“J” has kindly posted a comment to my post on “All that Glistens isn’t Gold”, and as it raised some interesting issues I thought I would try and respond in a full blog entry instead of just posting a reply to my comments page. J wrote:
"When it comes down to it, we won't be judged on our theology, or need correct theology in order for God to empower us for miracles. Look at Peter, God used him to heal people when he still believed that you had to follow The Law to be saved.
We will also not be judged on our personality, and whether we shout BAM when we pray for people. Samson was a most disagreeable fellow, but is listed as a Hero of Faith in Hebrews 11.
We will be judged on our character, and "the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad" (2Cor5;10), and that will be the proof of the pudding when it comes to Todd 'BAM' Bentley.
“If God is in this, then I want a slice. If God is pouring out healings, then I want a part. I can leave the ranting, the tattoos, the dodgy theology, the shouting, but if God wants to perform a miracle, then that is what I want to.” J
I really don’t want to get into a specific look at Todd Bentley’s ministry, there are lots of websites that have done so, and there are lots of videos on YouTube which show him in action. I think there are some general principles we can apply to looking at and assessing ministries, and deciding if it’s something we want to be a part of.
Some comment is required, I think, on whether we will be judged on our personality – J points out that Samson was a disagreeable fellow but is listed as a Hero of Faith. I am not sure that I agree that Samson was a disagreeable fellow; I assume that the bit of him which J considers to be disagreeable is him slaying people who were, at the time, considered enemies of God and were oppressing Israel. I think we get into a dangerous game if we use this as the measure for someone being disagreeable!
The issue of Peter is an interesting one. First of all, I do not think that Peter believed you needed to follow the law to be saved. That isn’t really a Jewish belief; the belief was far more along the lines of; “having been saved, we should follow the law as God has commanded us to”, in the same way that today Christians don’t believe that they follow Jesus teaching in order to be saved, but because we are saved. The debate that followed was, “should gentile Christians take on the requirements of the Jewish law?” I think that this doctrinal difference is very different from someone who teaches things which are in conflict with the Bible.
Doctrine does matter and can be an issue of salvation. 1 Timothy 4:16 reads “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers". This seems to suggest that if you do not watch them closely you will not save yourself and your hearers.
I agree with J that if God wants to perform a miracle then I want to be part of it, but I think it’s worth taking time out to decide what we are chasing after, before we go in search of the miracle workers.
So my question is, how do we assess a miracle, or a miracle worker? Sometimes we want to believe so much that we suspend disbelief and call it faith, yet we don’t want to become people who refuse to acknowledge and see when God is working.
The first difficulty, as I see it, is that when something that seems miraculous appearing to happen, as good Christians, we can say either “this is God” or “this is the Devil”. As we see these as the only two options open to us when something unexplained happens we try and shoe horn it into one of these two boxes.
MAGIC, MIRACLE, OR DECEPTION?
I am an illusionist. This means that among other things I can make it look as if I am floating off the floor. Some years ago, when a certain American illusionist was becoming a big thing and using this trick a lot, I demonstrated how easy it was to give the appearance that you can float to a couple of friends while having coffee after Church. Two other people saw this, and were deeply concerned that they had seen me levitate. Okay, this was a stupid thing for me to do, but putting that aside for a moment, they went to the leadership of the church and expressed deep concern that I was involved in the occult and, as such, was able to levitate.
I showed the elders how the trick was done and it was all cleared up. My point is that just because something looks like “magic” or a “miracle”, it doesn’t follow that it is a miracle, or from the devil. On some occasions we believe things because we want to, or because we cannot think of any other logical explanation for how they could have happened. So, when looking at anything “unexplained”, I think a good starting point is trying to work out whether there are any other possible explanations for what has happened.
MAGIC OR MIRACLE?
If we have got to a stage where we can absolutely rule out illusion, misdirection or “flim flam” and are sure that something has happened that is not of this world, then we do need to work if this is from God or another source. J points out that the proof is in the pudding, that we can to a degree assess something by the results of it; does it look and taste good? I would like to ring a few alarm bells here. If I got a whole bunch of 7 year olds over to my house, and set them up baking puddings, with ingredients I had stolen, if I beat them and made them work 16 hours a day, and then presented you with an incredible tasting pudding, you might say to me, while tasting it and looking at it, “I can tell that this is something that is good”. No. The final item on display does not necessarily indicate that the process is a good thing that we want to involve ourselves in; when looking at whether the pudding is good, we need to not just look at its final appearance, but the process that was used to make it.
