the activities of man on the basis that God could not be quantified in rational, observable experiments. Thinking about ethics, therefore, took a new direction. Nicolo Machiavelli, in his book, The Prince, developed the notion that the end justifies the means. Sir Thomas More wrote about Utopia, a fantasy island in which communism, uniformity of the sexes and peace were practiced. Anything that undermined these ideals was considered unlawful.

René Descartes, a French philosopher, broke new ground in rationalism of ethical behavior. He believed that a person should stand by the convictions he has formed within himself and adapt to his environment. He meant that one should judge his behavior on the terms of his own rational thought about himself and his personal convictions, not from any ideas imposed upon him from the outside. Even though Descartes was a devout Catholic, his writings illustrated a definite departure from Christian thought. This deviation continued in others. John Stewart Mill promoted a concept first espoused by Jeremy Bentham, called utilitarianism. In his own words, Mill believed that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In other words, actions are not intrinsically right or wrong; they may only be so judged after one examines their end result. Further, Mill said that actions must be based upon what will do the most good for the most people.

Given the evacuation of faith from these later developments, it should not be surprising to detect nascent post-modern views. Jean de Lamarck, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer contradicted, or at least questioned, the generally accepted belief that man’s origin was a Creator God. Philosophically, this paved the way for Friedrich Nietzsche to openly reject a system of ethics based upon God. According to Nietzsche, the Judeo-Christian system of moral ideals should be replaced by returning to nature’s values. He believed, as Darwin postulated in his survival of the fittest, that “might makes right”. Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term agnosticism, claiming that genuine knowledge consists only of facts verifiable by the natural sciences. Of ethical matters, Huxley said we have no right to assert the truth or falsity of any assertion without sufficient relevant evidence and certainly should not require others to accept our unsubstantiated beliefs.

Today, many theorists have attracted widespread followings, and since we encounter their views throughout our cultural experience, we would do well to know about them. Søren Kierkegaard’s name is associated with existentialism, a belief that individual existence, freedom and choice are of the highest significance in the human context. Paul Tillich, also an existentialist, believed that people should have the courage to be themselves. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist and playwright and a leading exponent of existentialism, believed in the notion of individual responsibility independently of religion. John Dewey constructed another philosophical school of thought called instrumentalism in which he believed that philosophy was dynamic and always adapting itself to its environment. This is especially relevant because John Dewey, often called the Father of Progressive Education, has had a profound effect upon education in America.

In terms of ethics, all of these ideas form the underpinnings of today’s evaluation of right and wrong. Whenever we express shock and disbelief at the lack of Biblical or even traditional ethics in our world, we can search the writings of these philosophers and their contemporaries and discover the reason. This brief synopsis omits much of the historical record, but it serves to show that the trends in ethical standards presently derives, for the most part, from whatever an individual believes, with no interference from God, the Bible or other people.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part Two)

Searching for Ethical Clarity in Contemporary Confusion

Since the Bible has been heralded throughout the centuries as the “Good Book”, the book that teaches right from wrong, it may come as a surprise to some that the Bible does not treat ethics as a singular matter. In fact, one may say that the entire body of scripture is a study in ethics. More properly, the Bible should be understood to be the revelation of an infinitely righteous and holy God to totally unrighteous and unholy man. For the believer, therefore, ethical principles and behaviors do not stand as an independent body of knowable truths; rather, they flow out of the knowledge of God. Moreover, a vital relationship with the living God assures the believer that ethics always transcend intellectual or philosophical knowledge to become a matter of the heart.

Not everything, of course, deserves to be elevated to the level of an ethical consideration. Perhaps the choice between a British diagonal stripe or a plum solid in neck wear would be either right and wrong in the eyes of a fashion expert, but for most of us, such decisions are insignificant. While some may be willing to engage in a lengthy argument on the difference between ethical and non-ethical subjects, I decline to do so here. Vast areas of human behavior lie in the realm of individual tastes and preferences. Some of these things have the potential for ethical adjudication, but until they cross that threshold, they should remain ethically invisible.

