Real Faith

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6, KJV)

The eleventh chapter of the Book of Hebrews provides an explicit model of what living by faith means and what it entails. The entire chapter shows the direct relationship between belief and physical action. In every instance, action was not based on clarity of direction or on a complete understanding of the purposes of God. Neither did believers require God to fully disclose or detail what He would consequently require of them following their initial step of obedience.

In every instance, these patriarchs chose to completely trust in the Word of the Almighty rather than allow their own intuitions and uncertainties to determine their courses of action. They were convinced that trusting in the character of the Almighty as being much more easier that to dwell on their own wisdom and on conventional thinking to head towards a future which they regarded as secure and certain.

These patriarchs had to obviously contend with every day decision making processes—the what, who, where, how, and when. Modern day believers have the benefit of knowing how the saga of faith will ultimately end as it has been clearly spelled out in the Scriptures for our edification. But these patriarchs of faith were not given a preview into things to come, neither did they have the benefit of opening a book that encapsulated all the promises of God in the same way we, as modern believers have the New Testament to aid our understanding. It must also be further noted that, unlike modern day Christianity, believing in a God they did not see was not popular or even culturally accepted. All the patriarchs had to hold on to was the instruction of God. They knew the who and the what, but did not know the where, how, or when.

Faith, when viewed through the testimony of these patriarchs, is where the supra-logical imposes itself over the logical. The reason why man cannot fully explain even the revealed purposes of God is because God’s purposes, methods, and means transcends human logic. It is not illogical but supra-logical.

Foresight and Faith

Foresight and faith are indissolubly bound to each other. Foresight is not omniscience. It is the ability to frame one’s actions toward the ultimate rather than the immediate and to do so requires faith. The veracity of faith is tightly bound to the object of faith. For one to simply act on faith that is not bound to an absolute is not faith but an emotional response to a specific circumstance, as such it is folly. The kind of faith the Bible speaks of is bound to the person and character of the Almighty God. Hence the faith of the patriarchs, their foresight to frame their actions toward the ultimate, was not based on an emotional response to a specific circumstance, but on the absoluteness of the Almighty. This is why it was not important for the patriarchs of faith to completely understand the where, how, or when simply because the Who and what are clearly established.

Actions and Faith

The actions of the patriarchs, following their decision to obey God, provides believers with a clear model of faith by demonstrating how that faith and action are eternally bound. Their belief in God framed the basis of every action.

As we peruse through the pages of Scripture, we will immediately come to realize that actions framed in faith were not easy. In fact, we will always find difficulty as the twin of living by faith. Could you imagine what difficulty Abraham faced as he bade farewell to his Father Terah, or how he explained what they were about to do with his wife Sarai? Or the difficulty Moses had endured as he led the children of Israel to wander in the wilderness for forty years when Canaan was within reach?

Apathetic Faith

Modern day believers have divorced faith from action. Worse still is that the modern day description of “living by faith” is bound to omission rather than to commission. A faithful Christian is characterized by what he or she does not do, but hardly are they characterized by what they do. So that as long as Christians are not involved in open sin, he or she is considered to be living a life of faith. The problem with this is that it is contrary to the model prescribed in Hebrews 11, where the emphasis was more on what they did to demonstrate faith, rather than what they did not do in order to prove their faith. This is not faith but ascetism.

I am utterly disconcerted by believers who get easily dissuaded the moment the first sign of a struggle or challenge to prove faith appears. They spiritualize their actions by falsely assuming that challenges make it clear that the present course of action is not the will of God. This is a pathetic and unbiblical attitude towards the purposes of God in their lives. It is a clear indicator that apathy and complacency—not faith—governs their thought processes and actions. They are not living by faith but by fear, and where fear is present, faith is non-existent.

When confronted, some believers would even go so far as to equate this fear with the will of God. How further can you get from the Scriptural model! This mindset now governs the lives of a majority of believers and is the reason why most believer live despicable, defeated, and hopeless lives. Modern day believers have somehow conditioned themselves to believe that as long as they attend all the services, read their Bibles everyday, and avoid sin, they are doing the will of God. Modern day believers have forgotten that the Christian faith is all about action; action that demonstrates the power of God despite our human frailties and weaknesses.

The Biblical Model of a Life of Faith

The believer’s life is one that by faith moves against the current; defying the logical in pursuit of the supra-logical. We have been tasked to rise above the realities and constraints of this present age in pursuit of the high calling of our Lord and Master. For the believer to live complacent and apathetic lives is against the purposes and calling of the Master. The fact is, as Paul states, it is impossible for men to please God apart from faith. It is impossible for bench-warmers or Christian spectators to please God regardless of pious speech or demeanor. He is not the God of words or appearances, but the God of action. Even the Greek word for the Word (logos) denotes activity and action.

The believer’s life must demonstrate a life that believes God in everything that he or she does—whether in Christian service, or in attending to the needs of the home, or in earning a living through business (1 Cor. 10:31)—and by belief I do not mean a simple mental or emotional agreement about what the Bible says, but a belief that drives believers by faith to defy the natural in pursuit of the purposes of the supernatural. As James clearly puts it, faith without works is dead and the dead cannot honor or glorify God. Paul clearly states that we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. By the use of the word conqueror, Paul intended to communicate that the believer’s life must be of faith in action. No conqueror withdraws from battle, and no conqueror ever conquers anything in mediocrity or at arm’s length. A conqueror is completely engaged and exposed—defying the elements at the forefront and frontlines of battle. We should not live in withdrawal but in engagement—a life of action that demonstrates the power of God through our frailties and weaknesses.

The believer’s life is not life of omission but of God-honoring commission—actions vividly demonstrating the veracity of our faith in the Almighty God; it is characterized by faith and action and by faith in action. Modern day believers have been led to live in ascetic sophistication where their withdrawal from anything and everyone becomes the bar for holiness and faithful living. A majority of believers today live in fear—fear that they might do wrong, fear that they might fail, fear that they might cause others to stumble; fear that they might rock the boat; fear that others might think ill of them; fear of this and fear of that.

