New Thoughts (09/26/18-10/03/18)
How Much is Too Much? (09/28/18)
At the outset I must observe that there are two ways of understanding the initial point made in verse 26. Let us call them the positive and the negative. The positive understanding is perhaps the more commonly encountered one. It’s sort of the Oprah Winfrey view of gifts: You get something, you get something, and you get something… everybody gets a gift! Well, this is clearly true, isn’t it? We have it stated outright back in 1Corinthians 12:7 – To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. At least, it has the appearance of being stated outright. That, of course, assumes that ‘each one’ is indeed a universal application of the phrase, which is actually questionable. We might better infer an added ‘who has a gift’ both there and in this passage. Contrary to popular sentiment, all does not always mean the universal all. After all, even those who would insist that everybody does indeed get a gift from the Spirit would, I think, restrict ‘everybody’ to the body of believers, however they may define that body.
But, there is the positive understanding: Every believer has a gift, and comes to church ready to deploy it. And to a degree, I would issue a hearty amen to that, and say, “Would that it were so!” For, it is clear that if in fact everybody in the family of God has a gift of the Spirit, not everybody deploys that gift, rightly or wrongly. But, as Moses, and as Paul, “Would that all would prophesy!” And yet, as we are to recognize from what follows, that is no permit for a spiritual free-for-all.
This takes us to the negative view of the statement: That, as the JFB suggests, these gifts of theirs were things prepared in advance, with everybody arriving anxious to deploy their particular gifts. You know what? So far so good! Again, “Would that it were so!” Except for what follows. I see two views on this. The first is that, being thus prepared, everybody was jostling for position, demanding to be heard and presumably appreciated. This had the inevitable effect of stirring up both contention and its sidekick confusion. Bearing in mind that the church at that date had no particular set liturgy, you can see the issues that would arise if everybody arrives with the claim of having something from the Lord. Yet, this is the more charitable sense of the negative.
The majority of our writers take the view, based on what follows in the instruction, that all were in fact not vying for position, nor even waiting for a position. It was a case of all trying to exercise their gifts at the same time. What a mess must result! Imagine the challenge if even two stood to preach simultaneously, or perhaps more believable for us, that the preacher stood to preach and the worship team just kept going. Or, suppose some overheated parishioner pops up and starts praying loudly in the middle of things, even though there is a song being shared or a message preached. This is no longer worship, it’s at minimum a contest. But, the end result, whether it is two, or whether it is all, is as Mr. Henry observes, as Paul observes: Instead of edification, there is uproar.
For those of you who have never entered a Charismatic or Pentecostal service, this may seem unthinkable. Who would ever? But, for those who have, I would venture to guess you’ve seen it at least verge on this depiction, if not enter it with full-throated participation. What resulted? Even for the faithful and familiar, I should think the answer is the same: Nothing resulted other than confusion and disorder. Oh, there may have been an emotional high. I’ll not go so far as to say it’s a spiritual high, although many who enjoy that sort of thing probably would account it so. But, that is, at best, a highly self-centered view which can appreciate such bedlam. An outwardly directed perspective might pause to think how it is likely to impact the visitors who might be present, particularly those whom the Spirit is truly calling to faith. I’ll let Barnes deliver the likely answer. “Many would be speaking at the same time, and a most unfavorable impression would be made on the minds of the strangers who should be present.”
Whether we see the case as being that all were coming and doing their own thing in total disregard for everybody else, or that they were so busy scrabbling for their own turn that they largely missed whatever was going on at the moment, the impact is not much different. Rather than, “God is clearly among them,” the assessment is far more likely to be, “What is wrong with these people?” What is on display is not holiness, but pride and ego. And pride and ego, wherever they are found, will inevitably stir up strife. That is always the result. We may dress it up. We may find ways to channel the strife into more positive directions, but it remains strife nonetheless. If the Church is busy with everybody pushing themselves forward, then however much each individual, or even the church as a whole, claims to be operating under the Spirit’s influence, the evidence suggests otherwise.
“For this only is the true liberty of the Spirit – not that every one be allowed to blab out rashly whatever he pleases, but that all, from the highest to the lowest, voluntarily allow themselves to be under control, and that the one Spirit be listened to, by whatever mouth he speaks.” Those words come from Calvin. They direct us from the chaos of the “What then?” of the introduction to the solution laid out in the rest of the passage. That solution, you may observe, reflects the “I must decrease” perspective that so permeates the Scriptures. Consider Jesus’ example of servant leadership. “If I then, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you should do as I did to you” (Jn 13:14-15). Or, take Paul’s instruction to Philippi. “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Php 3:3-4). That passage proceeds to set Jesus as the ultimate example, He having willingly shed Himself of His rightful prerogatives in order to humbly serve those He came to seek and to save.