Matters clearly stated in the scripture.

The Bible addresses some questions so directly that no controversy really exists. Even the most cursory of examinations of scriptural evidence make this abundantly clear. The only way such evidence can be disproved is to dispute the infallibility of the scripture or adhere to a hermeneutical system other than the literal/historical norm accepted by traditional Bible believers.

For example, suppose a brother in Christ defrauds you in a business deal. Do you have the liberty to take him to a civil court and prosecute him? No, you do not, according to I Corinthians 6:1-8.

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. (KJV)

The Apostle addresses this problem in such a direct and thorough way that there remains little doubt as to his meaning. While he concedes that legal transactions among believers can run amuck, he denies that saints have recourse to judgment in front of unbelievers. The wronged party should choose another believer in the church who can settle the dispute. Some people attempt to get around this ruling by claiming that a brother who would defraud them in this way is no longer a brother. Such a charge has no real merit, since all of us have our faults and failures, even while we continue to belong to the body of Christ.

What if the offending brother refuses to accept the judgment of the chosen arbitrator? Even in this case, the scripture is clear. The defrauded brother simply suffers the wrong against him and goes on, rather than pressing the matter in civil courts. In fact, this outcome illustrates the true ethical position. He submits to the scriptural mandate, refuses to bring reproach upon the church by a lawsuit, forgives his errant brother and demonstrates his esteem for spiritual truths over temporal goods or wealth. In addition, he embraces the promises of God to take care of his needs in this life.

Consider the opposite scenario. Imagine that one brother does go to civil law against another brother. He would set in motion a destructive chain of events. Witnesses would be called, people in the church would line up on either side of the dispute, and harsh statements would be made in an atmosphere devoid of love and brotherly kindness. Soon, the incident would most likely mushroom into a serious problem for the church. In fact, whenever this has happened, (and, unfortunately, it has) churches have split, souls have been lost, and factional feuds fomented by the trial have spanned two or three generations. Obedience, honor, forgiveness, temperance and trust in God all become casualties as a result of this unscriptural choice.

The Bible contains many clear statements regarding right and wrong behavior. First, however, a person must answer the operative question of whether or not it is right to obey the Bible. For believers, there can be no other answer than total affirmation of the Bible as the Word of God. It follows, then, that unambiguous statements of right and wrong in scripture dictate to us how we should conduct our lives. People who violate or ignore some clear biblical commands, even while embracing others, transgress a law more fundamental than the particular issue in question, that is denying the will of God in their lives. In effect, they usurp authority over the Bible because they say yes or no to Bible truths at will.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (Part Three)

Searching for Clarity in Contemporary Confusion
 
While the scriptures do answer many questions directly, mitigating circumstances or contrasting scriptures often place other questions outside the scope of precise chapter and verse. In these cases, it is still possible to discern the ethical route that must be taken. Circumstantial evidence, also called “prima facie” evidence may lead to a conclusion that is universally perceived as wrong, or that forces an evil or wrong to be committed.

A clear example of prima facie scriptures may be seen in the practice of a certain sect to refuse to take blood transfusions. They base their belief, in part on the following scriptures:

Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. (KJV)

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (KJV)

Eating blood, a pagan ritual, does not equate to an intravenous blood transfusion. If we believe that these scriptures do forbid such a procedure, we are immediately faced with a huge conundrum. Medical science has dramatic and historical proof that blood transfusions save lives. Suppose that I refuse a blood transfusion, or I forbid doctors to give my child a blood transfusion, even though certain death would follow. In either case, by citing these scriptures as the reason for my decision, I have forced a fatal convolution upon sound biblical interpretation. In a sense, I have made the Bible responsible for my own, or my child’s, death. Some, who have held such beliefs, have even said that God must have wanted their child to die, although a routine procedure that would have averted death lay well within their grasp. These people often seek supposed moral refuge in the thought that they would rather obey the scriptures rather than the orders of a doctor. In the interest of consistency, then, they ought never to seek medical attention for any condition at any time, whether from doctor, dentist, optometrist or any other medical professional. To say that medical treatment is proper, except for blood transfusions, demonstrates great confusion, if not outright hypocrisy.