Consequently, believers have convinced themselves that is safer to omit than commit. Such a mindset is regressive and is unbiblical in every respect. By omitting that which we should do, we commit that which we should not. By failing to commit to action, we immediately sin by omission. James makes it clear that if anyone knows to do good (the operative word being “do”) and does not commit to doing it, sins.

Modern day believer’s are so accustomed to “reel” faith and are oblivious to “real” faith. Their exercise of faith is framed by the perception and reception of others, much like an actor in front of a reel of film; they so clamor for the attention and approval of their peers that they completely minimize the approval of the Almighty. They act in piety but think in vanity.

Real faith is a result of a pure conviction and commitment to action. Actions that show how God works through earthen vessels to accomplish His purposes. Real faith cannot be divorced from action. A faithful life can only be characterized as such if it is dominated by faith and action and faith in action. Everything else is pious folly.

Conclusion

If your life is governed by the fear of the unknown, then you need to get to know the Lord and Master more deeply. It is indicative of compliance to human standards and not obedience to the Almighty. It is telling that you give more importance to how others would think of you rather than what God would think of you. Jesus Christ very clearly says that let our yes be a yes, and our no, a no, for anything beyond this is evil. He very clearly calls us to action, we must decide to act and we must make good on our commitment to action. Nothing pleases God more than for His children to prove His faithfulness, and experience His power in their lives on a daily, even on a moment by moment, basis.

God never promised us a trouble-free life, but He did promise to be with us and to guide us, and to provide us the power to overcome every obstacle or challenge we encounter(1 Cor. 10:13). I challenge you to remove yourself from complacency and apathy towards an engaging life, a life that proves the power of God on a daily and moment by moment basis.

Changing Mental Models That Govern The Gospel Ministry

The apostle Paul was explicit concerning how believers ought to progress in the faith when he told the Ephesians, “And be renewed by the Spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4:23). This instruction is universal in nature and pertains to all believers without exception.

Our actions as believers are determined by the processes that govern the way we think as individuals. The Lord Jesus Christ condemned tradition that imposed itself over the authority and the purposes of the Scriptures (Mark 7:7). The apostle Paul understood the power tradition had over the lives of people in general. Paul understood how that tradition could be employed to further the purposes of the Lord for the church and how traditions could easily contradict these very purposes. While human will or tradition has no power over the sovereignty of God, as God’s purposes will be accomplished whether or not we want it to happen, it can prevent believers from actively participating in the work of God and thereby prevent the believer from personally experiencing the blessings and victory that comes through a complete submission to the Master’s will.

A great part of the New Testament is dedicated to instructing believers how to live. Paul dedicates the second half of a majority of his epistles and letters to providing his readers with practical guidelines on how to effect the principles and doctrines into daily living. Paul considered this to be important being that most of the converts were accustomed to traditions that could easily impose itself on an unambiguous understanding and application of the Holy Scriptures in much the same way as the Talmud has gained more prominence over the Tanakh in the lives of devout Jews. He made it a point to set the proper understanding of those to whom he ministered to. The same practice was also employed by Paul when dealing with Gentile churches. He had to provide explicit instruction so that heathen practices do not corrupt the church and the lives of believers.

But despite the clarity of the New Testament, the ministry of the church is now overtaken by practices that serve humanistic purposes rather than sovereign purposes, where convenience overtakes principled living, and where a rich wellspring of faith is subverted through ascetic, pontifical, and ecclesiastical practices that have no place in the believer’s thought or life.

The ancient church grew in dramatic proportions as a result of the powerful indwelling of the Holy Spirit as recorded in the first five chapter of Acts. This is the Lord Jesus’ continuing work through His apostles—a work that began three years before. Popular teaching that led many believers to think that the church suddenly grew in number as a result the presence of the Holy Spirit is not accurate. The Holy Spirit was tasked to empower the apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:49). The Lord Jesus Christ already had a significant following by the time of His ascension. Luke accounts for 70 disciples that the Lord commissioned to go into every city (Luke 10:1), and 120 disciples at the time of Pentecost (Acts 1:15). Following the instructions of the Lord, the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles and disciples to equip each to fulfill their commissions. Again, Luke accounts for instances when “thousands” were added to the church over the span of a few days from Pentecost. But if you do the math you will find that if each of the 120 disciples preached to a crowd and convinced three persons to repent and believe, there would have been a population of 1.7 million new converts within a few days from Pentecost. If every single convert led at least one individual to the knowledge of the Savior, that would mean 3.4 million believers within a span of a few days from conversion. It is therefore no wonder that the disciples of the Lord immediately gained the reputation of turning the world upside down (Acts 17:6). No other religious movement known to the world at this time had demonstrated such cataclysmic results in a span of a few days. The preaching of the Gospel was at first limited to the Jews. Hence, the amount of converts who came to follow the Lord Jesus Christ was truly threatening to the very institution of Judaism. This demonstration of power was in itself a strong testimony of the enduring work of the Lord Jesus Christ through His Church.

Throughout the first few chapters of Acts, Luke records activity that catches his attention: those who came to believe in the Lord did not have to be convinced to give of their abundance to the furtherance of the work of the Lord. Since the Scriptures does not record preaching from any apostle that stressed the need to give, the Holy Spirit is the only logical source of this instruction and conviction. This may very well be why in Acts 5, Peter classified the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as a sin (lying) against the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3). In retrospect, we now know that this was to prepare the church to minister to the community in Jerusalem during the famine that was forthcoming, which need occasioned the apostle Paul to instruct believers to take up a collection to help the needs of the believers in Jerusalem.

