Relevant Revisited

Regarding the Tampa Tribune’s Thou Shalt Canoodle article expounded upon in this past blog, I think this follow-up is expedient. Most of the responses I received were in agreement with my characterization but there were a few gentle dissenters. I welcome all comments because we grow by challenging one another. I should add that no one countered with any Scriptural support in favor of this church’s methodology and the blog defenders simply wrote that we should love one another, therefore implying that doctrinal challenges were off limits. I think far too many confuse form with message. We would do well to recognize Solomon’s wisdom; there is a time and a place for everything. Being culturally relevant in style has nothing to do with the content. And by suggesting that this challenge is inappropriate in its current forum does necessary insinuate that this topic in unsuitable in all venues.

I want to make a few additional, hopefully non-redundant points. I’ve attached a 4 minute segment from “The Way of the Master” Radio if you’d like to hear their reaction. The online posts reacting to this short segment were decidedly negative. One fellow wrote, “This is what makes all Christians look bad. We spend more time slamming each other than reaching out! If this dj checked out the church and "the challenge" he would see it's about strengthening Christian marriages. It's more about emotional needs than sex. After the embarrassing debate over evolution on national tv, should WOTM really be slamming other Christians for attempting to get a message heard even if they disagree with how they do it?! It takes all kinds 2 reach all people.”

This is precisely the problem. There must be a level of accountability measured by objective Scriptural standards, discerning what is and what is not appropriate. Another frustrated blogger wrote, “This seems to be unfortunate and condescending tirade against people doing the same thing you are "trying" to do but just in a different style. I find it ironic that a church is about to chat about sex and how to make it all God hoped it would be then gets slammed by other Christians.” Making sex “all God hoped it would be” may be the intent of the 30-Day Challenge creators but this is far from what is portrayed. There seems to be confusion as to the intent of this challenge. Is it evangelistic? Is it about self-actualization? Is it about enhancing marriage? Is it attempting to encourage abstinence? Is it trying to do all the above? There are so many mixed signals sent that it’s truly difficult to discern. The mastermind behind this endeavor as shown in the video guide seemed to say that it was all about improving marriage. So what’s the problem with isolating the content in a marriage seminar? Why tack on the abstinence idea, sandwich it together in one guide and use it as a church-wide ad campaign?

Some thought that I may have overacted solely by reading the Tribune article—the assumption was that I was not fully attuned to the true purpose and complete message of this relevant strategy. Well, I wish that were the case but I usually don’t make a habit of sharing things off the top of my head without conscientious research.

Just so you know, I spent roughly 6 hours in due diligence. I read the pdf manual/devotional “30-Day Sex Challeng guide”; I watched the “Guide Explained”; I read the “Questionnaire”; I read the blogs posted by the pastor & staff; and I listened to a number of sermons. So although some may not agree with my conclusions, I will tell you they were not derived from ignorance. I have no interest in rehashing what I have already written but I would like to clarify a few things.

I want to reiterate that I have in no way questioned the motives of those leading Relevant Church. I don’t doubt their intentions. What I do object to is their judgment in the creation of a community-wide campaign that can be so easily misunderstood. Being relevant does not dictate a message change to meet the ever-morphing demographics. Neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul ever softened their moral expectations in an effort to be culturally relevant. And John the Baptizer was so culturally relevant (facetiousness assumed) that he said:

• "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath that is about to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Matthew 3:7-9

If we think today’s sexually promiscuous climate is over the edge just revisit the first century Corinthian Church through the Apostle Paul’s eyes. How did this inspired apostle communicate to the believers mired in sexual sin? Did he encourage them to take a 30-day hiatus so that they could uncover their inner fears and expectations? Did he exhort them to go on a personal journey of discovery? He said to get the heck out of every situation that might cause them to compromise their integrity. Flee! He didn’t cajole them. He didn’t attempt to understand there difficult circumstances. He simply said to get the heck out of dodge!

• Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 (ESV)

• As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. 10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 (ESV)

I have no problem whatsoever with using creative methods to reach an untapped and unchurched audience. For the past 10 years I’ve been part of a ministry that has attempted to do just that. I have felt the whir of the fiery arrows launched by members of the more traditional churches in Brandon—as if the non-traditional style of Bay Life is automatically equated with a lack of spirituality.

I love contemporary worship services where dance, loud music, movies and props are used to bring the message to the people. I’m all for the forms that are crafted to meet people where they are. I’m not out of touch with the younger generations. I’m all for using “relevant” means as long as the message is entirely Scriptural. But in our quest to be “pertinent” and “germane”, I believe we must do everything in our power to challenge people with the full force of God’s Word. The Gospel is not a message of acquiescence but of confrontation. It’s harsh because the consequences of sin are everlasting. Yes, we need to share this message with sensitivity—surely compassion should drip from our lips—however, the message should never become luke warm or compromised. I believe this program has unwittingly done that.