It seems quite obvious to me that a superficial and non-exegetical use of the scriptures spells danger. The Law of Prima Facie holds that things do not always exist as they seem to appear. All factors associated with a scripture must be weighed against the face value of that scripture. The following principles, therefore, come to light:

Process: All relevant facts need to be processed before arriving at a decision.
Context: The cultural and interpretive context of a scripture should always be explored.
Consequences: The full range of consequences should be leveraged against inconvenient or bizarre actions.
Divine attributes: No scripture should work against the character or attributes of God.

Other examples abound in which adherents cite scripture as the basis for their beliefs. They include: insistence on keeping the Sabbath (Saturday), mandating the observance of dietary laws and other Jewish customs, subscribing to certain eschatological views, communistic forms of government, metaphysical healing, baptism by proxy, gambling and other widespread beliefs and practices. One must apply the Law of Prima Facie to every doctrine or teaching that appears on the horizon of church polity.

Lest those who seek to subvert the scriptures try to take advantage of this view and call every verse with which they disagree an example of prima facie, I wish to strongly state that the Bible must be taken literally everywhere it is possible to do so. Wherever the meaning is clearly metaphorical or is extremely limited in its scope, we must point these factors out. Otherwise, we would fall into the equal and opposite errors of those who only interpret scripture in a metaphorical or spiritual sense.

The Law of The Larger Principle

As time goes on, the inventions and practices of humankind continue to multiply. The Bible contains no references to many of these things simply because they didn’t exist when the Bible was written. How do we arrive at a moral or ethical position on these eventualities if we cannot find scriptures about them?

First, we certainly must conclude that the question of morality and ethics impinges upon modern inventions, even though the Bible did not anticipate all of them. From smoking tobacco to the atomic bomb, from television to sociobiology, from crack cocaine to feeding tubes, from cybersex to invitro fertilization, we must wend our way through the ethical maze served up to us by modern life.

I submit that the Bible teaches us of larger principles that adequately govern life today, despite the fact that twenty or more centuries have passed since the final pages of scripture were written. Each question we encounter in our modern world connects back to a general or foundational statement of truth found in the Bible. Based upon the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17), here is a list of such truths, and the implications they contain, that broadly apply to contemporary themes:

The Law of Worship: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. God alone must be glorified in all of man’s work.
The Law of Creation: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. God created man, animals, plants and all matter in a specific way and for specific reasons.
The Law of Respect: Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Man must respect himself and all other persons.
The Law of Order: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. God created all things to work within a certain ordained pattern.
The Law of Honor: Honour thy father and thy mother. There are those to whom we must give a high degree of dignity.
The Law of Life: Thou shalt not kill. All of life is a gift of God.
The Law of Fidelity: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Faithfulness to our commitments forms the basis for enduring relationships.
The Law of Reciprocity: Thou shalt not steal. Unlawfully claiming another’s possessions sets up retaliation and seriously destabilizes society.
The Law of Truth: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Our thoughts and actions must be based on total honesty.
The Law of Love: Thou shalt not covet. Love must define our basic motivation for all interaction between people.

The Ten Commandments, therefore, provide a clear and efficient structure to determine most, if not all, ethical issues that have developed subsequent to their issue. Even the nuances of today’s technological explosion fall under the umbrella of God’s magnificent laws. It is my belief that every significant human behavior must find congruency with these laws or principles. The spectrum is too broad to deal with every particularity, but it is possible for us to show the application of the larger principles to a representative list of problems.