This is the first instance where a change of mindset was made evident in the early church that was consistent with the Lord’s command for believers to take up their cross (Matthew 8:38-48, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23), and in keeping with the principle the Lord taught the apostles and disciples that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). Early believers gave willingly and without hesitation as they were led and instructed by the Holy Spirit, and the church in Jerusalem not only grew in numbers but also in financial capacity. It was beyond the practice of tithing for they gave substantially and not sparingly.

In Acts 6, it was evident that the ministry of the church revolved around attending to the daily requirements of believers (Acts 6:1), attending to the poor, sick, caring for the homeless, the aged, orphans, and widows. The attendance to such work necessitated the appointment of deacons so that the apostles could dedicate their time to the study and preaching of the Scriptures. If we are to estimate the number of believers by the numbers earlier stated by Luke, the work of daily ministration then would have been an overwhelming task. Disciples were added to the church and were obviously taking turns to serve the church and the deacons were selected to organize disciples so that the needs of all believers could be attended to. This manner of organization is not alien to members of the ancient church. Being Jews themselves, they were familiar with how Levites organized themselves to attend to the daily laborious rituals of the Temple.

This organization was to address practical necessities. The disciples had to attend to their personal occupations and trades in order to feed themselves and their households. Conversion to Christianity was not tantamount to abandoning their trades, rather conversion entailed a change in financial priorities and lifestyles. The Scriptures tell us that believers gave of their substance, but does not tell us that they abandoned their livelihoods. This principle applied to the all believers as much as it did to apostles who had to prioritize their time to the study and preaching of God’s Word. The delegation of work was designed so that each could attend to the daily needs of their households and those to whom the Church ministered to in an orderly and organized manner. Although the Scriptures do not explicitly state the rationale for organization, it is implicit—they have to work to attend to support their households (1 Timothy 5:8). Jewish boys are required to take up a trade as a requirement of process leading to Bar Mitzvah which is celebrated on the 13^th birthday. Work was an inalienable part of Jewish social life and is inculcated in the minds and lives of young boys and girls at the earliest possible time of their young lives. This standard was not abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ—believers had to work a trade, and this means every believer.

That the apostles, disciples, or early church converts reverted to a life of withdrawal and ascetism where they abandoned their livelihoods in exchange for a life of piety is not supported in the Scriptures. In fact, even the apostles built their ministries in close proximity to their sources of income. The instructions provided by the Lord in Luke 10 in His commission to the seventy, in no way suggests that these disciples were to travel in want, or that they be busy bodies feeding off the abundance of their hosts. Clear instructions were given not to go from house to house (Luke 10:7). That they carry neither purse nor script, simply meant that they were to travel without the burden of earthly possessions to encumber their work as it was in every way practical and efficient.

Consistent with contemporary customs, Jewish travelers were often welcomed into the homes of fellow Jews especially when visiting new cities. This is especially practiced during the Feast of Tabernacles. The common place were traveling Jews would go to meet fellow Jews is usually in the market place where they would establish relationships with those in the same trade, or in the local synagogue. The Lord instructed them to carry nothing, but also implied that these seventy labor so that they could sustain themselves (Luke 10:7). The point is that the seventy should work in order to eat, and whatever is set before them in the house of their abode, they must eat without question or complaint.

As the seventy would seek out those of the same trade, it would be safe to assume that laboring entailed working in the place of business of the host (Acts 18:1). These seventy were not instructed to go into the Gentile communities yet, so they would have clearly understood that they were to go to the synagogues throughout the land which, according to Josephus, numbered around 300 at the time of Christ, to preach the good news or gospel.

Perhaps the seventy would have understood the command in this explicit way: “Do not carry anything that would encumber you. In the place you go, find work and take up residence, and preach the word in the Synagogues as often as you meet.” The synagogue met only on specific days (Sabbath) and on special holy days and high holy days. Members of the synagogue would spend other days attending to their businesses and livelihood. This was true even for the Rabbis of each synagogue. The concept of a full-time minister or clergy who was supported entirely by the contributions of the members, as we know it today, did not exist then.

It is unlikely that the Lord Jesus Christ would have meant for the seventy to become busybodies, eating without working, and simply preaching every day for the following practical reasons:

1. They would have been ineffective. For the seventy to be jobless would have disqualified them from being heard in the synagogue. Laziness is eschewed in Jewish communities. Rabbis were especially required to be productive members of the business community as much as model a spiritual life;
   
   
2. And, the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures was customarily done in the synagogue, or in especially appointed locations which were held only after the close of the business day. It was only on the Sabbath that services in the synagogue lasted throughout the day. To preach and teach in the synagogue in other days would mean that they would be preaching to the walls of an empty room, hence it was impracticable.

For any of the seventy to go into a city to preach, consume resources, and become an added burden to a household would have been completely unacceptable, and would have worked against the purposes of the ministry since it would have been contrary to acceptable customs.

Each of the seventy could not have lived off the abundance of the synagogue since it would not have been acceptable. Each of the seventy could not have entered a household, become a burden to that household and justify such a disposition simply because they were gospel preachers. Evangelists and missionaries were expected to support themselves through ministry. The ministry of preaching resulted from who they were as believers, their calling to serve the purposes of spreading the gospel, and not because it was their primary trade or means of livelihood.

This passage in Luke 10, along with those that occur in the Pauline Epistles have been used as a foundation upon which the modern church built its assumptions on how it should manage its financial affairs. Unfortunately, the various applications and postulates derived from a misunderstanding of the contemporary conditions governing these passages, especially when viewed through the lens of sound exegesis, will show that the present applications are inconsistent with the models provided in the New Testament.