Compare this to the intense need to be appreciated that is on display with this disordered, vying competition of gifts. It must be clear that something is very much wrong where this is the norm. The Church of Confusion has its work cut out for it to be reconciled to the Church of God. The Church of Excess has almost as much work to do. For, as is observed in regard to the question of how many should speak, an excess of teaching does not produce greater edification, but actually less. If you’ve ever been in a meeting that ran too long, I suspect you know this sensation. Somewhere after the first, or maybe the second hour, the value of the meeting rapidly approached zero.
I think we can get the same result with our penchant for retreats and camp meetings and the like. If it’s hours on end of nothing but message, then pretty swiftly, the message ceases to penetrate if it’s even heard. The mind is simply overwhelmed by information and ceases from processing. As I write that, it occurs to me that this is a large part of the problem with the modern age. We are drowning in information, but we long since ceased actually processing it. We continue to take it in, but for the most part, like vitamin supplements, it just passes through and gets ejected largely unassessed. Too much teaching, too much information, overwhelms and produces little result. It may even erode such results as were there at the outset. That is a sad thing.
Gifts Rightly Regulated (09/29/18)
One major takeaway from this passage is that the gifts are subject to being regulated. It really shouldn’t be so great a surprise to discover that the Corinthian church had a particular problem with being out of control. It was how they understood things. Consider how the oracles of Greece were seen to act. The oracle entered a trance-like state where something else took control of his or her mouth and for that matter, the body as well. If this is your body of experience and now you are informed that the Holy Spirit indwells you, this is really pretty much what you expect it to be like. If it’s not like this, you may find yourself questioning whether the claim is true in the first place.
So, then, Paul has to correct this impression. But, they are not alone in bringing cultural baggage with them when they come. We all do, and the fact that we have been in the Church ever so long doesn’t alter the fact. Come tomorrow, I will still be bearing my load of cultural baggage with me, and so will you. A large part of our process of sanctification is learning to recognize that baggage for what it is, and seeking to replace it with behaviors and attitudes more becoming to the child of God. But, enter these supernatural, supercharged gifts, and what happens?
I can tell you. Cold New Englanders are found to be little different than capricious Corinthians. We still have this idea that being indwelt is, when it’s really good, rather like being possessed, except the loss of control is for a good cause. We feel this sense of burning necessity to do or say this or that because, “I feel the anointing.” Been there, done that. But, here’s the thing: Even with that burning necessity, it turns out you can wait your turn. It’s just that our more natural proclivities don’t want to wait. But, the truth of the matter is that these impartations from the Spirit are never a matter of NECESSITY, to follow Barnes’ choice of emphasis. The recipient has not lost control of himself. You know, this may seem an innocent enough mistake to make, but consider why it is we conclude that being used of the Spirit ought to consist in a loss of personal volition and control. It’s not because of the nature of God. It’s more because this is the MO of His great enemy.
Here, I’ll let both Barnes and Matthew Henry speak to the point. Barnes first. “In this the spirit of true inspiration differed essentially from the views of the pagan, who regarded themselves as driven on by a wild, controlling influence, that compelled them to speak even when they were unconscious of what they said.” Remember: The Corinthians were pagans before they were Christians. We in the West seem to be trying hard to reverse that course and return to paganism. It’s in the culture, certainly. Be aware: The culture tends to creep in through the doors of the church, and it’s usually found to be us doing the creeping. We see something about the cultural experience that entices, and so we adopt it and try to fit it into our course of worship. This happens in ways big and small, benign and downright malevolent. But, in this case, the second reminder is worth hearing. “Divine inspirations are not, like the diabolical possessions of heathen priests, violent and ungovernable, and prompting them to act as if they were beside themselves; but are sober and calm, and capable of regular conduct.” Let’s boil it down a bit. Divine inspirations are not like diabolical possessions. How could they be? What communion has darkness with the Light? And yet, we manage to convince ourselves it’s okay. It’s supposed to look like that. Well, we stand corrected. It isn’t.
Here is the first step of the mistake. We get the impression that the one speaking under the Spirit’s influence is but an organ, an unconscious instrument communicating the will of God. I’m borrowing from Barnes again for the phrasing of that, just to give credit where it’s due. It is not an uncommon phenomenon in the Charismatic church to find one who has stood and said whatever, and then comes out the other side not having any idea what they just said. It’s not a question of tongues in this case. It’s just the ‘training’. In many corners down that end of the church it is taught that we are supposed to shut down our minds and let the Spirit take over. But, that is quite possibly the single most ungodly bit of instruction ever delivered. No, you’re not supposed to do that. Why would we think it so, when the God we serve is the same God who speaks to His people saying, “Come, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18)? This is God who, when Job was at his end, came to Him saying, “I will ask you, and you instruct Me” (Job 38:3)! Now, clearly God was not expecting to be instructed by Job, but was rather instructing Job as to His own supremacy. But, Job wasn’t going to get the message by blanking out his thoughts. Rather, it would be by consideration of the facts laid before him in the questions God asks. Do Not Blank Your Mind! It is not merely uncalled for. It is dangerously wrong!