How To Be A Real Man

What does it mean to be a “real man” today? Although presidential politics may benefit from this discussion, it goes far beyond political party affiliation. According to current websites:

• Real Men Do Yoga
• Real Men Don’t Ask for Directions
• Real Men Cook
• Real Men Own Life Insurance
• Real Men Do Love Cats
• Real Men Wear Kilts
• Real Men Vote Republican
• Real Men Do Therapy
• Real Men Don’t Bond
• Real Men Don’t Get Nightmares
• Real Men Paint Their Nails

Paint their nails? I don’t think so. Actually, pop culture has created a certain image of real men today, and it doesn’t include kilts and cats. Real men are rugged and macho, hard and callused, strong, admired by women, sexually promiscuous, not bossed around by a woman, risky and dangerous, not ruled by emotions, good at sports, wild and free, winners. Never mind character, integrity, restraint or honor.

If you don’t think this description is true, just look how much we reward men who embody these characteristics. They can be lovable, so we love them. They can be funny, so we laugh at them. They can be smart, so we compliment them. They can be friendly, so we hang out with them. They can be exciting, so we follow them. They can be interesting, so we talk to them. They can be talented, so we admire them. They have lots of fun, so we enjoy them. Hey! With all these, great attributes---why change? To many, this seems like the life!

But, what do many wives say about these same men? “He never follows through on promises. He doesn’t want me to nag him, but it’s the only way I can get anything done. He will not talk about God or pray with us. He always says, “Whatever you want”, when I really want him to tell me what he wants. He doesn’t know what he wants. He just seems like another one of my kids. He wants me to take care of the money, but he complains when something goes wrong. He won’t discipline the kids. He leaves the kids totally up to me. He never makes any decisions except about his “stuff.” He doesn’t seem to care.”

Men who aren’t real men want people to accept their good points and overlook everything else. They use their charms to hide their character flaws. In most cases, these behaviors are not sub-conscious or psychological defense mechanisms. They are deliberate forms of manipulation. Men choose these actions for selfish gain. These things do not make a man a real man. They actually depict a pathetic and immature joke of a man.

There are two words that really sum up what it means to be a real man:

Taking responsibility.

Sounds simple enough. But this is what truly divides the men from the boys. Taking responsibility means that a man must hold himself accountable for what happens in his own life. Taking responsibility means a man must do what he is supposed to do. Too many men today fail in this definition. In fact, a counter-culture persona has emerged in which irresponsible men equate running from responsibility with being a real man. They yuk it up between themselves when they talk about all they’ve gotten away with in their games.

Why do men hate to take responsibility for their homes and families?

Fear of failure!

You see, men have a secret rule: Play only the games you know. If you don’t know the game, don’t play, because you’ll lose. Worse yet, you’ll look stupid. Losing is bad enough. You sure don’t want to look stupid doing it.

Therefore, here are the games that men play:
• Insulting the opponent.
• Acting mad.
• Refusing to accept blame.
• Fact-twisting or lying.
• Clamming up.
• Diverting attention.
• Jumping in the car and taking off.
• Arguing in a circle.
• Being totally unreasonable.
• Picking a fight on a winnable subject.

But, men use other reasons for resisting responsibility. Responsibility means accountability. Once he accepts responsibility, he must commit time, money, energy. Once he accepts responsibility, he puts his reputation on the line. Once he accepts responsibility, he opens himself up for criticism.

Here are the fundamental truths about men taking responsibility: I alone will be held accountable. I must not expect nor must I allow anyone else to do what I alone am supposed to do. I would rather fail in an honest attempt to take care of my responsibility, than fail to take responsibility. I am willing to be the most influential man in the life of my family.

Warren Wiersbe makes these truths clear in his study of the responsibilities of priests in the Old Testament. In Leviticus 8–10, we find a detailed outline for the eight-day ordination ceremony that Aaron and his sons had to follow. They had three solemn responsibilities: 1) submitting to God’s authority, 2) revealing God’s glory, and 3) accepting God’s discipline.

