I’ve had the opportunity to meet people from many church traditions—from strict fundamentalists to self-proclaimed prophets and apostles and everything in between.

One of my favorite stories is when a well-known pastor (he called himself a “bishop”) explained to me that he possessed an even greater level of “genius” than T.D. Jakes, because he was born under the same astrological sign, but that his birthday was several days before that of Jakes.

Another TV evangelist explained to me that, if one could master the proper formula, he or she could possess absolutely anything they asked for in prayer. “It works like a charm,” he noted.

Someone else described how, on a trip to heaven, she had seen warehouses with aborted baby parts that were reassembled by angels and distributed to childless couples.

Several times, I’ve been asked whether I thought there is a common denominator among those who cling to religious fairy tales—and successfully convince others to believe them through their teaching.

There is. The common denominator is that these people do not accept the “authorial intent” of Scripture. In other words, they don’t believe that the text means today the same thing the author intended it to mean to his original audience. Since there is no anchor, when they “study” Scripture, virtually any meaning can be injected into the text.

Often, odd interpretations are attributed to the Holy Spirit revealing a “deeper” or “revelatory” meaning to the reader, since the plain meaning of the text is simply too mundane. Additionally, this model of hermeneutics creates a special class of interpreter who is able to mine insights from the Scriptures that are inaccessible to the average Christian.

Someone once explained to me the concept of “sympathetic magic” that they said they had observed in deliverance ministry. I questioned them as to where in Scripture they had seen this idea. This person admitted that there was no direct reference to sympathetic magic in Scripture but said, “Everything can’t be put to Scripture. It’s got to be rhema, not logos. Napoleon sailed across the water, but you can’t find that in the Word.”

I don’t think the answer to this problem is more book exposés, more theological education or more heresy hunter “ministries”. This battle is fought on a local level as pastors model good Bible study methods and these methods are reproduced in families and small groups in the church. I’m thankful for every pastor that fights this fight, laboring in the gospel by properly handling the text.

One of the attributes of God is “independence”—not one that gets preached on too much, because it cuts across the grain of human arrogance with a vengeance. The implication of God’s independence is that He doesn’t need us, that we can neither add nor take away anything from His existence. Additionally, He can carry out His plan of global redemption independent of our involvement.

How does this relate to pastors having affairs?

Consider the Orlando pastor (and father of four) who carried on a 1-year-long affair with an exotic dancer, leading his wife to divorce him and start a church of her own down the road. After a three-month period of “counseling” he was back in the pulpit. You would think the “restoration” process away from church leadership would be at least as long as the affair that led to it.

Or what about the church planter who was removed from his position after being caught carrying on an illicit relationship with his married personal assistant? Now, 11 weeks later, he and his wife are divorcing (he also has small children), but a quick perusal of his Twitter feed would indicate that the primary thing on his mind is planting another church.

Many would assume that these pastors are simply power-hungry reprobates, but I have a different theory. When I read interviews with them and posts from their blogs, I think they actually believe they are indispensable to God—that the ministry they have been called to cannot be carried out without them. Simply put, God needs them. Their motives for returning to ministry are noble: They want to reach people for Jesus, and they see themselves as possessing a unique gift for doing this—sometimes even more so after they have fallen into sin. It is the activity surrounding this “indispensable” ministry for God that gives them fulfillment, because they are convinced that they play a crucial role in God’s Kingdom.

I think it is this demonic codependency that leads to many being “called” into pastoral ministry who belong in a different field, and it leads many to stay in ministry long past the time they have disqualified themselves.

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.” – Acts 17:24-25

Explaining why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus said it was “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mark 10:5). Some scholars argue that Moses allowed divorce to protect women (Deuteronomy 24). In other words, if a man kicked his wife out without divorcing her, she would not be able to remarry—leaving her destitute. Simply put, although divorce is condemned as sin in scripture, the Mosaic law provides specific instructions as to how it should be carried out.

I have mixed feelings about abortion reduction strategies—in the same way I would have had mixed feelings about slavery reduction legislation in the 1860s, partial women’s suffrage in the 1910s, lynching reduction plans in the 1940s. It feels like halfhearted justice to me.

In spite of the author’s obvious bias, this Slate article on a new abortion reduction bill is informative. However, there is a stumbling block in this bill that has tripped up many conservatives: contraception. The bill explicitly requires grantees to “encourage teens to delay sexual activity.” But because it also requires grantees to provide “information about the risks and benefits of all contraceptives”, it is anathema to conservatives. I think the concern is that teens will have more sex if they have access to contraceptives, and distributing contraceptives is an implied approval of premarital sex.