The following is from today’s most recent blog at Relevant. It’s quite clear that this blogger, who I may incorrectly assume to be a staffer at Relevant, has a heart for sexual purity & marriage fidelity. But that’s not the issue at hand. No one is accusing this church of promoting sexual immorality. What I question is the forum for this message; the over-emphasis of this very volatile racy mode & the ensuing natural misdirection veering from the Gospel of Christ; and the appearance of lowing the standards.

• Our challenge is that us single adults would take 30 days to consider God’s way and remove sex from the equation to focus on who we are, who we are becoming and what is truly defining our relationships. Tragically, for many single adults, sex is the only bond of a relationship leading to complications and emotional emptiness. My hope is that in 30 days, this idea of saving sex for the right context would become a lifestyle that leads to great, healthy relationships. [cwc: my hope is that “right context” is a code reference to “marriage”. Not sure why “marriage” could not have been explicitly stated.]

I was accused of not doing my homework therefore not fully understanding this new approach. Well let’s take that accusation to the logical extreme. The leadership of Relevant should have been responsible enough to have thought through the community’s reactions. I received the following from a young person:

• I agree with you wholeheartedly… this message series is a shame the way it is being presented. I think it was a definite media stunt because the media doesn’t scour church websites for stories; the pastor shouldn’t be shocked at the media response he got.

In my opinion this is spot on. This appears to be a calculated approach and for the pastor to act surprised at the response is rather perplexing. Is this the way the church should find the spotlight? I’d much prefer to make headlines feeding the hungry, caring for the infirmed or loving the unlovely. Where’s the message of the cross? My church has been unflatteringly labeled, “The Rock and Roll Church” and “Bay Lite”, but if Bay life ever becomes known for anything other than a church infatuated with the Gospel of Christ and obsessed with disciple-making, I will cease attending. Consider another email I received:

• I heard about this on Way of the Master Radio. And there are Christians being tortured and killed for having underground house churches; missionaries from China that feel called to bring the gospel to Muslim countries (not enough persecution in China?).

Have we so lost our way that we are oblivious to what the message of Christ is all about? Is it about garnering attendees? Is it about sex? Is it about sensationalism? Doing anything we can to fill up the boat? Listen, I believe we need to do everything in our power to bring the message of Christ to all generations. But we don’t need to water down the Word to do it. We don’t need to accentuate our weaknesses to do it. The mere inference of this challenge is at best disheartening. When some participants tell the Tribune that they are expecting a “tough month” by abstaining for a whole stinking 30 days, I know we are in big trouble. Who’s being honest with these folks? Where’s the truth? Where are the stated consequences? Are not teachers held to a greater level of accountability…?

There are only two people groups in this world. People with and without Christ. This is another reason why the 30-day message is inappropriate in its current context. If Christians are engaging in pre-marital sex then they need to be told using Scriptural admonition to cease. Not for 30 days, and not for a determinate amount of time—but until they are married. They need to know the consequences. I didn’t say it was easy and I didn’t say no one would fail. The Bible has provisions for failure but failure should not be presumed from the start.

However, let me change gears for a moment, since there is the presumption that this particular church is reaching many non-believers. And that’s great! But the message to them must be quite different than to those attendees indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Those that don’t know Christ are in desperate need to hear the Gospel and need to know the ramifications of life with Christ.

The unbelieving crowd needs to know that ten days, thirty days or 100 days of sexual abstinence is of no eternal value to God. They don’t need to be led to believe that sexual abstinence is going to gain them favored status before God. We surely don’t want any non-believer to ever get the impression that the church is obsessed with sex and I also don’t want them to see the church through this much clouded kinky prism. Sexual abstinence will not gain anyone entrance into the Kingdom. No doubt it’s a safe practice and it will do no harm for any non-believer to abide by Scriptural teaching, but it cannot be seen as a substitute for spirituality—or a token offering to God as atonement. This is the danger especially for those outside this church’s scope and control. What message is the community hearing and is it consistent with the Good News?

The fact that the church is focusing on abstinence should not be something the community is forced to consider. This should be a personal matter and handled on a much smaller venue. Cricket called me last night and told me that secular radio station WQYK featured comments concerning this 30-day program and they weren’t flattering. This church should have been responsible enough to know how this message was going to reverberate throughout the bay area and beyond. In the article the pastor stated, “It’s amazing the kind of media attention we’re getting just for talking about sex.” How can we take this comment seriously?

Now to the other group. Those that are committed to Christ. Thirty days is a travesty. It’s a sham and there’s no Biblical precedence for it. Where in Scripture do we have even one example of anyone being told to incrementally deny sin? This is a worldly strategy. It’s born out of the self-help books and is in tune with the hottest prosperity teaching called “The Secret”. This is not reliance on the Holy Spirit but is a sort of behavior modification of the will.