1. Submitting to God’s authority. (Lev. 8:1–36). God ruled by command. Everything the priests did was in obedience to definite commands: They called an assembly, Aaron and his sons washed themselves, Aaron clothed himself with priestly garments, Aaron was anointed, Aaron’s sons were clothed, they offered various sacrifices, and finally, the priests were anointed.

Real men accept the responsibility to obey God’s commands. This means obeying all the commands about being a father, a husband, a provider, a priest to his family, a disciple, and so on. If he cannot accept responsibility for God’s commands, how can he accept responsibility for his wife, his children or his church?

2. Revealing God’s glory. (Lev. 9:1–24). After obeying God’s commandments, Aaron and his sons were ready to begin serving the Lord at the altar. Up to this point, Moses had been offering the sacrifices; now Aaron and his sons would take up their priestly ministry. They consisted of the following:

Sacrificing on God’s altar. The priests offered a bull calf for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering; from then on, they would begin offering a burnt offering on the altar every morning and evening (v. 16; Ex. 29:38–42). It signified that each day had to begin and end with total consecration to the Lord.

Glorifying God. One of the main purposes of the tabernacle ministry was to glorify the God of Israel whose glory dwelt on the mercy seat in the holy of holies. The pagan nations around them had priests and sacrifices, but they didn’t have the glory of God.

Deal with their own sins first. After the sacrifices, Aaron and his sons and all of Israel were forgiven, dedicated wholly to the Lord and in fellowship with Him. This work was done in proper order. It reminds us that men must first deal with their own sins before they can dedicate themselves totally to the Lord. Only then can they enjoy fellowship with Him.

Sharing God’s blessing. One of the privileges of the high priest was that of blessing the people. On the first day of his ministry, Aaron gave two blessings. He gave the first one alone. He shared the second one with Moses after the ordination ceremony was finished. It was a deliberate act of selfless sharing.

Seeing God’s glory. The glory of the Lord had appeared when Moses finished erecting the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34–35), and it would appear again at the dedication of the temple (2 Chron. 7:1ff). Our gracious God shares His glory with sinful people!

Men must determine that God’s glory will abide in them. Every man must see himself as a lamp through which the glory of God will shine to his family and his world. He must think, “Let them see Jesus in me. Let them see love, grace, forgiveness, truth, honesty, respect and all other evidences of spirituality as they exist in me.”

3. Accepting God’s discipline. (Lev. 10:1–20). Nadab and Abihu sinned grossly against the laws of God. They wrongfully usurped authority which did not belong to them. They had the wrong fire. They had the wrong motive. They wielded the wrong influence. All of these wrongs led to Aaron’s sorrow. He had to learn that with the privileges of the priesthood come responsibilities and sacrifices. Unless punishment and discipline follow broken commandments, divine orders will be meaningless.

God’s discipline for Aaron was severe. Both of the sons were stricken by God and died. Aaron wasn’t even permitted to mourn their deaths. He remained in the tabernacle to complete the ceremony of ordination and his two nephews buried the bodies. Aaron learned that it wasn’t enough for the priests merely to teach the people the difference between the holy and the unholy. Priests were more than teachers. They had to practice holiness in their own lives. This is one of the burdens of the message of Ezekiel the prophet. (Ezek. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23; 48:14–15).

Real men learn how to live in the real world. That means living within the parameters in which actions count. When real men make mistakes, they accept the punishment and consequences that come to them. In this way, they teach justice, truth and peace to those they serve. This also becomes a de facto method to condemn lying, fraud, violence, disrespect, hatred and other sins or vices.

There are false ways of taking responsibility: Arrogance. “I am the head of the house!” Stupidity. “Shut up and listen to me!” Anger. “I’ll teach you to never do that again!” None of these work and they do not yield legitimate authority. All attempts to take responsibility will fail if a man is not under God’s authority. When a man’s family sees that he is doing God’s will, they are far more likely to accept his authority over them.