Scriptural inspiration is not, NOT, a taking over of the man. It is an infilling and informing, reforming work of edification done by the Spirit for the benefit of the man. This is a very different thing than being so possessed as to become incapable of control. Even that first work of the Spirit in delivering us unto Christ for salvation by bringing us to faith is not a usurpation of the will, as irresistible a work as that is. He does not force us to faith, but enables us to lay hold of it for ourselves, although we must still conclude that so irresistible is that gift when once we see it that we could not willingly choose otherwise than to accept it. There remains no merit in the choosing, nor was there any real possibility we would not so choose. God has willed it. It will be done. But, it will be done willingly. That is as far as the necessity goes.
Let me reiterate: The influence of the Holy Spirit does not, in any fashion on any occasion, take away our control of our own spirits. This being the case, if you feel the Spirit moving so strongly that you can’t control yourself, it just might be that you should take that not as a sign of blessing, but as a warning sign. It is a warning sign that it may not be the Spirit after all, but an imposter, an antichrist spirit seeking to use your desire to appear holy as a means of disrupting the true work of God. I won’t say that this is an absolute, but it is at least a high likelihood. The Spirit does not usurp. Start there, and then recognize where some corrective action may be needed.
All that has been said in this section develops from the answer Paul gives to his question. What is currently going on is bedlam – every man for himself. What ought to be going on is an orderly motion from one to the next. Note well that Paul does not belittle the gifts, even that gift which he deems of least benefit. He does not call for an end to tongues in the assembly. He calls for order. He does not refuse God’s gift, he sets limits upon the deployment of that gift in order to ensure that the gift will be used to the benefit of believers, not for the feeding of ambitions. Feeding ambitions usurps God’s glory. How terrible to employ the gifts He gives to such an end! And yet, so often, that is exactly what we do. It is not restricted to these particular gifts. It applies as readily to the most mundane of gifts. God gives it. We use it. But, we use it to burnish our own image and improve our standing, not to glorify God or to benefit His people. They may benefit, but that turns out to be more a side-effect than a goal for us. No, the primarily goal is seen to be, “Look at me.” It’s time to shift the goal post and make sure our goal is, “Look to Him.”
Clarke writes, “God grants no ungovernable gifts.” Understand that. Embed it deeply in your understanding of the faith. We may turn it thusly: If it is ungovernable, it is no gift from God. It is the rebel spirit of man rising in us, seeking as it ever has to take the seat of final authority. Notice how Paul’s corrective measures work against that urge. You have a gift of tongues. Wonderful. But, let it be subject to there being another with a gift: A gift of interpretation. And, if such a one is not to be found, then keep it to yourself. Submit one to the other. If you are prophesying and see another with something to say, give way. Close and let him speak. Treat others as more important than yourself. In all things. That holds as to this immediate matter of taking turns. It holds as to the larger matter of purpose. If you use your gift, see to it that it is used for the purpose of edifying others, not polishing your own apple.
How then are the gifts rightly regulated? The first answer is that we get control of ourselves, and correct our own motives. We go back to the first principles of this chapter: Pursue love, even in your desire to use your gifts (1Co 14:1). Motive is as critical as gifting. Let love be your motive, and your gift must find its use in edifying others. The second answer is that claims of Spirit-induced offering do not in fact set you above correction. Let the others judge. There’s no place for blithe acceptance of every last thing that is said ‘in the name of Christ’. The claim does not make it so. The veracity of the message, and its full accord with the Gospel of Christ, the revelation of Scripture, makes it so. That holds, whether the gift in question has those spectacular features of the supernatural impartation, or whether the gift in question displays the more mundane blessings of hard work and preparation. No child of God is above being admonished. God disciplines those He loves, those He counts as His children. To set yourself beyond such reproof is to declare yourself no child of His household.
Gifts Rightly Deployed (09/30/18)
To be clear, what we have in this passage is hardly an exhaustive discussion of church order, or even of how the gifts are to be fit into that order. We have two examples, chosen, following on what has been said thus far, as representing the least and the greatest gifts. Much of what he imparts here applies more or less equally to both. All of what he imparts ought to be understood as illustrative of how things ought to be done. But, let us start with the examples he has chosen.