Let me share with you the entire day #4 devotional for the single person (which includes a Scripture reference to Prov 13:20) Is this the kind of questions you presumed to find in this guide?

• In what situations are you more likely to make poor sexual choices? For example: tequila shots.

Is this the kind of question Jesus asked the tax gatherers and sinners that He spent time with? Here’s to me the bottom line. The ends never ever justify the means. We must not succumb to the temptation of altering or softening the message. Sure it may increase the size of Relevant Church but will it foster Scriptural expectations in the lives of its believers? Will it spur them on to maturity knowing that only through Christ do they have a chance?

• But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Hebrews 10:32-34 (ESV)

The believers identified in Hebrews, joyfully accepted the plundering of their goods for the sake of the Gospel and yet we spend our pulpit time attempting to be culturally relevant? We need to become students of the Word. More time in His word & in prayer. That’s the issue. It’s not merely a lack of counseling. It’s not a shortfall of being sensitive to the needs of the younger generation by playing to the most base of all desires. We have lost our way. If we’d teach people how to study the Bible and challenge one another how to live godly lives always reaching out to those in need then the rest of this sexual stuff will take care of itself. If our focus becomes others-centered then there will be less time for sin. Lying down prostrate before a holy God is what we need. When we engage in sexual relations outside of marriage we do not merely “fall off the wagon” (as was characterized in day #4 of the manual) but we commit willful sin that God may choose to punish.

• Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV)

In my opinion this sexual 30-day exercise is nothing to trifle with. And that’s exactly what we appear to be doing when egregious sin and the accompanying significant consequences are boiled down to attempting to break bad habits. Did Jesus or any members of the inspired canon-writing team every approach sin in this matter? Is there any place on record where sin was quantified therefore giving one the false feeling of success by abstaining for short bursts? Does the Apostle Paul say, “Flee youthful lusts for 30 days?” Is there precedence anywhere in Scripture for this kind of ratcheting approach to sexual immorality, or any sin for that matter? How did Jesus handle the lame man after He healed him?

• Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you." John 5:14 (ESV)

How did Jesus react to the woman who was caught in adultery? Yes, He was abundantly compassionate and we should be too, but what did He tell her? Did he tell her to try His 30-day abstinence plan, hoping that she would stay pure after the 30 days?

• And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." John 8:11b (ESV)

I’m not suggesting a message of condemnation toward those that are failing morally. People need to know that they are fully forgiven in Christ. We will never be acceptable based upon our own effort. But in my opinion, we must expect more from people. We need to raise the bar straight to Biblical standards. This is not like a coaching clinic where we pat people on the back for doing some task successfully 30 times in a row—where the hope is that muscle memory will eventually kick in. We are dealing with something so sacred and at the same time so potentially life-altering if ignored. I just don’t see how we can justify treating sexual sin in the same vein as giving up chocolate for lent. That may not be the intent of Relevant but that’s how it appears to the on-looking public.

• Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:13-16 (ESV)

Instead of challenging people to be holy should Peter have attempted to stay germane to the first century culture? The Corinthians were having sex in the dadgum church! They were crazy out of control. Did the apostle Paul soften the message and give them bite-sized chunks that they could safely ingest?

No matter how pragmatic Relevant’s message is attempting to be I just can’t see it synchronizing with Scripture. Did the Apostle Paul tell the church at Corinth, “Flee from sexual immorality for as long as you can? Hey fellas try to work up to it.” I can just see the Apostle Paul say, “I know it’s going to be hard but do the best you can for a few weeks. Abstaining from sex will be habit-forming.” I know this is not Relevant’s position but that is the unintended consequence that with some discernment should have been recognized before engaging in this program.

Is there one Scriptural precedent for this kind of method? I’m not asking this rhetorically. If there is I’d like to know about it. I may have some clear convictions but one thing’s certain—if Scripture contradicts my views then I’m going with Scripture every time.

Our challenge should always be to view everything through the lens of God’s Word. Not what’s pragmatic or relevant but what’s Scriptural. And I think we must always be aware of the potential impact of our behavior & focus on the Gospel’s propagation. We must attempt to live above reproach. We must always be cognizant of what are we saying loud and clear without uttering a word. People see the church placing sex in a role of such prominence that it becomes a focal point issue. People may throw their hands in the air and say, the church is no different from any other civic organization. For goodness sakes when’s the last time the Elks Club members were extolled to have sex for 30 days straight? Are we not out of control? Is this not a message that should be confined to a marriage seminar or a single’s retreat? As good friend David said to me yesterday, “Is there no shame?”

Contrary to what some may think I’m saying, I do not think sexual promiscuity is something that should or for that matter can be avoided by the church. It was rampant in NT times and is a severe problem today. The forum we choose is the key. This is something for exclusive seminars. If it was done in that context there would be no issue and the Tampa Tribune would have never considered it worthy of a headline in the Metro.