If we examine the ministries of the apostles we will find that their ministries revolved around areas that were related to their individual trades. Paul, and his fellow servants such as Timothy, Titus, Aquila, and Priscilla, were tent makers. Peter’s livelihood limited him to coastal areas as he was a fisherman. There is no indication that the Lord Jesus Christ told Peter to leave his trade and depend solely on the contributions of the Church especially in its infancy. Paul, as a tent maker, allowed him to go further inland as his trade was portable and is not limited to any one specific geographical area. As a consequence, Paul traveled to areas that are farther removed from Jerusalem while still being able to support himself and his fellow ministers by the work of their hands. There is every indication that Paul continued in his trade to support his ministry (1 Thessalonians 2:9). The New Testament does not provide an example that directly supports current “support” and “deputation” models to finance the salaries of pastors and missionaries. One would have to eisegetically manipulate Scripture in order to justify present models employed by even the most fundamental or conservative of denominations.

1 Corinthians 9:1-27 has been a popular reference employed by the modern local church to justify the model for salaried or deputized ministers. Let’s look into this in a little more detail. To begin with, 1 Corinthians 9 is part of the third response (1 Corinthians 7-16 – “Corinthians C”) of Paul to the inquiries or questions raised by the Corinthians. Since the letter to which Paul was responding to is no longer extant, we can only derive the nature of the questions from the responses that have been recorded in this epistle.

Given the opening remarks of Paul in this epistle, and the context of the previous epistle (1 Corinthians 1-6) it would be safe to deduce that the Corinthians were:

1. Questioning the legitimacy of his apostleship and authority;
2. Questioning the intent and motivations behind the collection he had requested for Jerusalem;

Using rhetoric, Paul poses several questions that do not require an answer simply because the answers are evident by themselves. We can only assume that the church in Corinth were accusing him of using the collection for his own purposes in order to fund his own interests in the façade of ministry, this we derive from the way Paul argues his points (v. 4ff). Paul uses commonly understood constructs such as funding a war, planting a vineyard, managing a herd (vs. 7-8) and alludes to Deuteronomy 25:4 to set the context of his response in rhetoric. What is the most popularly used verse is found in verse 14, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” This verse could only be understood as an interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:4, since the New Testament does not record such an instruction coming directly from the Lord Jesus Christ.

While the apostle Paul alludes to familiar practices, he introduces a superior model in verse 12 and 15: “Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ…But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”

The conjunction of separation (“but”) is employed to distinguish privilege from the gospel minister’s disposition. Although, based on common temple practices the priest and all the servants of the Temple were allotted a portion of the offerings for their daily provisions (it would have been acceptable to sustain themselves through the offerings of the Church), Paul demonstrates how his disposition was not to hinder the gospel of Christ, so that those to whom he ministered to would realize that his ministry was not contingent on the benefits he could extract from the work of the Lord, but out of the necessity of obedience to what Paul refers to as the dispensation of the gospel (v.17) that was committed to him.

The Inter-Testamental period was rife with incidents were the Aaronic line contended for the high priestly office and the privileges that came with it as this office was afforded the respect, privileges, and distinction exceeded only by royalty. Being a student of the law, this knowledge was without doubt prominent in the mind of Paul. He realized that applying the model of sustaining themselves through the traditional means (workers of the temple, eat of the abundance of the temple) would hinder the gospel. He understood the negative social effects and perception this would introduce into the local church, and so decided to support himself as well as those of his number through personal labor so as to make the gospel of Christ without charge.

There are other factors that may have dissuaded Paul from sustaining himself through traditional means. First, these privileges were limited to those of the Levitical order and no other. Second, the work of the Christian ministry is hardly as burdensome as the daily ministrations of the temple work (which by every means can be likened to a slaughter house)—the final sacrifice had been made and so there was no need to continually offer up sacrifices. Finally, Paul clearly taught that a change of priesthood had already occurred (Hebrews 7:12), which necessitated a change from law to that of grace. Peter also reckoned believers as a spiritual priests who, unlike their Aaronic counterparts, are now required to offer up spiritual sacrifices rather than physical (animal) sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5,9).

The references to Deuteronomy in the first 14 verses of the ninth chapter of first Corinthians were clearly employed by the apostle Paul to strengthen his rhetoric in answering the allegations of the believers at Corinth and as an opportunity to introduce a better principle of ministry, one that will not inhibit the gospel, and a ministry that furthers the gospel of Christ without charge. Paul’s disposition was that the ministry was part of his life and not his livelihood. Even in his instruction to Timothy, when Paul states: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, "The labourer is worthy of his reward,” (1 Timothy 5:17-18) is not by any means suggestive of supporting an elder, minister, or pastor with a “salary.” Paul encourages the church to give, but by no means intends for ministers or elders to use this as a basis for the minister to compel the church to pay him a salary in exchange for his services. Hired servants have no need to be counted with honor simply because they are doing precisely what they are paid to do.

Paul’s conviction about how believers should work to support themselves was so strong that he openly commanded the believers in Thessalonica that “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). There were members in the church who, perhaps in anticipation of Christ’s immediate return, ceased from working, going from house to house, eating from the abundance of another, being busybodies. To this Paul instructed the believers in Thessalonica to make such a person ashamed and to admonish him to walk orderly, to work, and to eat from the labor of his own hands. This instruction was not qualified, it was universal in nature and so it applies to ministers or elders and the ordinary members of the church—then and now.

It is important for us to realize that Paul considered the work of the ministry his life but not his means of livelihood. By his instructions to the Thessalonians it is clear that he intends for ministers to follow his example (2 Thess. 3:7) of working a trade to support the ministry so that they be not chargeable to the believers to whom they ministered to.

In consideration of these things, we now have to ask why we pay pastors or ministers a salary. When did this practice become part of the ecclesiastical model? It is clear that the model from which the ancient church was patterned after did not practice this as there were no salaried Rabbis, neither did the primitive church pay salaries to its ministers.