As concerns tongues, when Paul accounts them the least of gifts, it is not that he devalues the gift. His measure, as we have seen for some time now, is one of capacity to edify. Tongues, unless accompanied by a gift for interpretation, are not for use in the church because the church is not edified by them. They are not ruled out, we notice, but they are regulated. If there’s no interpreter to make your message useful, then be silent. Now’s not the time. Let’s think about this for a moment or two, because the instruction leaves me a bit baffled. The basics are clear enough: Deliver your message in a fashion that all can appreciate and learn from. But, if learning is the point, and there is none to interpret, what value is there to this one speaking to himself and to God? God already knows whatever it is, and he doesn’t understand anyway, so who benefits?
Put differently, is tongues ever of benefit if nobody understands what has been said? It seems to me that the answer must be no. The speaker doesn’t benefit. At best, he gains a bit of a thrill. Perhaps he has avoided saying something comprehensible that ought not to be said, but that’s not a real benefit either. The sin was committed in the thought. The fact that he garbled the message so only God could understand it really doesn’t improve the matter at all, does it? I think we have to ask yet another question here. If God the Holy Spirit is distributing these gifts for His purposes, why, pray tell, would He send along a message that nobody receives? We’ve been through that, in the previous section of the chapter, and the answer wasn’t a happy one to receive. If, indeed, this is happening, the history presented by the Bible suggests it has not come as a blessing, but a judgment.
There is, of course, another possibility: The spirit moving you to such effectively meaningless outbursts is not the Holy Spirit, but an imposter come to distract, disrupt, and confuse. You probably won’t like that answer either, but why else would there be this confusion of languages from which nobody profits, including the speaker? And speaker, if you have profited, pray tell, what was it that your message taught you? Oh, and if you can do that, then why did you not simply deliver the message so that all could in fact benefit?
Here, I am taken by an observation Matthew Henry makes. It is insufficient, in his view, that you can interpret your own tongue. Indeed, as he sees it, if you give the message in a tongue and then proceed to interpret the same, then what can this be but ostentation? The initial delivery was to no purpose, since nobody understood you. It was simply display. It was another “look at me” moment. So, while the text does not insist on another person to interpret, I would have to agree that the overall message requires us to infer that other.
Here is the principle: When used in the church, tongues must be used to promote edification. It is on this basis that we have the restrictions set in place. Go one at a time, so that all can hear the resultant message. Limit the number, so that the message is not made a distraction. And, recognize that however important you may feel for bearing the gift, delivering it is not a necessity. After all, if you don’t know what it says, it would be hard for you to say whether it was from God, wouldn’t it? How shall you discern if you can’t even comprehend? So: No interpreter? No message.
But, observe the more general rule that this establishes: First, remain orderly. Take turns, and let one thing be done at a time, one message brought forward for all to hear. Second, whatever your gift may be, if it does not edify, save it. If it would lead to distraction or disruption, then recognize this is no gift of the Spirit that is rising up in you, but rather, something of ego at best. Tame the flesh and be still.
Now, turning to the greater gift of prophecy, it seems the instruction is little different. It is still two or three. Although Paul does not insert the ‘at most’ in this case, I don’t know that we ought to make much of it. One of our authors posits that this was to remove any sense that he was belittling this greatest gift, but I don’t think there was any proper sense that he was belittling the least gift, either. I am inclined to write this off as simple varying of speech, as it were. Compare and contrast to Moses. Moses, it seems to me, takes repetitive recitation to the extreme. Every word of the phrase shall be repeated for every instance of the phrase, even if that winds up making a chapter of what could have been a paragraph. Paul tends to be at least a bit more concise, perhaps because he writes for a very different audience. That being the case, it wouldn’t surprise me that he leaves the ‘at most’ off simply because he figures you don’t need the repeat. He’s setting the same limit. He could have as readily said, “and the same goes for prophecy.” But, there are differences, aren’t there?
There is the issue of interruption, for example. It seems that when it came to tongues, there was no issue of another coming along with a higher priority message, such that the one currently speaking needed to be still. Perhaps, given the interpreter, such pauses were already built into the deal, so that any such shift of speaker could more naturally take place. The prophet, since he was speaking in plain language, had no such pauses in which another might make his entrance, as it were. Perhaps, as seems to be the case where such things are practiced today, the message in tongues tended to be brief, anyway, so that there was not going to be a call to interrupt. But, the prophetic message, particularly if the association of that gift with modern preaching is correct, might go on for some time. If another had something from the Lord that needed to be interjected along the way, it would hardly do to wait until the end.