We have a group called “Breakthrough” that meets each week at Bay Life. Addictions of all kinds are addressed. This is a very valuable program. It thrives in the appropriate venue. Occasionally Sunday morning we dedicate some time for an addictive sin-conquering testimony. However, we never have and I pray never will embark on a church-wide campaign launched from the pulpit dealing with addictions. These are problems that must be handled and dealt with in the proper context on a smaller scale.

I understand that participants in this program do not necessarily reflect the intents of Relevant Church. A recent site blogger (who I assume posted under the church's scrutiny) wrote:

• If you haven’t considered giving this challenge a try I would highly recommend it. All there is to lose is 30 days of some hibidty-dibity, but if you have the results that I have had then you might be surprised to see how truthful you can be with yourself about your relationships. What I mean by that is simple. Before, I took this step of leaving sex out, I had been in several long term relationships where sex had been more of a focus than honestly looking at our personal differences to see if our relationship could stand on it’s own two feet without one of us having to be on our back. Good Luck.

Do you see anything there that causes pause? Where's the testimony to "doing it God's way" regardless of the relational result? At least in this blogger's case, this seems to be all about the outcome of a successful relationship without the "hibidty-dibity". Where's the awareness that he has been violating God's standards? Where the repentant attitude? Where's the peace made with God about abiding by Biblical benchmarks? At least in this blog, the focus of this man's attitude seems to regard successful functionality, not that he is doing what's right and pleasing in the eyes of Lord Jesus. Maybe he doesn't know Christ. If he doesn't, then why post his thoughts as a representative sample? Is the goal not spiritual maturity in Christ? What would have happened had his experience of "leaving sex out" been decidedly unsuccessful in his partner's eyes? Would he have deemed this exercise a failure and reverted back to his old ways?

My hope for Relevant is that this preoccupation with sex does not backfire. I realize that the heart of this church is to drive people to Jesus Christ where He alone can satify. The pastor's wife has said as much in her blog. I hope the focus changes decidedly toward God and away from self.

Even if there are positive stories that arise from this exercise (and undoubtedly there will be), we will never fully comprehend the long-range implications for those inside and out of this church. Do the participants realize that this is not about what works but what's right? The effects will never be fully understood. Membership may be increased and some may come to know Christ as Savior.

In my opinion these will never be justifications because the ends don’t validate the methods. There are many ways to share Christ. God uses even the poorest of our decisions to bring people to Himself. Is it not possible that if they simply share with the attendees the Biblical prohibitions & consequences of sex outside of the marriage bed, that they may produce better results while remaining Scripturally relevant.

30 Days of Abstinence or Indulgence?

When I came out to the kitchen this a.m. Debbie had set a copy of the Tampa Tribune’s front page Metro on the counter with the following article highlighted.

Thou Shalt Canoodle, Church Says “Members get 30-day challenge for Sex”

The article begins, “Relevant Church offered an interesting challenge to its members Sunday: 30 straight days of sex or no sex at all.” Apparently the “30-Day Challenge” exhorts the married participants to have sex for 30 days straight while the single folks are to abstain for 30 days.

Upon first blush (pun intended) do you see anything inherently wrong with this picture? Have we raised the bar so low where we hope the unmarried abstain from sex for a whole 30 days in a row? What happened to the commitment to lifelong purity outside the marriage bed? Is that passé and out of touch? Is that way too much to ask in this world dominated by promiscuity? Do we have to stay so relevant that we resort to lowering our expectations to such pitiful levels?

“The intent of the challenge”, the articles continues, “is to return sex to the realm of marriage”. A worthy goal to be sure. Certainly nothing wrong with that. But is that the message this attention-getting theme sends to a world starved for truth and Biblical clarity? One of the church pastors stated, “he hoped the sex challenge would excite young Christians”. I bet it will!

I am not naïve. We all have to deal with temptations and the enticements today that are exponentially greater than they were when I was a kid. I understand all that. By my questioning I’m not insinuating that this serious problem hasn’t infiltrated the church. We know that it has and we’ve been told that there’s little difference between the church-goer’s behavior and that exemplified by the world. I get that. But isn’t that part of the issue. Why is it this way and is this sort of 30-day challenge sending the right message?

Here’s my problem. When we set the standard so pathetically low are we not ignoring the power and presence of the Holy Spirit to sanctify us? Are we so bankrupt that asking folks to abstain from sex outside of marriage becomes just a silly whimsical idea relegated to the 1950’s? Listen, I’m not attempting to be judgmental. Relevant Church obviously has a strategy to reach those through non-traditional means. I don’t decry their attempt at a “relevant message” but I do question their standards against Scripture.

Debbie and I had a youth lifegroup ministry in our home for four years and the majority of the attendees were extremely worldly. A number came from broken families and they’d spent more time in juvenile detention than in church at attention. We had a varying amount of success with these kids but one thing we never did was lower the standards. These kids were starved for boundaries because they knew that the lifestyles they were leading were going nowhere fast. We never softened the expectations. We never told these kids what they wanted to hear just to maintain their attendance. We didn’t tell them to stop taking the Lord’s name in vain for a mere 30 days or to refrain from sex for what they might consider a manageable period of time. It was wrong on day one, day thirty one and year 21.