There are no references to ministers receiving any form of payment in exchange for the services they provide in any of the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, it is more likely that even the church fathers supported their ministries by their trades. The earliest possible time that this practice would have penetrated the church would have been around the 3^rd Century CE when Grecian organizational and associational models were first introduced into church polity. This is also considered as the period of corruption by most conservative and orthodox Church historians. It was at this point when positions that distinguished laity from clergy were first introduced, and also when the title of bishop was given a higher place of authority over other New Testament titles that were equal in meaning and application. This practice introduced Grecian organizations into the local church and with it came a higher risk of corruption through a hierarchical model of leadership. It is at this point when authority and power substituted godly submission and service.

After the Edict of Milan (313 CE), or what is also known as the Edict of Toleration, was issued, and the persecution of Christians being made illegal, the church gained a prominent status as they began to enjoy liberties that were not available to the church beforehand. Sanctioned by the State, clergy were now financially supported by the empire and the amount of support bishops received were more than likely determined by the size and political importance of the diocese they controlled (as consistent with Roman practices). Basilicas began to replace pagan temples under the rule of Constantine and religious integration became a quick path for clergy and bishops to exercise power, authority, and political sway in the affairs of the Roman Empire.

The introduction of such distinctions in the church (laity and clergy) took a life of its own, albeit contrary to the Scriptural model, and introduced new traditions that now makes it difficult for the modern church to part ways with. Clergy was now considered a profession where one goes through a system of education, where those who aspired to become a salaried clergyman worked to develop their skills in homiletics and other sciences, who, upon successful completion of their studies could look forward to a lifetime of salaried ecclesiastical service. Such practices remain as the de facto ecclesiastical model today.

Such a practice introduced different problems that now confront the church. The ministry is now recognized as a profession rather than a consequence of conversion. Schools now offer theological instruction to prepare aspirants for a life of ministry. This meant that the church began to take on pastors who were theologically trained but lacking in life and faith experience as most were under 30 years of age. The instruction was largely based on theory rather than one derived from a mentor.

The church now pays someone to attend to responsibilities that were in the first place intended for every believer to fulfill – attend to the sick, the aged, the poor, the widows, feeding the hungry and caring for orphans. Its financial priorities moved from attending to Scriptural priorities to that of building large edifices, purchasing property, beautifying facilities, supporting mission agencies and associations, buying vehicles, or installing state-of-the-art sound systems.

Ministers spiritualize what would otherwise be a purely material requirement – the church that can pay the highest salary often wins. Rather than supporting themselves so that the ministry becomes without charge, present day ministers opt to charge the ministry for their time and effort, for the church to pay for their dedication and service to the Lord. Present day ministers end up idle and unable to support the needs of their families unless they could find a local congregation who will be willing to employ them. They became busybodies.

Churches now see the role of the minister as an employed resource and not as a spiritual leader. Ecclesiastical employers impose upon their ministers standards of measure that most corporations impose on their employees – number of converts and baptisms, number of bible studies, increases in offering, vibrant services, etc. These ministers have to perform if they wish to keep their posts. Otherwise, the pastoral relationship can be terminated at will. Even churches who cannot afford to pay the full living requirements of their salaried ministers consider it unspiritual for their salaried pastor to engage in a trade or find employment. They would rather see their minister in a state of poverty, than have him work to uphold a sound testimony of faith by supporting his family.

This practice needs to be broken if we are to return to the New Testament model of the Church and ministry as modeled by the Apostles. The change is simple:

1. Ministers ought to learn a trade to support their households and their ministries. We should remove ourselves from the idea of charging the ministry for our time and services; We should work to support ourselves and our families rather than expect others to support us.
   
   
2. We should learn to give of our substance and God given talents freely and without expectation of compensation or reciprocation; Rather than expect to receive support from the church, we should ourselves be the biggest givers in the Church.
   
   
3. We need to depart from the measures the world employs to determine success and instead submit to what the Lord considers a success. We will remove ourselves from the pressure of quantification if we remove ourselves as a financial burden of the local congregation.

The Bible clearly encourages all believers to give of their substance. This much is Biblical. What is not consistent with the New Testament is for ministers to charge the church for their services that in reality is expected of every believer as a living sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice (1 Peter 2:5) offered unto our Holy God and Savior Jesus Christ the Lord. (Romans 12:1-2).

Giving is a matter of obedience for all believers and introduces thinking processes and behavior that are consistent with the standards of Scripture. Expecting to get paid for fulfilling our responsibilities as believers, or charging the ministry for our services only serves as a vehicle for destructive mental models, materialism, carnality, as well as ungodly and unregenerate leadership to influence our minds, lives, and congregations.

If we are truly called to ministry, then we need to find a job or take up a trade to support our families by the work of our hands without charging the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ for exercising our spiritual gifts or for attending to the purposes and priorities of the local church. If we use the issue of not enough time, then our problem is not that we do not have enough time, but that we are unwilling to give our time sacrificially to the work of the ministry.

We need remove ourselves as a financial burden to the Church to allow the Church to dedicate its resources to the priorities stated by the Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles. So that in the end we may, much like the apostle Paul, say:

“Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ…But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.” (1 Corinthians 9:12,15-19)

“For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:9)

The Fallacy of Unconditional Love

The title of this article may completely shock the living daylights out of some readers—this is to be expected. But this is precisely what the concept of unconditional love is—a fallacy. Believers have been fed with the idea that God’s love is unconditional, but nothing can be further from the truth. God’s requirement for a propitiation and His conditions for man’s salvation was nothing less than perfection so that the only acceptable sacrifice for the atonement of our sins was the Lord Jesus Christ alone. So where in the world did we ever get this idea that God’s love was unconditional? The price Christ paid to freely offer us the gift of salvation was too high a price for just any man to pay!

In this article, we will explore the implications of this concept and the conflicts it brings to the life and thought of the believer. We will also look into the primary Greek word, agape (agaph, agapaw) which has been popularly rendered to represent God’s unconditional love.