My question is this: If Moses were alive today in our postmodern secular culture …

• … would he approve of the distribution of contraceptives if it were proven that it resulted in fewer abortions …
• … would he support laws that limit access to abortion without outlawing it altogether …
• … would he approve of some type of non-marital legal status for homosexual couples …
• … would he approve of laws to govern the distribution of substances that may be abused and destroy lives and families …

… because of the hardness of our hearts?

I don’t know where I stand on these questions, and there is not much of a parallel between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the democracy of modern America. But it’s worth considering how the law of God is intended to address the inevitability of human sin.

Recently, I noticed a church Website was marketing a new preaching series on hot-button issues. Visitors could vote on topics such as drugs, divorce, eating disorders, cussing, etc. Ostensibly, the high-rated items would then be tackled by the pastor in future sermons. Of course, this model is not new. In fact, it follows the same narrative of fundamentalists of the past–although it’s wrapped in much hipper packaging for today’s po-mo audience suspicious of religious “do”s and “don’t”s. Here’s the drill:

Step 1: Observe cultural trend that is being “ignored” by the church.
Step 2: Formulate position on said cultural trend.
Step 3: Assemble unassailable barrage of proof texts and personal testimonies to tackle cultural trend.
Step 4: Market series through those church signs with the individual block letters (if you’re old-timey) or the Wide World Interwebs (if you’re cool).
Step 4: Preach, using above materials to sway the opinion of the listeners.

Believe me–I am as guilty of this as the next guy. When I was a youth pastor, I tried it. See two kids holding hands? It’s time to teach on dating. Smell smoke? Let’s polish up the ol’ tobaccy sermon. Hear kids buzzing about a questionable movie? Turn in your Bibles to Psalm 101:3.

The problem with this method is its inherent arrogance. Preaching becomes about behavior modification, not exposing listeners’ hearts to the scalpel of the text, allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Besides, the alternative is far too boring: preach the scriptures and tackle issues when they come up in scripture. In context.

I once heard Walter Kaiser say that preaching should follow not only the content of scripture, but its contours. If I preach through books, chapters and verses, I will cover what the Holy Spirit wants me to cover, not what my agenda is, based on the perceived needs of my hearers or the culture at large.

It’s not new, but the use of the word “unchurched” is one I find disconcerting. It is frequently used by church planters to denote the heathen, their “market” and “target audience”–in contrast to church hoppers, who are merely disgruntled with their current congregation and shopping for a new one.

Like Burger King’s “Whopper virgins“, these unchurched are the fresh-faced masses who have never had the privilege of hearing a truly relevant “talk” on improving their lives from a gel-haired hipster, while sipping a hot cup of Starbucks. Okay, sorry. I’m going to cut the gratuitous cynicism for a minute.

Our family has some unchurched friends, and to be honest, the last thing I want is for them to become churched. I would love it if they became followers of Christ, but I’m not sure I want them becoming churched before they become regenerated. These days, attending church can be a sure-fire way to become inoculated to the gospel. It’s a great way to convince yourself that you’re okay with God and he’s cool with you, that He may even be pleased with your Sunday morning ritual.

Am I nitpicking, splitting hairs? Perhaps those who use the word unchurched have merely chosen a softer word than “unsaved”. The problem is that becoming “churched” is not the solution, in spite of arguments to the contrary.

The formula goes like this: If we could just get them into the doors of the church, they would see that we’re not that weird, that we don’t use hymnbooks, we don’t have pews, we don’t have a portrait of George W. Bush in the foyer. We don’t even have a foyer. When they see the programs we have for their children and meet other people just like them, they’ll decide to stick around. Then we may drop the gospel bomb. But by then it will be too late. Their relational connection to the church will be so strong that they will not be likely to leave without extreme discomfort.

Then, my friends, they will be churched.

While there was much to like about President Obama’s speech to the “Muslim world”, it also revealed a stunning naivete in his understanding of the Islamic worldview. His predecessor George W. Bush incorrectly assumed that democracy could be planted and would take root anywhere in the world, once a tyrant was removed from power. After all, everyone believes in freedom, right? Similarily, Obama has flattened the drastic differences between the Muslim and the Western worldview–and even conflated the worldviews of Arabs and other Muslims, as though they are a monolithic people who merely need to be educated on how similar we all are. Nowhere is this simplemindedness more evident than in his comments on Islam and women. I would expect that feminists will have a response much more eloquent than mine, but here goes:

The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

Huh? Wearing a hijab is not a “right” in many parts of the Muslim world—it’s what women do to avoid being stoned. The real question is whether we support a man’s right to force his wife to wear a hijab.