I just don’t see a pragmatic antiseptic method to deal with the reality of sin. Paul told Timothy to “flee youthful passions”. These mid teens knew their morally-challenged behavior was wrong because of Biblical prohibitions we shared with them including the commensurate consequences.

On Metro page six the article continues with the comments of an engaged couple that is quoted as saying, “We’re going to take the challenge. We talked about it, and we both realize the importance of doing things the right way.” Great! Nothing wrong with that you say? No, but as Paul Harvey says, “And now for the rest of the story”. The engaged man went on to say, “I think it’s worth trying to find out other things about each other.” Yikes! Nothing like being in a relationship for the right reasons. The Tribune writer apparently had an extended conversation with the couple because the following tidbit was added, “Jeff (I changed the name) is expecting a tough month, though”. Is this not alarming?

The abstinence idea seems like it arises from the same logic used to lose a few unwanted pounds or to quit smoking. I would assume that the goal is for this unmarried couple to abstain for longer and longer periods of time until they finally quit this insidious sexually immoral habit—but by the time they are capable of exercising restraint they might find that they have conceived a “mistake” that will alter their lives forever.

Aren’t there serious warnings for those engaged in willful sin? Does God not discipline those that He loves? Should we equate premarital sexual abstinence with pushing away a double chocolate fudge brownie at the end of a meal? Have we lost our way to the point where the message of the cross has been neutered by such low expectations? Are we not told, “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” And are we not ignoring a whole host of unforeseen consequences that will come as a result of sexual promiscuity? Are we disregarding God’s preordained standards of excellence?

What does the relevant Scripture say about sexual immorality? Does it merely hope for a mere month-long restraint from sexual impurity?

• Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 (ESV
• Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (ESV)
• Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 (ESV)
• But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Ephesians 5:3 (ESV)
• For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 1 Thessalonians 4:3 (ESV)
• But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. James 1:14 (ESV)
• So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 2 Timothy 2:22 (ESV)

Where’s the message of pursuing righteousness? The Apostle Paul told the Ephesians that he didn’t even wanted impurity to “be named among you”. Granted, this Tribune article may have skewed the church’s actual intent. Hopefully the pastor did share the above passages. Did he make certain the Trib writer knew that Relevant Church stood on the bedrock of the Apostle Paul’s teachings? We all know that the media is not beyond exaggerating and sensationalizing and possibly ignoring relevant facts. And let me add that I do not want to judge the motives of the leadership involved in this 30-day program. My guess is that in their own minds their intentions were valid. I don’t doubt their desire to be relevant to those who may not grace the doors of the more traditional-styled churches. But does this message compromise the Scripture in order to be inoffensive? Does the message of a consistent call to repentance morph simply because morality has declined? Is the clarity of the Gospel’s power slighted?

Did the Apostle Paul use his inspired writings to say, “Flee youthful passions for 30 days?” Is this the message that churches should garner front page attention over. How about, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous”. Or why not say, For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality. Surely we cannot expect those who don’t know Christ to adhere to a level of godliness only facilitated by the indwelling Holy Spirit. But why can’t we tell the truth to the young believers and speak about the consequences of willful disobedience?

The Pastor seemed to be taken aback by the exposure. He said, “It’s amazing the kind of media attention we’re getting just for talking about sex.” Oh really? Are you kidding me? How could anyone be amazed by this? The questions should viewed as red warning flags not banners of excitement. I thought the teaching of abstinence while single was rather clear in Scripture. Is this truly all we can expect—that young people avoid immorality for 30 days? Say it isn’t so.

Man it would be my hope that the Tampa Tribune distorted this whole 30-day program and the pastors at Relevant are livid because of it. If the Trib got it right then I’m deeply saddened.

Is this what being “relevant” has come to? If so, maybe we ought to start a new church and call it, “The Irrelevant Church”!

Hermeneutical Principles - Reading the Bible with First Century Glasses

1. Scripture was written FOR us but it was not written directly TO us.

It is of immense value to realize that when we read the Bible we are reading someone else’s mail. At first some may immediately bristle at this notion thinking that this precludes personal application but that is absolutely not the case. By the mere fact that God meticulously preserved the Scripture for us is testimony to the fact that the Bible has every bit the relevance today as it did 2,000 years ago. Recognizing first century context in no way negates or neutralizes the impact of 2Tim 3:16-17.