Nothing more than a concept

Unconditional love sounds good as a concept, but there is no Biblical basis for this concept. Unfortunately, evangelical believers have constantly referred to unconditional love as the reason why the Lord came to die on the cross for this sins of mankind. Preachers have used this concept to spice up their Sunday sermons, in order that they may “touch the heart”, or more accurately to exploit the emotions so that their listeners respond affirmatively to their preaching. The word agape is the popular “brand” employed to mean unconditional love. In its popular state, it became the entry for heresy to penetrate the pulpits of evangelical churches. Unconditional love, as purportedly demonstrated by God, became the subtle gateway for unbelievers to influence believers and is also at the heart of the Church’s systemic departure from the foundational doctrines of the faith.

The Meaning of Agape

The noun agape is from the root verb agapao (agapaw) which technically means, “to love”. There are a couple of key words employed by the New Testament that is translated as love, these are agapao and fileo. Of the two words, agapao occurs more frequently than fileo in the New Testament. Although both words mean love, the choice of word used is largely dependent on the context. The word agape is used primarily when describing the love of God towards man and as an example of how the church should love each other. The word fileo is used primarily when describing love in human relationships.

It is interesting to note that despite the abundant occurrences of the word agape in the New Testament, nowhere does it provide the context that compels us to interpret agape to mean unconditional love. In every case, the message imparted by New Testament writers has to do with divine or sacrificial love, both of which in no way suggests unconditional love. The concept of unconditional love goes against the expressed revelation of God about Himself, His ministry, and plan for the ages.

The Fallacy of Unconditional

Nowhere does the Scripture teach us that God’s love is unconditional. The fact of the matter is that God required a perfect sacrifice that necessitated the death of Christ on the cross of Calvary. While God’s love is infinite, it is not unconditional. This is why, it was necessary for Christ to shed His blood so that those that believe in Him will be covered and reckoned righteous in the sight of the Almighty (Romans 5:8-11). To suggest that God’s love was unconditional would render the death of Christ worthless and unnecessary. The free gift of salvation, much like freedom, is not free—it is a free gift offered to us but paid by another. We can now freely avail of the gift of salvation because the Lord Jesus Christ paid for the price of our individual redemption, and now exercises the right to give it to whomsoever He will. In every essence, by His death on the cross, Christ literally purchased the title deed that reckons those that believe in Him justified and reconciled with God. Paul states: “¹Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: ²By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God... ⁸But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. ¹⁰For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. ¹¹And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:1-2,8-11)”

The condition the Almighty required was personally settled entirely and in full by the Lord Jesus Christ. The requirement for a perfect offering for the sin of mankind was paid in full by the Lord Jesus Christ. Again Paul states, “¹²Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ¹³(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. ¹⁵But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. ¹⁶And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. ¹⁷For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) ¹⁸Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. ¹⁹For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. ²⁰Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: ²¹That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21).”

This idea of unconditional love is nothing more than a manifestation of aberrant albeit, poor theology. Not only does this go against the soteriology of the Scriptures, it also goes against the anthropology of the Scriptures and the fundamental doctrine of sin and the complete depravity of man. As long man is a free agent, choice will exist, and as long as choice is present, conditions that make choices essential will always exist. Christ Himself, stated, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " ¹⁹"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. " ²⁰"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. " ²¹"But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:18-21). Here, the condition required of man to be saved and escape condemnation is belief in the Son of God.

This aberrant concept, turned false doctrine, opens the gate to all sorts of heresies and, is an attempt of man to frame the Scriptures within acceptable boundaries of human thought and subjectivism. This is at the heart of pseudo-Christian movements that over-emphasize the love of God at the expense of His holiness, righteousness, and justice. This aberrant doctrine generates a great deal of confusion for the individual believer in understanding the nature and character of God as revealed in the Scriptures. For if God’s love were truly unconditional, then how will the believer understand the constructs of God’s holiness and justice that calls for every one who professes the name of Christ to depart from iniquity? How will the believer reconcile God’s purported unconditional love with the coming judgment?

This is why a lot of believers have great difficulty reconciling God’s love with His holiness, judgment and justice. Much like unbelievers they ask, “how could a loving God allow men to go to hell? how could a loving God allow mankind to suffer?” Their faith is built on subjective faith, hence they so easily become offended; they gravitate towards the emotional rather than the spiritual (based on the objective truths of the Scriptures); they emphasize emotion-driven action rather than principle-driven actions; they adhere to methods than are unscriptural and worldly; they tend to focus on form and not substance; and, they base their standards of holiness on the ways of man (touch not, taste not, do not), placing so much on ascetic constructs and entirely missing the truth that true holiness is a spiritual change, a state reckoned (not earned) to mankind by God before the sight of God.

For those of us who have been saved by the grace of God through an objective faith in the person and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, we must always remember (and not confuse) that we freely received the gift of salvation not because God’s love is unconditional, but because Christ settled in our debt in full and all the conditions for atonement required by the One True and Holy God, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Salvation is a personal matter. It is not collective. And people will go to everlasting damnation unless we tell them of the free gift offered to them by the Holy God. Our role is to tell, the Holy Spirit is responsible for conviction and conversion. We must tell, we must teach the whole counsel of God.

The Scriptural Basis for Unity

The ideal of unity has long played a vital part in the course of human history. Humanity has sought to achieve a state where the world would have achieved lasting and sustainable peace through unity; an egalitarian society, where conflict would be completely abolished and where mutual understanding and equality would govern the state of human affairs. So far humanity has yet to achieve such a state. Our history is replete with attempts, but has yet to record a single event that embodies true unity and peace.

Genesis 11 provides us with the first instance of a united humanity. The Bible states the world “was of one language, and of one speech” (Genesis 11:1). The priorities and directions of humanity was in unison for they spoke one language shared a common culture and set of traditions and understood each other. But such unity only exacerbated the depravity of humanity. Rather than being united to worship the Almighty, they instead began to devise vain imaginations. ^“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gen 11:4). The intent of humanity at this stage is to exalt themselves, or make a name for themselves that is equal in prominence and importance to that of the Godhead. They wanted to build a tower that would reach the heavens, a direct path to God perhaps even make themselves equal to God.