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal …

This is a straw man. I’m not aware of anyone in the “West” who thinks that someone with a head covering is less equal. This ideology is inherent in the teachings of the Qur’an. The head covering is a cultural/religious expression of a man’s ownership of his wife and the belief that she should be seen by no one but him.

… but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Bravo, Mr. President! This is true, but you’re building your argument on a presupposition that equality and prosperity are both positive ends–even when they may stand counter to one’s religious views. Westerners value prosperity over religious conformity. Be assured that this is a value that your audience does not share.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

It’s ludicrous to compare the plight of women who may face job discrimination in the America with women who aren’t allowed to have a job, drive a car, choose who they marry, have a say over how many children they may have or whether their husband takes additional wives. This is an insult to truly oppressed women.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Thanks, Joel Osteen–I mean, Mr. Obama. These platitudes only reinforce the inadequacy of political leaders to advance a truly effective solution to the clash of civilizations. The only real change will occur in the pockets where people of both Western and Islamic culture encounter and submit their worldviews to the radical demands of the Cross, which require that they love one another.

Why is it the public statements by our political leaders regarding North Korea only surround the nuclear weapon that they may or may not be able to launch beyond their borders? (As patently insane as Kim Jong Il is, I’m not sure why he would do such a thing.)

Thirty years of sanctions from the UN have had no effect on this madman–most likely because he still has a steady flow of Western fast food and pirated porn coming to him through Chinese channels. The only people suffering through this debacle are the North Korean people, and Obama’s and the UN’s statements make it seem that we have no concern for them–as long as their “dear leader” keeps his finger off the doomsday button. Here’s what I would do. It may not solve the problem–but it couldn’t be any worse than the current “plan”.

(Disclaimer: This is not a “spiritual plan”. It is merely what governments could do to solve the problem.):

Remove all sanctions: America should do everything in its power to open up the free flow of goods and information into North Korea–even it some of it falls into the wrong hands. Many North Koreans will begin to see that that the outside world is not the apocalyptic prison camp that the “dear leader” has been brainwashing them into thinking it is.

Incentivize defection: Offer a $1 million reward to every North Korean who makes it out of the country and to an American embassy. Sure, it’s expensive, but it’s cheaper than war. Remember, this is not about getting North Koreans out of the country, it is about demoralizing Kim Jong Il and empowering forces within the country who would like to unseat him.

Bait and switch: Offer Kim Jong Il a free, all-expenses-paid trip to Disneyland, where he will be toasted by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Then, let him ride Space Mountain with Sean Penn. Stop the ride midcourse, arrest him and try him for crimes against humanity. While you’re at it, arrest Kim Jong Il, too.

President Obama’s recent “apology tour” has highlighted the guilt many Americans feel for power we wield in the world. Of course, it’s a bit more nuanced than Obama or his conservative critics would have us believe.

Alongside the botched military campaigns, misspent aid, and other assorted acts of hubris, our soldiers have disproportionally bled on foreign soil for others’ freedoms–even when our own have not been threatened. American citizens have given billions–perhaps even trillions–of dollars in foreign aid through voluntary charity and tax dollars. Thousands of Americans have given up comfortable suburban life to serve in non-military roles in troubled parts of the world as Peace Corps members, missionaries and other NGO workers.

Interestingly, the complex and often contradictory aspects of America’s relationship with the rest of the world were not adequately reflected in our president’s legitimate acknowledgment of our faults. And it was particularly telling when he made these remarks in the presence of dictators and autocrats who themselves have such a low view of freedom and human life.

My recent reading (Tony Horwitz’s A Voyage Long and Strange and Jon Meacham’s American Lion, among others) has helped me see that, if anything, the injustices of America have been inside–not outside–our borders. Historically, our relationship to other nations has been uncharacteristically benevolent for a country of our size. (Contrast the colonial aspirations of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK as they were at their apex.)

What is unconscionable is our treatment of native peoples and black slaves, and–dare I say–millions of unborn children. These qualify as systematic acts of injustice and genocide that cause recent international incidents to pale in comparison. Their impact and consequences are still being felt by the victims and the descendants of the perpetrators.