Clearly all Scripture is not only inspired by God but is fully profitable to equip us for all things. However, reading the Word as though it was written directly to us, while ignoring context, has been a fundamental problem resulting in significant interpretational errors and misplaced hopes. Before we can determine how a passage applies to us we must first understand what it was intended to mean to the original recipients. It requires us to remove our 21st century glasses and replace them with those warn by Jesus, Peter, Paul and John. This is not a simple undertaking therefore necessitating diligent study and a great deal of effort.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Hebrews 5:12-14 (ESV)

Case in point. Let’s say for our morning devotion we begin reading 2Tim 3. But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. What immediately springs to the forefront of your mind? Most of us assume that since we are experiencing similar “times of difficulty” per Paul's warning to Timothy (lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God), we therefore assume that “the last days ” refers to the perilous times of the 21st century.

However, it should not come as a surprise that every generation as far back as the third century has made the same assumption. Can every generation be living in “the last days”? Doesn't this phrase, first mentioned in Genesis 49:1, become rather oxymoronic if it extends hundreds or in this case thousands of years? (Acts 2:16-21 )

Paul goes on in verse 13 with while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. So we look around, clearly see a declining morality in the in the U.S. and apply this passage directly to our 21st century context. Clearly these sins exist today as they have in all prior generations. So what's the problem with applying this passage to the here and now? Paul was warning Timothy, not Bert Barber, Steve Thomas or Michael Hemond, of the coming apostasy. This thinking has caused significant harm to the psyche of the 21st century believer. We develop and adopt a wholly unbiblical expectation of abounding evil as though it is to be anticipated as clarification that we are indeed nearing the end. This is so destructive and antithetical to the resurrection which is embodies in the Gospel of Christ.

How do we interpret the following: “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand." (Mark 14:42 ESV) If we are to read this passage in the same manner as we do many eschatological texts, then we encounter the obvious fallacy of this type of interpretational system. It is an undeniable historical fact that the betrayal of Jesus occurred in 30 A.D. and none of us would be willing to transport this passage into the 21st century because we know that “at hand” meant about to take place. Mark was writing to a first century audience and we must never lose sight of that fact. We must be consistent in our interpretation and not abuse word meanings to fit our personal theological presuppositions.

Here’s another from the book of Hebrews. How we interpret verses that contain imminent language is absolutely critical to our application and understanding. In the second verse of chapter 1, the author tells his readers that they are in the time period identified by the term “last days” (the same last days referred to by Peter in Acts 2:16-21).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV)

Note that there is a clear dichotomy between “long ago” and “in these last days”. This is evidence that “time matters” and is vital to the understanding of the Scripture. God surely is infinite, not bound by time, but the Bible is God's communication to His finite creation. This passage along with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 place those living between 30-70 AD, in a “last days” context. The cross, resurrection, Pentecost, completion of the canon, and the holocaust of 70 AD (including the destruciton of the temple and the end of the Old Covenantal system), all took place within this time period. That's why Paul told the Corinthians “the time is short…the form of this world is passing away” (1Cor 7:29-31) and the reason Peter warned his readers in 1Peter 4:7, “The end of all things is at hand”. These texts must be reconciled by whatever theological system we adhere to.

If we read the Bible as though it arrived on our doorstep with the morning paper we will forever be confused and confounded. The Bible was written in the transition period (the Exodus antitype) between AD 30 & AD 70. So when we read the Word as though we are still living in the time of its writing, it seems rather odd to us that the Apostle Paul wrote, Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. Romans 13:11 (ESV)—How do we relate to Paul’s statement? Paul’s not simply stating the obvious in that it’s a few years closer in the span of 2 millennia, but there’s an eager expectation that it’s about to come upon them—its “the last hour”. (1John 2:18)

Salvation is not merely “nearer” to those of us who are reading the Scripture in the 21st century. It has fully come. We have it. We have already been saved but most today are still waiting. Why? Because they still "see" with physical eyes. Their expectations are skewed and what it means to have no more tears or suffering is strictly physical to them (to be quite honest this was my paradigm as well for 33 years—so I'm not certainly not casting stones). This is not the language of the New Covenant which has been revealed as a spiritual kingdom (1Cor 15:50, John 1:13, John 4:21-24, Luke 17:20-21). That’s why when read this passage out of context one gets the mistaken impression that they’re still living in this “already but not yet” transitional state.

So it would behoove us to the read the Bible with First Century glasses while walking in the sandals of those to whom it was written. We need to observe our significant cultural differences. We need to understand the Hebrew mind where such things like chronology and numbers are not an end in and of themselves. That’s why Mark puts little triptych nuggets together where he sandwiches events that take place out of chronological sequence. His interest is one of contrast—a premium is placed on theology over timelines. Numbers to us are to be crunched; to them they had significance far beyond their numerical value. By not understanding the culture and the times when the Scriptures were written, we stand the significant risk of misinterpreting passages, therefore creating false applications and ultimately abding in the resultant confusion.

2. Audience relevance

If we don’t attempt to discover what the intent of a passage was relative to its direct recipients, then how will we ever expect to determine what it means to us 20 centuries after the fact? This is one of the greatest interpretational abuses of modern times.