Genesis 11:6 states, “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” The unity in language, thought and action of a united but depraved humanity will lead to pursuits that are contrary to the Divine Plan. In the infinite wisdom and grace of the Almighty, the Godhead decided to intervene and prevent mankind from courting His judgment and eternal destruction. Genesis 11:7-9 states, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another' speech. Scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” A similar event of self-exaltation led to the expulsion of Lucifer from the presence of the Most High: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12-15).

God’s intervention was an act of grace and preservation for had He not intervened and confounded the language, hence the purposes and understanding of mankind, that humanity would have exalted itself to be like unto the most High—the ramification of which would have been immediate and permanent destruction.

Since Babel, humanity has continually worked towards the desired end of a united world—one world governed by a common set of ideals, language, and purposes. Great kingdoms have purposed to unite the entire world under a universal kingdom—from the Akkadian dynasties to the Roman Empire of ancient times to the present Colonial Empires or recent history and the Pax Americana of the present—and will stop at nothing to achieve the ideals of a united world.

Throughout history, the ideals of unity and peace is always dictated by the dominant. All those that refuse to subscribe to the dictates of the dominant will always be seen as antagonist, rebels, and even terrorists to an extreme. This pursuit has led to the creation of more conflicts throughout the world today. Dominant peoples have used everything from geographical expansion (to feed and house their people) to religion evangelism as a justification for armed occupation and conflict.

This prospect of attaining unity has also led to the destruction of cultures, to genocide, and to all forms of atrocities against humanity. Despite this, mankind has remain undeterred to achieve this objective end of “unity” even if the process or path to attain such a pursuit results in the employment of methods that are contrary to the objective end. It seems that mankind will do anything to achieve unity even at the cost of lives and their very souls.

Is unity a priority in the Divine Plan? No it is not. Unity, in its pure and unadulterated form, is simply the fruit of a Theocracy of the Millennial kingdom. Until then, the priority of the Divine Plan is the salvation of mankind. To focus on the ideal of unity is simply to strive for something that cannot possibly be achieved. Conflicts will remain until sin is completely abolished from the face of the earth. And the abolition of sin, according to the Scriptures, will only occur after the Lord has purged the heavens and earth and created the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13).

Is the Church and the believers that comprise it tasked to establish peace and unity throughout the world? On the contrary, the purpose of the Church is to present a spiritual stumbling block to both Jews and Gentiles. While believers are instructed to be good citizens and to honor government, we have been charged to declare the truth that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” We are to “…sanctify the Lord God in your (our) hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

The militancy of the Church is not physical or material in nature. We are not to strive against physical structures (flesh and blood), rather we are to contend with spiritual matters. We are simply to fight the warfare for the souls of all mankind, and our implements for warfare are explicit: preaching and prayer; our primary weapon is the Word of God. This warfare is meant to divide mankind only on the basis of spiritual nature—believers from unbelievers; saved from lost; redeemed from enslaved; righteous from unrighteous; justified from condemned; eternally living from the eternally dead.

Are believers charged to remain a united community? Yes. In fact, if we look closely, the word that is directly translated “unity” in the New Testament, enothta, occurs only twice in the entire New Testament (Ephesians 4:3, 13) and is directed to the Church as a community of regenerated believers. The remainder of references imply the ideal by the use of the numeral “heis, hen, or hice” (Greek, en). But in such cases it is used to refer to an absolute number rather than to an ideal (one body, one faith, one hope, one Spirit, one baptism, etc.). In such cases too, the focus is to communicate a singularity based on the nature of God, and not to a collective characteristic.

The charge of the apostle Paul for the church to remain united is based primarily on the truth that the church serves one God, is saved by one Savior, is called unto one Calling, and is filled with one Spirit. The basis to achieve real unity are present within the ecclesia of the called or the regenerated—the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul had to constantly remind the church about this truth simply because believers are still prone to think in terms of unity and peace as conformity to their personal opinions and preferences rather than to think of unity and peace as a fruit of the singularity of salvation and the singularity of purpose of the Godhead. In contrast to the constructs of unity among the unbelieving, the constructs of unity of the believing Church is glorifying to God since the basis of this unity is to serve the purposes of the most High—towards the salvation of all mankind by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

It is time for the Church to calibrate its focus from trying to be a social club, a political group, or advocates for world peace and back to its primary purpose—the preaching of the Gospel so that all men will hear and believe. Unrest and fragmentation within the church only occurs when this purpose is confused with agendas that do not conform to the Church’s prime directive, and when its purposes are lined with personal vested interests of individual or groups, and when believers are swayed to esteem the priorities of the material over the spiritual.

There is only one way that our Churches can remain united and remain glorifying to God, and that is for the body, the ecclesia of the called, to pursue without ceasing the priorities of the most High over personal or even ecclesiastical interests—the salvation of mankind through the preaching and teaching of the word, and through fervent prayer.

The apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31: “¹⁸For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. ²⁰Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ²²For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: ²³But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; ²⁴But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. ²⁵Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. ²⁶For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: ²⁷But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; ²⁸And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: ²⁹That no flesh should glory in his presence. ³⁰But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: ³¹That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

If you want real unity and peace, there is only one place to find this, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Call on Him today—before it’s too late. Judgment cometh.

The Context of First Instance

In order for us to understand the Scriptures, we must understand the inner workings of the culture and traditions that circumscribe the events recorded in the Bible. It is important for us to have this understanding to comprehend the idioms and idiosyncratic expressions employed by the writers of Scriptures to communicate Divine Truth. Moreover, the study of cultures and traditions is important in the study of Biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek). As far as the study of the Scriptures is concerned, understanding culture and traditions serves an important role in interpreting the Scriptures.