But, what exactly is the instruction here? There is a fair amount of debate on what exactly is being advised, partly because the instruction seems so foreign to us. If another has a message, how is the one speaking supposed to know? He is seated. What? Is the prophet supposed to be scanning the room as he delivers his message so as to see if anybody has that look on their face that suggests they’re just dying to say something? I don’t think so! Is it, in fact, a call to pause in one’s discourse to allow the seated one to insert his explanatory comment? Perhaps, but that doesn’t really seem to fit, either. In some cases, it seems, the interpreter has attempted to read into this almost the exact opposite of what is said, indicating that the seated one should wait for the first to finish. But, first off, the burden is not set on the seated one, but the one speaking. What, then is going on?
You can sense the confusion in Matthew Henry’s complaint. “For why must one that was speaking by inspiration be immediately silent upon another man’s being inspired, and suppress what was dictated to him by the same Spirit?” If, in fact, this is what is happening, then perhaps we have cause to join him in that question. It’s not unreasonable, after all. If the same Spirit inspires both, why is He doing it in such a way as this? Why not simply give the message right the first time? But, notice the If. There is a presupposition in the question. The assumption is that both are equally inspired and in tune with the same Spirit. I would suggest that where there is a situation such as he describes, that assumption may very well be incorrect.
The JFB offers another thought. I’m not sure it’s a better one. The authors there take it to be the case that the issue Paul is addressing is one of prepared inspirations, if you will. That is to say, the ‘each one has’ of verse 26 indicates that the people came prepared. Whatever inspiration the Spirit was providing in these gifts had come before they arrived, and now they were just itching to deliver. Working off this understanding, the authors come to verse 30, and interpret accordingly. The one speaking, they surmise, is one of those who came with a prepared inspiration. The one seated has now a ‘sudden revelation from the spirit’, and it on this basis that the first is to give way. Here is something fresh and immediate. But, that strikes me as coming very near to the same problem. His gift is better than yours, so you should sit down and shut up.
Now, what’s going on? Well, it might help to have some background in Jewish practice. After all, Paul is a Jew, and Christianity comes with Jewish roots. I cannot by any stretch pronounce myself an expert on those practices, nor even one particularly familiar with them. But, I can read. I read, in a footnote given by the editor of Calvin’s Commentary on this book that what we have here is an image drawn from the synagogue. There, we would find ‘the seat of the teacher’. Here is where you would sit if you had something to impart to the synagogue. I think of that day Jesus was in the synagogue at the start of His ministry. He was given the Torah to read the day’s passage, which was from Isaiah. This He did and then, having given the Torah back to the attendant, He sat down. Notice: When He sat down, ‘the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him’ (Lk 4:17-21). Why? So far, what we have is a very standard bit of activity. Somebody was chosen to read, and he read. Other than him being a relative stranger, there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about this. And, if I understand things correctly, it would not be unusual for a stranger to be honored with this duty. But, He sat down. Where? Did He simply return to His seat to worship with the others? Clearly not, for He proceeds to speak. It seems to me, that what we see is the Teacher taking His place in ‘the seat of the teacher’. It was clear He had something to say, and the rest of the people were anxiously waiting to hear what that might be.
Well, then, come back to Corinth. One is seated. Where? It stands to reason that when the Apostles went about establishing the churches in distant places, they worked from the model they knew. If the Church was the new synagogue, as it were, would it not follow that its organization would be akin to that of the synagogue? That one with something to impart has taken his seat – the seat of the teacher. The one currently speaking can see this clearly. This is not an interruption to clarify some point in what he has been saying. This is another prophet with a message to deliver. It’s time for the current speaker to wrap it up. Nothing here says the new guy is by his very nature more important, or that something about the way he got his message is superior to how the first one did. That may or may not be the case. We can’t really say based on what we have for instruction here. But, what we can see is application of what Paul and Christ alike consistently teach: Consider others as more worthy than oneself. If this is your practice and your mindset, then it really doesn’t matter why this fellow prophet has taken the seat. He has taken it, and that is enough. “I cede my remaining time.”
Here, then, in two examples, we see the general instruction: Subdue the flesh and its pride. Give way to one another. Seek to edify, not to impress. And, to jump to the end of the chapter, “Let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner” (1Co 14:40). We can generalize further: If it doesn’t edify, stow it. That doesn’t mean we sit as passive, emotionless lumps. That doesn’t preclude the interjection of a thoughtful, ‘amen’, where appropriate. It does, however, require that we consider the ‘where appropriate’ part. Excitement has its place, but it is not in itself enough to justify action. Be ever on the lookout for pride, and don’t for a second suppose you have been freed of its taint. It is pride itself that seeks to convince you that this is the case! No, pride produces in us the church of ‘Look at Me’. That is an awful place. We are intended to be the church of ‘Let me help you look to Him’. There is the church in which we can grow – together, as living stones – into a temple suitable to our Lord God.