I find it interesting that the same people who would probably question the authority of the Pope have set up for themselves authority structures that rival the Catholic Church—and are often just as lacking in accountability. Lately, this crowd has been castigating Charisma editor Lee Grady for questioning the “restoration” process of evangelist Todd Bentley.

Bentley left his wife and children last August amid admissions of alcohol abuse and infidelity, married the family’s nanny and is now on his way to reentering ministry under the restoration of prophetic minister Rick Joyner and associates. Lee questioned the speed and effectiveness of Bentley’s restoration, calling it “greasy grace” in one of his columns. Joyner fired back in an online video, suggesting that Lee was pharisaical and questioning what ministry a “journalist” like Lee had ever built that would give him the legitimacy to criticize Joyner.

Joyner’s defense consistently returned to the issue of authority—who has authority to correct, who has authority to restore, who has authority to question authority, etc. According to Joyner, only those who have big ministries and a following should have a voice in these matters–they’ve earned the right to speak. For Joyner, it is the clerical elite–although he calls them elders, apostles, prophets, etc.–who are in charge of the church.

I used to almost agree with this premise–that there were authorities in the church who had to be obeyed–pastors, teachers, other leaders. Now, I don’t. My study of the New Testament has led me to believe that the early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers. The church was flat–in contrast to the hierarchical pagan religions of the Near East at that time, and in contrast to the church as it developed in later centuries. Paul advocated mutual submission, James called for corporate correction of the erring, and for Peter it was Jesus, no mere man, who was the head of the church.

How far we’ve come. Now, I hear pastors instruct their sheep to faithfully attend each service, to be sure to tithe, not to question the man with the vision. I dread to think that when Jesus returns it may be to rescue his Bride from the rapacious businessmen and hirelings who have usurped His position as head of the household.

[[UPDATE: For my revised perspective on this topic, click here.]]

On days like these, I’m a little less embarrassed by my Spirit-filled heritage.

by Matt Green
from The Ministry Report, March 15, 2007

I guess I’m a typical 30-something Pentecostal, both irreversibly shaped my Spirit-filled heritage and chagrined by the embarrassing behavior of some of my “family” members. Like many, I find myself tempted to define my Pentecostalism by what I don’t do and who I’m not like. But when I read an article in the March 19 issue of Newsweek about an autistic Jewish man’s experience in a Pentecostal congregation in Milwaukee, I was reminded of why this wild and wooly movement still has a heart of gold.

The story is told by the man’s younger sister, Liz, who watched her brother grow to adulthood avoiding physical and social contact, rarely smiling and seemingly trapped in his own world:

” … At 40, Tim was college-educated with a job, a car and a small apartment I never saw, but imagined looking like his old room at home: immaculately stacked piles of old newspapers, brown lunch bags filled with broken glass from kitchen mishaps, 14 of the same style of polo shirt hanging in perfect alignment. … “

Then, a work friend invited Tim to attend a Bible study at his church, which soon became a service he looked forward to every Sunday.

“… I had no idea what Tim did on those Sunday afternoons, but I knew that it filled him with a kind of peace no medication or doctor ever had. After church, he’d come over to our parents’ house for family dinners with a sense of calm, his eyes settled, his body slightly less rigid. He even began making a habit, one of his thousands, of giving our mom a quick hug before he’d head home. … “

Intrigued by her brother’s metamorphosis, Liz joined Tim one Sunday morning and observed him and his fellow Pentecostal church members in worship, where, she says, “In the first 10 minutes, my brother introduced me to more people than I’d known him to befriend in his whole life.”

True, the swaying, praying, weeping, hugging and hand-holding were a bit of culture shock for Liz, but she could see that her autistic brother had found a place of unconditional acceptance. While she doesn’t identify it as such in the article, it is clear that Tim had experienced the subtle and gentle touch of the Holy Spirit, who was drawing him out of his world of isolation and connecting him to Christ and His body in a way that no support group or psychotropic drug could.

Tim may have been considered an oddity or even rejected in congregations where one is expected to “have it together” before stepping through the doors. But like many other Pentecostal churches around the world for the past 101 years, this Milwaukee congregation reflected the ethos of the upper room in Jerusalem where it all started. Broken people from diverse ethnic groups, economic backgrounds and generations, brought together by the Spirit who blows where He wishes, when He wishes and on whom He wishes.

And when He does, anything is possible.

copyright 2007, Strang Communications