When James wrote, “Be patient for the coming of the Lord is at hand…the judge is standing at the door” (James 5:8-9) we cannot simply ignore the recipients of this message as though they were not real people who had real feelings & thoughts. As though the words had no relevance to the actual readers but were merely code phrases meant mainly for those who would come 2,000 years future.

I heard a sermon preached on patience that used this text. I wanted to scream but I was in the second row and had to settle for squirming. It was said that James was attempting to create an air of expectancy for all future generations regarding Jesus’ Parousia (coming). So later I asked this pastor the rhetorical question, “So you think that James was purposefully lying to create this expectant attitude?” The point is that we must not presume that God is employing situational ethics where the end (creating expectancy) justify the means. Do we presume that our Creator has a need to employ psychological tricks (let’s call it what is is—lying) to motivate us and keep us on our toes? This thought should be disgusting to us all. If I told you that I would be there “shortly” while never intending to come in your lifetime, would you consider me faithful? How about if my reason was that I just wanted to create a sense of expectation so that you wouldn’t forget me? Would that make you feel any better toward my unfaithfulness? In the same regard we oftentimes are unwilling to consider the unfiltered ramifications of Scripture when they violate our paradigm—and in so doing we are destined to succumb to this sort of ill-fated logic.

It is this same interpretational problem that caused the well-know atheist Betrand Russell to reject Christ (Why I'm Not a Christian). He knew that Jesus could not be a liar and be God at the same time—and he was correct! But how sad is it that Russell never met a Christian who could adequately divide the Word in this area of eschatology. This is why we cannot excise the study of last things from the Gospel. They are inseparable. This accepted departure from the common sense hermeneutic of audience relevance has led many astray. How grieving. Jesus did exactly as He and others prophesied and accomplished all at the end of the ages both in his death/Resurrection and His Parousia (Heb 9:26-28) In Scripture it was viewed as one Christ event that spanned a 40 year millennia. From Pentecost to Holocaust. (Acts 2:16-21)

3. Interpreting the unclear in the light of what we know to be clear.

Abusing this simple rule has resulted in the creation of many cults. For example: Interpreting James 2 as a stand alone doctrine ignoring the plethora of grace-based passages gives rise to doctrines such as Lordship (works-added) Salvation. Matter of fact, if one goes to the extreme where James makes mention of Abraham’s works of righteousness, we end up in a very confusing dilemma. Therefore it is imperative that we create matters of doctrine from passages that are abundantly clear while attempting to conform the less clear passages (which may appear to be in conflict) to the framework that we already know to be true. Therefore we know that Scripture be internally inconsistent.

4. The Analogy of Faith

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture will avoid a multitude of interpretational errors. (So many read the Old Testament as though it is the end of the story. But without viewing it through the lens of the New Testament authors, one is left quite confused—one errant belief that is derived from letting the Old Covenant stand on its own merit is the presumption that God is going to restore the land of Israel to the Jews etc. This misses the teachings of the New Covenant that are so prevalent in the book of Hebrews, and therefore they never “see” the spiritual anti-types as fulfillments of the physical types of the Old Covenant. So we accentuate physical healing as thought it’s almost an end in itself when clearly Christ’s healings were not use the temporal to prove the eternal.

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— Mark 2:9-10 (ESV)

When reading Jeremiah 31 as though it is the end of the story, has caused major interpretational errors. If it is not interpreted in the light of the New Testament author’s illumination, we will gain the wrong temporal/physical picture of fulfillment. Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 and puts it in the context of the New Covenant. This (Hebrews 8) is a gross departure of what one might conclude by meditating solely on Jeremiah 31.

5. Realizing that the New Testament is not new

There isn’t anything new about it. Paul repeatedly told us that he preached nothing new—everything came from the law & the prophets.

`And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, 15having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; Acts 24:14-15 (YLT)

And at this point, it should not go unnoticed the reason I chose to use the Young’s Literal Translation. Many times it accurately captures the verb tenses. No other translation reads “about to be” because their paradigm doesn't allow them to properly translate that little Greek word, “mello”, which means just that—“about to be” or “to be about”.

In the New Testament there is never a redefinition of terms. There was “this age” and “the age to come” and those phrases are never reinterpreted by New Testament authors.

And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming. Matthew 12:32 (YLT)

I find it rather odd that the YLT abandons their translation of “mello” in this text and uses a rather nebulous, “that which is coming”. It should read “nor that which is about to come”.