How, then, does a man take responsibility?

He shields his wife and children from the load and takes it himself.

He makes right decisions that deal with morality, character and spirituality.

He puts God first, regardless of the costs involved.

Don’t you think it’s time that we took back the definition of real men from the fashion designers, the Budweiser crowd, the sports junkies and the con artists? Real men find their definition in core character traits, not from muscle tone or party animal behavior.

Apostolic men must be real men who willingly accept their rightful responsibilities in life.

If You Were An Institution, Would You Be Accredited?

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith.” 2 Corinthians 13:5

I have a knack for asking odd questions, something for which I’m not always particularly proud. This one, however, not only makes sense to me, it has actually become paramount in my thinking. It surfaces directly from my involvement with the accreditation process as a member of the board of directors of Urshan Graduate School of Theology. In order to avoid the label of a “paper mill” or accused of granting “mail-order” degrees, we have seriously sought accreditation. In June of 2004, we made the Associate level. That gave us a five year window to get to the next level of Candidate status.

The board has discovered that achieving accreditation has less to do with “bean counting” than it does with more intangible aspects of the school. To the average person, the usual educational components like books in the library or professors with the proper degrees seem to be all that’s necessary. Not the case. The accrediting agency, the Association of Theological Schools ( ATS ) wants much more of us than that. They want to be sure that we are who we say we are and that we do what we say we are going to do. They require a rigorous (read: painful, embarrassing, thorough, costly) self study process in order to earn this coveted standing. UGST is now engaged in this activity. We must look at our purpose, planning and integrity applying institutional standards to learning, teaching, research, theological curriculum, and much more. We even have to look critically at the job we are doing as board members.

Most interestingly, ATS does not judge our theology in terms of other belief systems. They ask one main question: Are you who you say you are? More specifically, they ask if we are fulfilling our mission statement: The mission of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology shall be to provide training, development, advanced studies, and a research center for men and women of the apostolic faith worldwide to further them for Christian service. Who, what, when, where and how are unavoidable questions for the institution to ask itself, all because of its missions statement.

“Examine yourselves.” It may have been tough, but this was precisely Paul’s challenge to the Corinthians. He had grown weary with their constant sinning. Even more irritating to him, however, was their open expression of doubt about his anointing and authority. The Apostle knew something about self examination. He knew it exposes the cracks in our armor, it juxtaposes our boastful claims against the stubborn facts and it shows us where we must begin to correct our course. And, if this is a good question for a church and a school, it may be just as good for an individual. What about you? Are you who you say you are?

The questions you ask yourself had better not be “softball” questions if you want to be accredited. You must ask questions that poke around your integrity, your morality and your spirituality. For example, if your theology informs us that you believe in personal integrity, do you doctor your expense account, hedge on taxes or call in sick so you can play golf? If you say you believe in morality, do you discriminate against people for racist reasons or do play political games at the office to get ahead? If you claim to be spiritual, do you neglect prayer or let your bible collect dust on the shelf? Your theology will determine the questions you ask in your self study.

Let’s try it out on various hypothetical persons. What about a person in a problem marriage? If he or she considers marriage vows to be inviolable, the self-study would zero in on selfishness and commitment. What about persons in financial shambles? If they believe it’s wrong to evade debts or resort to bankruptcy, they will ask questions about their own wastefulness and covetousness. An angry, hostile person should focus on submission, deferment and peacemaking. A substance abuser who believes that he or she is a creation of God needs to ask questions about responsible treatment of God’s property. Persons with no goals or direction in life need to study their giftedness and the opportunities God has placed around them. If you consider yourself to be a Bible-believer, you need to ask yourself some critical questions like these: Am I personally living in compliance with Bible standards and teachings? Do I have a healthy relationship with Jesus Christ? Are my goals and objectives right according to my theology? Am I fulfilling the goals and objectives for me that I believe are right? Do I have a healthy relationship with other people? If my answer to any of these questions is negative, what will I do about it?