Gifts Rightly Appreciated (10/01/18-10/02/18)
A new day, and again I must assert that Paul quite clearly does not disparage the gifts of the Spirit, nor should we do so. In setting things to order, he is not refusing them a place. Rather, he is giving them their proper place. Once we have laid aside false claims and prideful masquerades, a simple truth emerges – and note that Paul isn’t giving a lot of space to questions of fakery, he’s concerning himself with the real deal. As to the real deal, every one of these gifts is in point of fact a gift of the Holy Spirit. Every one of these gifts has been given to a particular individual so that said individual can in turn give it to the Church in service to and in gratitude to the God who gave the gift. They are not playthings. They are not useless appendages. They are tools freely given, that by them, God’s children may grow and be of service to each other and thereby be of service to Him.
That said, our tendency is to compare, isn’t it? What did you get? It’s like a children’s party, and everybody is not only keenly interested in their own gift, but also in assessing themselves against other by this gift proxy. If you got something I consider better, then God must like you better. If, on the other hand, I can make display of mine, you must concede that He likes me, too. So, we get caught up in the spectacle, because we are naturally inclined toward shiny objects. But, Paul says, it’s not the spectacle that displays the worth. Indeed, the relative spectacle of this gift over against that one is of no matter whatsoever. Who cares? Spectacle doesn’t edify, and it’s edification that counts.
Another point emerges: While these gifts are given by God and remain His to direct (although not so as to remove our self-control), yet the possession of the gift does not set the man beyond question. For one thing, these good gifts have been given into the hands of sinful people. We’ve seen how that worked out with the Law, and if we think we are somehow superior to Israel as regards keeping holy things holy, then we are sadly, terribly mistaken. “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1Jn 1:8). We daren’t lose sight of that basic fact of life. The gifts are not an insurance policy against spiritual accident. For one, they can be counterfeited, and I must maintain, often are. Arguably, the lion’s share of what passes for the charismata today consists in counterfeit showboating and manufactured miracle.
Notice how Paul sets things up here, particularly when it comes to those gifts most immediately concerned with presenting claimed words from God. Tongues must have its interpretation – and again, the inference here is that it is another individual doing the interpretation. Prophecy must be judged, not blindly accepted. Not every claim of, “thus says the Lord,” is truly made. The claim is not sufficient to set one above questioning. Rather, it ought to demand questioning. Test! Act the Berean and check what was said against what is written. Now, as concerns the discussion of prophets, we can have some debate as to who is supposed to be passing judgment. Is ‘the others’ a reference to other prophets? Is it the entire congregation? Or, is it an oblique reference to those with the gift of discernment? I could see it being the latter as a way of balancing the instruction as to prophets with that as to tongues. One gift serves as counterbalance to the other in each case. But, I don’t honestly think the text will support that view. I don’t say that this negates the validity of the idea that discernment serves as counterbalance to prophecy; only that this idea is not supported by the present passage.
So, then, either the whole congregation, or that subset who have the gift of prophecy are to assess what has been said and render judgment on it. Here, I think common sense, and the overall picture we have of the church must steer us towards saying it is the subset that is in view. Not everybody in the congregation is sufficiently equipped yet to sit in judgment on the message delivered. For the sake of furthering the discussion, let us take the more Conservative view that prophecy in the present day church reflects in the pastoral role of preaching. Not every believer in the pew is in a real position to fully assess the accuracy of the message, although most probably think they do. Most of us are not really equipped to confirm or reject the pastor’s interpretation of a particular Greek or Hebrew term. Most of us can’t even assess his presentation of historical background. We might have a capacity for assessing how the passage has been applied to present day issues, but even there, I’d have to say our ability is suspect. I mean, we’re not idiots, but neither are the majority of us given opportunity to so fully engage in the hard work of studying the Word.
We come with opinions. We come with preferred understandings, pet doctrines, what have you. When we assess the preaching, it is as likely to be by these opinions and pet doctrines as it is to be by any real sense of what the passage was intended to say. I think of the passage from John 2 that was the basis for this week’s sermon. There’s a passage I spent some time with, and yet did not see that which the sermon brought out. Some of it, yes. The idea of miracle as sign-post, though not presented in those words, was clearly to be heard, for example. And I have to say that for those inclined to find miracles so exciting, that message probably came as a bit of an offense. More offensive yet was the call not to get caught up in miracle, but look to the higher significance to which they point. Yet, that is such a seriously needed message! Or is that just my own pet doctrine? What was truly revealing, though, was the demonstration of how this detail about the wedding at Cana continued the intentional correlation of John’s presentation with the opening chapters of Genesis. Add to this the way the wedding feast both fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah and in its own way prophesies the wedding feast of the Lamb in the Revelation, and suddenly, the questions about how water became wine, or why Jesus first rebuked Mom and then went and did as she asked anyway fade to insignificance, as in fact they ought to do. The sparkle of the gift isn’t the point. The lesson taught by the gift is.