In Matt 7:22-23, Jesus said; “Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
When looking at an event which is claiming to be miraculous I want to know whether it points to God, whether it draws people to the cross. Is it coming from a good place, and leading to a good place. When 1000s flock to see a particular speaker who is said to be able to perform miracles but has theology that is “dodgy” then is it God who is glorified or the speaker? Are we chasing after speakers who have a gift, or after the God who gives?
THEOLOGY MATTERS
We are told that “even if we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Gal. 1:8,9)
I don’t think we can ignore “dodgy” doctrine on the basis that the person concerned appears to be displaying miracles; in fact if things which are apparently miraculous are happening, then this is a time where I believe it’s even more important for this to be underpinned by sound doctrine.
A good site to look at on this issue is http://pastors.crossmap.com/article/why-we-need-doctrine/item321.htm, where it’s pointed out that Paul tells us that we need to keep to a pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Jesus Christ (2 Tim 1:13) that we need to hold firmly to the trustworthy message and encourage others by sound doctrine (Titus 1:9) and that we need to teach what is in accord with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Christ’s ministry, the apostle’s ministry and the early churches’ ministries all revolved around sound doctrine (Matt 7:28-29; Acts 5:28; Acts 2:42).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"I do not think that Peter believed you needed to follow the law to be saved. That isn’t really a Jewish belief; the belief was far more along the lines of; “having been saved, we should follow the law as God has commanded us to”."
Spot on! Torah observance is a freedom not a burden - and the frankly anti-semitic views of the lay preacher at my church make me very shy about admitting that we keep the feasts and observe Torah as a family.
It isn't about the law saving but about the law being interpretted as a burden or as a blessing - God always intended for it to be the latter, and for Jesus to bring fullness not to remove or replace it.
Parts of Torah are specifically irrelevant to certain people or groups, and some are for all people in all times.
Certainly what needed to be removed was the weighty hedge around the laws, written by several Jewish groups and not part of original scripture (or the modern Bible), to prevent there being any possible risk of a commandment being inadvertantly disobeyed. ;)
Argh another really long comment, sorry Broken Man!
Arwen,
Feel free to make your comments as long as you like, I always enjoy reading them!
My Magnus Opus is an attempt to compare all the teaching from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament; too often I find that preachers call on a piece of scripture from the Hebrew Bible without a justification for why this law or rule is relevant, but another isn’t. It’s great to hear that you keep the feasts. Passover is particularly special for me and I have written a Haggadah which is, admittedly, a limited telling, but may be of interest to you (I wrote it for use with our Youth Group, which, at the time, included a leader and her 4 small children, so I hope it’s pretty child–friendly!) – although you probably already have a better version!
I study the Mishnah and Talmud as I think we can learn a lot from the background and current debates of the time. It’s worth noting that Jesus did not always disagree with the teachers of his time, and, in fact, in some cases displayed very clearly which side of an argument he came down on; the classic case being grace before meals. The Biblical commandment in Deut is that we should say grace after a meal and during Jesus’ lifetime, debates raged as to whether you should also say grace before you ate. That Jesus is depicted in the gospels as giving thanks before eating shows that he came down on this side of the arguement. Saying grace after eating doesn’t really get a look in because it’s something everyone agreed on, and was standard practice; only the points where Jesus was doing something that was considered different are mentioned. Christians reading this today have often said “ah, Jesus gave thanks before eating so we should too”, not realising that this was in addition to the Biblical command to give thanks after eating. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that this is pertinent to salvation, but it’s a simple illustration of how we can sometimes misunderstand Jesus’ teaching and actions when we don’t know the context.
As to anti-Semitic lay preachers – very often I find preachers assume they know about Judaism because they have read the Bible, and so they make some fairly far-flung statements without checking them first. This can be a major issue, and can cause a lot of offense; I make it my practice to challenge these occurrences, even when it gets people’s backs up, because I think the misrepresentation of any group of people or belief is a real issue, and Christians have a lot of ground to make up in the way they have historically treated Jews.
Yours as ever,
The Broken Man
I'll just throw in the Lutheran perspective: Judgement is based on faith and not by good works. Good works are a part of obedient discipleship.
I certainly would be very interested in reading your Haggadah - I wrote our own too, based on a couple of messianic copies I could find hunting around online. I bet mine is even more limited. ;)
Doorman-priest, my understanding of salvation is the same - but I also believe that this was always the way and Christian theologt is not a replacement of the law but the fullness of the law. :)
Post a Comment