Far too many people violate their own theology. Lack of discipline, personal weaknesses; influence of others; desire for pleasure, comfort, acceptance, acclaim, wealth, power; lack of integrity; self-justification; these reasons and more cause them to lead lives disparate with their convictions. The tension that results ends only when actions equal beliefs. At what point will you begin your self-examination?

One more thing from ATS . Self study is endless. That’s because priorities never stay put. Excellence will only be a realized goal in eternity. On earth, the process is all that will ever count.

The Magnanimity Syndrome

As long as I have been aware of anything theological, the church has hailed the incomparable attributes of God. God fills all space, possesses all knowledge, holds all power and exists for all eternity. His grace is unlimited, His love undiminished, His holiness unsullied, His authority unquestioned, His word immutable. No one is bigger, stronger, wiser, holier, better, finer or grander than God. He is the ultimate superlative, the preeminent being.

Apparently, that's not big enough. Certain groups are working overtime to make God (or is it themselves?) appear more magnanimous than even the Bible declares Him to be. They say the grace of God is now big enough to include sin as well as sinners, that salvation extends to any who make a scant nod in the direction of Jesus, that God's holiness is made holier by man's unholiness (huh?) and that God's Word shows its strength by being stretched so far as to contradict itself. They say that down is up, out is in, bad is good and wrong is right. The previously unacceptable is now perfectly acceptable. When we say "no" to him, our magnanimous God is so big that He says "I'll take that as a yes!"

According to these evangelists of the new gospel, not only does our expansive, newly improved edition of God condone homosexuality, he actually created it. He also sanctions abortion, promotes cohabitation, smiles at adultery and encourages creative family partnering to include any combination of male and/or female parents. God has reformed his antiquated and repressive Biblical image so that people are now free to lie, cuss, smoke, drink, chew, gamble, fornicate, worship false gods and even kill (except in war or self-defense). God never chides, rebukes, reproves, warns or judges. He refuses to correct anyone, or even show disapproval, for fear of warping their personological development, or of being too overbearing. He is so magnanimous that he only affirms, supports, encourages, blesses, accepts and loves.

Now we learn that divine love does not just include sin, but it is big enough to celebrate it. One mainline church, presently in the news, leads this rush to magnanimity by accepting, affirming and solemnizing homosexual marriages. They have also sanctioned a new prayer called, "Our Mother", proving that God is big enough to transgender himself in hopes of not offending the feminists. They have re-configured the concept of God to enshrine a pantheon of gods, demonstrating that God is big enough to "get along" with the myriad of multicultural deities that exist in our global village. All this is in addition to the funeral services they held long ago for doctrinal rigidity.

This magnanimity syndrome does not appear outrageous to secularists who believe they created God in the first place. The dirty little secret is that anthropologists have convinced the theologians that all religion and concepts of God evolved along with the human race. They hold that our understanding of God, is subject to change, and because humans are still evolving, then God must change with them. The creature has become the creator, and anytime he becomes displeased with the God he has fashioned, he can reinvent him.

Liberal practitioners who toy with sacred Biblical truths tread on dangerous ground. They continually war against holy commandments, professing a desire to make the church "user-friendly", to remove its supposed backwardness, and to facilitate its growth. But they take their impulse from the wrong source. Their customizing is not driven by love of God or man, but by self-aggrandizement. The church of Jesus Christ must not evolve away from its roots, but continually devolve back to them. Non-biblical growth is unhealthy growth.

The church must not fall prey to this "magnanimity syndrome." The church that Jesus began building two millenniums ago does not need radical remodeling, forcing it to become something that the Divine Architect never intended. If we make the "strait gate" easier, the "narrow way" wider, the born-again experience optional and our glorious God sullied with human foibles, we will destroy the very foundation that holds us up in the first place. God's love does not preempt his holiness. It shows us how to conform to his holiness. Despite what the modern infidels say, man did not create God; God gloriously revealed himself to man. The God of the Bible, cast just the way the scriptures describe him, is magnanimous enough for all of us.