But, as marvelous as this is, even this is not a lesson to be taken as legitimate simply because it is delivered from the pulpit. It certainly isn’t to be absorbed uncritically. I suppose this is why a pastor will tend to identify backing sources for the views presented. He’s giving references, as it were, to confirm that he’s not just presenting personal fantasies. It’s a recognition of sorts that the prophet is not beyond scrutiny and reproof. I don’t hear it said as often as I used to, but I do think the perspective remains, that any preacher worth his salt will not only invite you to check for yourself whether what he has taught is true, but will insist that you should.
Again, we don’t necessarily need to consider the more spectacular gifts and the more obviously supernatural to recognize that men pretend to gifts they don’t actually have. We don’t even need to enter the church to grasp that. If you have ever been employed you know it’s true. If you’ve ever had to take on the task of interviewing a potential candidate for employment, you know it beyond doubt. The whole interview process is generally understood as an attempt to weed out those whose claims are not in keeping with their actual ability. And this is for mundane matters of getting some job done! Here, we are concerned with matters of eternal importance, matters of Truth. Do you really want some untested, unaccredited claimant to inspiration to be telling you what he thinks the truth is? Or, should we prefer the one who has proven gifts? And, even then, should we not trust the Spirit who indwells us all to provide validation of the message, either through our own investigation of the subject, or through others in the congregation already up on the topic?
Here, I find myself in hearty accord with Mr. Clarke. “Every man’s gift was to be judged of by those whose age, experience, and wisdom, gave them a right to decide.” Look. Sad thought it may be to say it, not every man in the house has the right to decide whether what was taught was taught accurately. We don’t all have the experience or the wisdom. We don’t give this task to the new believer, because we can hardly expect him to have the wherewithal. We are, hopefully, careful in the appointing of elders or other leaders in the church so as to ensure that said leaders do have sufficient age, experience, and wisdom to keep watch over what is taught. It’s not a matter of pride, believe me. It’s a daunting responsibility to be left as watchman on the wall of God’s house. But, it’s a necessary duty.
How then are we to judge, who are set to this task of judgment? Well, the first and most obvious basis for judgment is, again turning to Clarke for the words, “whether what he spoke was according to truth, and the analogy of faith.” Considering the state of the Corinthian church and the nature of Paul’s correctives, we arrive at another basis for judgment. Does the one in question aim for peace? Does he act peaceably? Now, as Calvin points out, this does not mean we seek out that diabolical peace at all costs which insists that doctrinal differences be glossed over in the name of unity. No! As concerns wicked doctrines, we are required to contend for Truth. Over and over again we find the Apostles doing this. Arguably, every last one of the Epistles that we have consists of exactly such a contending for Truth. Here is error, that you might recognize it for what it is. Here is the corrective. But, we find that not only do the Apostles undertake this work themselves, as the chief scribes of the new order, if you will. They also instruct us, and particularly those who have taken up the reins of leadership, to do likewise. As to the sheep, a tender shepherd; as to the wolves, a deadly foe.
We have a duty to examine. This has not changed. The claimed prophet might err. Again, this holds true regardless of how you view the modern day prophetic gift. Preachers make mistakes. For some, it is a willful effort to misrepresent, in which case, their condemnation is just, and the church that has set them in the pulpit ought swiftly to repent of it. If they will not, then certainly you should repent of your remaining under such a pulpit. More likely, though, the error is a more innocent mistake, in which case the appropriate response is to demonstrate by the Word where he has erred that he might correct his course and repent where needed. This is our duty both for reverence of God’s revealed Truth, and for love of our brother.
Now I want to turn to another aspect of the problem and solution set before us. If in fact there was an issue of competing gifts here, with each one taking it upon himself to do what he purposed to do regardless of others already doing the same, then it is something from which we need to learn. But, the lesson needed may not be the obvious one. I think for most of us the idea of several speakers speaking at once in the course of the worship service would be a rare experience, if it has been experienced at all. But, if you’ve not seen such an event, you might consider the example of the recent congressional hearings with all the disruptive shouting from the galleries. That may be one of the best representations of the Corinthian problem we are likely to see. Certainly, the disruptive nature of their approach is made clear. I would argue that the spirit driving such display was also clearly in view, and it wasn’t the Holy Spirit.