I used to believe that Christianity was a new religion and a total departure of the Old Testament, never realizing that everything in the Old Testament was prophesied in the NT. It just wasn’t seen clearly without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. They were “behind the veil of Moses” (2Cor 3) That’s why Peter & the gang seemed clueless even after the resurrection. After Jesus’ death they didn’t even understand that Jesus was to be raised.

for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. John 20:9 (ESV)

But in Acts 2 we see an entirely different Peter. He now gets it to the point where he’s quoting from Joel and now sees the whole picture. The difference was the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

I think the new and old divisions have deleterious to the believer's understanding of the Word as a living organism. We perceive one as old and done away with and that’s not the case. Yes, the Old Testament was not complete and on its own merits it cannot stand as the final arbiter of truth, because it's simply the beginning of the story. The New Covenant fully put away the OC in 70AD (Heb 8:10) but it did not negate the Old Testament as irrelevant. Christianity is not a new religion. It's an extension of the law and the prophets.

6. Misunderstanding apocalyptic language

This is the single-most reason for the confusion regarding eschatology. Folks think that the Olivet Discourse of Mt 24 (Lk 21 and Mk 13) as well as Rev 6, Acts 2 and 2Pet 3, consider a new type of speech referring to the end of the world. Nowhere do we find this expectation in the New Testament. The New Testament is replete with references to what sounds like end of the world type language i.e. Isa 34, 13, Ezek 32, Mic 1 etc. This is God’s poetic speech regarding the destruction of nations. So when we come to the New Testament & the same moon turning into blood and the stars falling from heaven type verbiage is used, they (the authors) aren’t all of a sudden changing the rules of interpretation. This heaven & earth passing away that you find in Hebrew 1 (garment growing old etc.) is not speaking about a physical end of the planet but an end to Judaism & the sacrificial system i.e. the Old Covenant. I was always taught that the OC passed away at the cross but that is not the case as we see clearly delineated in Hebrews 8.

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13 (ESV)

7. Time is always constant throughout the Scriptures

Parables and apocalyptic language use hyperbole to hammer home particular points but never do we find indication in Scripture that time can or should be trivialized or neutered. Imminent language is contained in every New Testament book. There was a clear sense of eager anticipation. To ignore that fact plays right into the hands of those who say that the Scripture is not reliable. Timing dictated the nature of His coming & yet we so misunderstand the nature that we willingly assume that God can’t tell time.

We cannot continue to ignore time as it is expressed by every New Testament author including Jesus. We cannot allow “a day to the Lord is but a thousand years & a thousand years is but a day” to be improperly extracted & misapplied, and in so doing trivialize time to suit our own “private interpretations”. If read in context, this verse from 2Pet 3 is Peter’s defense against the last days scoffers & expresses just the opposite of the way many are abusing it. Written in the latter part of the 60’s, Peter is telling his readers that even though it’s been more than 35 years since Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass away until all these thing are fulfilled”, He will fulfill His clearly-stated expectations within the bounds of “this generation”.

Simply because we cannot comprehend the nature of His coming does not give us license to reject the clear timing laid out in Scripture. Time is never bastardized. It is always consistent. At hand always means at hand. In a little while does not mean a thousand years. Shortly does not translate time into perpetuity. “This generation” does not morph into “that generation”. By reading the Scriptures in this way we have reduced the Word down to the least common denominator. If we abuse time we can make it say anything we please. Then there is no objective standard of interpretation and therefore the Scripture becomes rather impotent. This as you know was a huge area for me. I had lost faith in the Word partly because of what I perceived (rather incorrectly) as contradictions. Why trust it for my life if is capable of such fluidity? I believe a full commitment to inerrancy will lead one to take time seriously.

8. Recognizing how our own paradigm can skew our view of Scripture

We all have presuppositions & there’s nothing wrong with that. They are our framework which enable us to make sense of a very complex Word. However, to not recognize that we have them and to not realize that they can cause us to miss truth, is a serious issue.

Short example but one that continues to boggle my mind. Every time I saw the term, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, I didn’t even really read those words. I simply replaced them with “John”, since we’ve been told from the beginning of time (it seems) that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved. I never one time questioned this “fact” even though nowhere in Scripture do we find even a hint of Jesus’ specific love for John. When I first was confronted with this fact I became somewhat indignant because surely we cannot be fooling around with authorship. That’s what the liberal heretics do that want to discredit the Word. Upon further study I found (not really me because I don’t read the Scripture with as much attention to detail as I should—but I’m trying) through a few sources that there was definitive Scriptural evidence that the Apostle John did not in fact write the 4th Gospel. So I was left with a choice—I could continue to blindly follow tradition (because who are we to disavow third century testimony) or I could allow the Word to successfully shape my belief.

(For a thorough treatment of this issue you can either go to www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com and read the book of the same name or you can listen to a sermon of that name @ www.charlescoty.com/audio2.html. You will be amazed)

Why does this example matter? First of all, Scripture is always enhanced and enriched when read through the eyes of truth—but on a different note; this was a glaring example of how tradition had blinded me to truth. The exhortation of Acts 17:11 to be a faithful Berean continues to plague my instincts but something we should always strive for. I would much rather not have to forsake age old tradition because it’s always uncomfortable to deviate from the party line and makes others thusly squeamish.