Why God Is One

The oneness of God forms the cornerstone of Biblical theology. A simple study of the number one provides intriguing insight into the oneness view. It is right to examine this since God Himself puts such emphasis on being "one Lord." Look at the following ten characteristics of the number one.

Indivisibility . God is One. The number one is a whole number. If it is divided by any number other than one, the quotient either results in a fraction or a number greater than one. In a triune Godhead, each person must either be one-third of God or the Godhead must be more than one. God is not just one in unity or agreement, but one in number. (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:32)

Essentiality . God exists as One. The whole number one has integrity and uniformity throughout. It is not a composite of several elements. Neither does God possess an essential threeness. Man may admire the beauty and symmetry of the triangle and try to ascribe its form to God, but the essence of God is one, not three. At Bethlehem , God manifested himself in flesh to save man, but the deity in Jesus Christ was essentially Jehovah God. (I Tim. 2:5)

Cardinality . God is the Primary One. One is the primary number. It represents the cardinal status of the subject. As Creator, Sustainer and Life-Giver, God occupies the place of foremost importance in the material or abstract universe. He possesses a sovereign, monarchial status because he is the cardinal one. (Isa. 37:16)

Ordinality . God is the First One. The number one always comes first because it is the beginning of ordinal numbers. God is not progressively, partially or interchangeably ordinal. He is first, now and always. God is first of all so-called deities, and because he fulfills every conceivable definition of God, he leaves nothing so that another deity could exist anyway. (Isa 41:4; Rev. 1:11)

Specificity . God is The One. The number one focuses on a single subject. It imposes limits of definition to remove all rivalry, duplicity or ambiguity. God is the specific focus of all glory, honor, power, worship, praise and adoration. All power emerges from him and all glory converges upon him. Any view of the Godhead that confuses or lacks specificity violates the character of the number one. (Isa. 42.8)

Exclusivity . God is the Only One. By definition, the number one disallows all pretenders or competitors. God divides absolutely nothing of His Godhead with another. While He is not isolated or lonely, God does exist in solitude and aloneness. He shares no set nor subset of divinity with angel, man, beast or contrived deity. (Col. 1:9-10; I Tim. 6:15)

Supremacy . God is the Highest One. The number one represents the best, finest and highest in the realm of possibilities. Those who compete in any given field want to be called number one because it makes them the best in the world. Every attribute, taken to its superlative state, characterizes God. He exemplifies every virtue, wears every honor, boasts every feat and deserves every expression of worship. (Psa. 145:3)

Identicalness . God is the Unequalled One. The number one is equal only to itself. Any other number that corresponds to all its attributes cannot actually be another, but the same number! Therefore, no other so-called god, nor other supposed person of God need exist because it would only be a redundancy of God himself. (Isa. 40:25; 46:5)

Originality . God is the One Source. In its purest sense, one may be considered self-initiating and self-perpetuating, having no precedent. Without a creator, God exists unbirthed and uncaused. God, as the One God, originates everything else. He is the source of all that exists, the fountainhead of all knowledge and the First Cause of all effects. He owes no fealty, serves no obeisance, borrows from no other power, nor acts in behalf of another. (Gen. 1:1; Col. 1:16-17)

Eternality . God is always One. In the abstract, the number one always exists as one, impervious to time or subject. God exists as One, transcendent over time and oblivious to circumstance. There has never been a time when God needed to be more than one. (I Tim 6:16; Rev. 1:17)

Any theology of threeness assumes the inadequacy of one. It denies a measure of deity to one or two supposed persons of the Godhead in order to necessitate the existence of three. But a triumvirate of inadequate persons represents a flawed Godhead. God is indivisibly, essentially, cardinally, ordinally, specifically, exclusively, supremely, identically, originally and eternally One! It is this truth that makes the oneness view of God of primary importance.