Understanding the context of the first instance is different from contextualization. Contextualization forces an interpretation of the Scriptures to fit the present context. The context of the first instance is key to sound biblical exegesis and interpretation, whereas the objective of contextualization is to provide an interpretation of the Scriptures that is agreeable to a specific cultural context. Employing the context of the first instance will allow us to understand what the Scriptures are communicating in its original substance and how to apply these truths to our meet our present needs. It does not allow us the latitude to change these truths just to make them palatable to present conditions. By application, culture and tradition must conform to the absolutes of Scripture and not the other way around.

The emphasis of the Scriptures is primarily spiritual reconciliation with the Almighty through the explicit means He Himself has provided—by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6). The standards concerning how “believers” should live are secondary to spiritual regeneration. A moral life is only the desired consequence of a regenerated life. Regeneration always comes first. Morality apart from regeneration is worthless.

The apostle Paul states: ^“21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; ²²Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: ²³For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ²⁴Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: ²⁵Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; ²⁶To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. ²⁷Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. ²⁸Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. ²⁹Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: ³⁰Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. ³¹Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”(Romans 3:21-31)

In the argument that ensued between the Lord and the Pharisees concerning religion, religious tradition and popular culture, the Lord states: “…This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me…Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.…Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition…For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:6-8, 13)

This order of priority must never be altered or even re-formulated to fit conventional thought or popular culture. The culture and traditions of men are rooted in individual belief systems and are basically a compendium of the belief systems of individuals comprising a community, so, unless a community is comprised of regenerated believers, even the enforcement of the strictest standards of morality and outward religious conformity will not produce a godly culture. In fact, as in the case of the Jewish community contemporary to the Lord’s earthly ministry, a community that structures culture and tradition based on the Scriptures will end up in a highly rigid legalistic society devoid of spiritual substance (Mark 7:6-8, 13).

A community, however, comprised of regenerated believers who studies and understands the Scriptures will produce a culture and set of traditions that glorifies and serves the purposes of the Almighty. This is the implicit model of the ecclesia—a group or community of believers called out from Jews and Gentiles alike to serve the purposes of the Most High, distinct from every human organization (religious or otherwise), bound not by race or religion, but by the commonality of spiritual re-birth and regeneration. It is designed to be a model of the forthcoming theocracy of the Millennium.

To attempt to reformulate Scriptural Truths to fit contemporary contexts is to deviate from the Divine Plan. The temptation to do so is strong, even for mature believers. The high standards of the Scriptures are foundational to egalitarian thinking, a world devoid of conflict and filled with love, peace, and equality, using Acts 2:44 as the basis of this model.

Students of the Word must realize that the principles (egalitarian as it may seem) taught in the New Testament have to be understood through the lens of the context of first instance. These are not universally applicable, and by universally I mean believers and unbelievers alike. The context is clear—believers only.

Another problem area that opens up the door to contextualization is the ideal of unity and peace. While mankind sees the value of these Scriptural tenets, it is understood out of context. These principles were directed to the Church, the ecclesia of the called. The basis of unity and peace, as taught in the Scriptures is the context of the common regenerated relationship shared between believers the Lord and the resulting obedience required by the Lord of His followers and children. The common foundation and basis is spiritual re-birth.

To attempt to employ these principles of equality, unity, peace, and love outside of the context of spiritual re-birth creates more problems than it solves. Why? The basis of those that seek to employ these outside of the context of spiritual regeneration is heterogeneous and subjective, whereas the basis of the Church is homogeneous and objective—the person and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Meaning, the unbelieving world cannot possibly come to a full realization of the intent of real peace, real joy, real unity, and real love apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace will always be designed to fit the interests of one party over another. Unity will be defined by the parameters set by a dominant party or nation (much like Pax Romana), and love will be corrupted to mean every thing else but. The natural man is unable to comprehend the foundations behind these basic principles. Paul clearly states: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Nowhere is this thinking more prominent than in situation ethics that evaluates action in the light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes; a view of ethics that deprecates general moral principles while emphasizing the source of moral judgments in the distinctive characters of specific situations (Source: situation ethics. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.). This is the thinking behind the phrase “the ends justifies the means.”

The intent of situation ethics is to make the ministry of the organized church relevant for this present generation. The intent is to make the ministry relevant so that by doing so make the basis of ministry relevant to this present generation. This may seem harmless, however, it is anything but.

If we were to use situation ethics to interpret the Scriptures we would end up with a version that is a half truth—and half truths are lies. Divine justice for example, would be seen not as an expression of the Holiness of God, but a means to impose His will on the world in order to meet a greater good. This would justify violence if the end result is world peace. History is replete with accounts of “Christian nations” going to war to further the kingdom of God or their version of morality. Because it puts forth a half-truth, it is evil.

Situation ethics holds the traditions of men in higher esteem than the commandments of God. Those who think this way are as guilty of vain worship as the Pharisees of Christ’s day: “…This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me…Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.…Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition…For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:6-8, 13)

It would do well for us to consider what the apostle Paul stated in Romans 9:14-32: “¹⁴What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. ¹⁵For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. ¹⁶So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. ¹⁷For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. ¹⁸Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. ¹⁹Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? ²⁰Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? ²¹Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? ²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: ²³And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, ²⁴Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ²⁵As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. ²⁶And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. ²⁷Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: ²⁸For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. ²⁹And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. ³⁰What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. ³¹But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. ³²Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; ³³As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

If we want to glorify God, we need to do so on the basis of how He has instructed us to worship and glorify Him—in spirit and in truth. We cannot worship Him in convenience. We cannot be eclectic as far as doctrine is concerned or as it concerns the whole counsel of God. In its absolute state, the Scriptures must be taken as a complete and absolute whole—no more, and no less. We must be resolute in our obedience to God by what He has revealed in the Scriptures even when it makes us uncomfortable.