That gets back to Calvin’s question, doesn’t it? Are they aiming for peace, or for disruption. If the former, then we may accept their message even if we must correct their approach. If the latter, then we must suspect something worse of them. This is not the Holy Spirit of God driving. But, again, this is probably not how we experience the regular worship of the Church. That does not leave us without a need for corrective action. You may observe those in the pews around you who are not in fact engaged with the flow of the service. There are many possible explanations, of course. They may choose not to sing out of respect for those in front of them, if they are in fact incapable of carrying a tune. Yet, I would say even then, one could at least silently mouth the words. But, they may very well be absorbing those words, internalizing them, and fully given over to the worship of God. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. But, it’s not necessarily a good thing, either.
One of the possible scenarios laid out for the issue of verse 26 is that you had person A over here delivering his sermon or his psalm, but person B is in the corner wrapped up in private prayer. Is this wrong? I mean, both are seeking to worship God, are they not? Can that be bad? Well, in fact, yes it can. The intentions may be wholly commendable, but the fact remains that God is not to be worshiped willy-nilly. This is corporate worship. This is, “when you assemble.” This is, if you will, a family gathering, a team effort. Thus, as Matthew Henry writes, “For all who are present at public worship should join in it, and not be at their private devotions in public assemblies.” Do you see the issue? If you come into the gathered worship of the Church and then withdraw into your private bubble then, in all fairness, you have not actually come into the gathered worship. You have become a bit of a cyst, walling yourself off from the rest, declaring your difference. And I have to say, to so publicly declare your difference is to lay claim to superiority, however passive-aggressive your approach. It is ungodly. It is not honoring to God, and it is not commending as to one’s own spiritual maturity. It is pride and nothing more.
At the same time, we discover what may well be the most significant difference between the practice of the early church and our present day. The Wycliffe Commentary observes it clearly. “The early believers did not come to the worship meeting to hear a sermon from one man or simply to receive; they came to give.” Isn’t that something? They came to give. Whatever else may be said of the Church in Corinth, they had this much right, it would seem. “When you assemble, each one has…” While that presented issues so far as remaining orderly and peaceable, it shows something wonderful about the believers in that place. They prepared. Church wasn’t just someplace to sit of a Sunday. It was a place to participate, and participate fully. Church wasn’t just about getting fed. It was about being useful.
What about us? It seems to me that one of the most common complaints that people will offer as regards the church is that it isn’t meeting their needs. You know, we have kids and your children’s ministry just doesn’t cut it. Or, we are more elderly, and your worship seems more geared toward the younger generations. Or, I’m a single, and you don’t have a singles’ program. Whatever our chosen category, we’re pretty sure that there ought to be things in the church tailored for that category. We who serve as leaders take this message to heart, and seek to shape programs for every possible contingent. We have carefully assured that there will be gluten-free crackers for Communion. We see to it that nursery care is available. We carefully monitor our volume lest anybody find it bothersome. Mind you, whatever the volume, somebody will be bothered. The thing is, while these programs might be good, they might also be simply distraction. If they have become our measure of the church’s quality and worth, then they have most definitely become a distraction. Indeed, they give evidence that our whole perspective as to the church is one of distraction.
“They came to serve.” What a difference! What wonders might the church of God accomplish given a populace that had this attitude? How much more powerful might our ministries become if every individual believer came through the doors with this perspective? Some do, it’s true. Some will come and ask almost immediately how they can help. Others, sadly, will come telling you rather insistently where they will help. There’s that pride again. There’s Corinth. But, it seems to be the universal experience of the Western church, at least, that the smallest subset of the congregation do the work of ministry. There’s a reason we have the adage that twenty percent of the people do eighty percent of the work. There are exceptions, but they are just that: Exceptions. Imagine, if you can, what would happen if those first twenty percent continued to labor has they have, but even fifty percent were added alongside them, laboring in like fashion? It’s funny, isn’t it? Even where we seek to turn this trend around, we offer it in the sense of ‘many hands make light the load’. That is to say, we imagine doing the same amount of ministry, but using more ministers to achieve it. What if we dreamed bigger? What if we imagined the ministry growing to match the number of ministers? Perhaps it asks too much. But, it strikes me that nobody made great strides by asking too little.
That having been said, whether there are many who minister or few, the rules of deployment do not change. What is taught is to be tested. What is said is to be confirmed, and that against Scripture, not some internal conversation with oneself, and not by ‘asking the Spirit’. Nowhere is that put forward as the test. Indeed, we are called to test the spirits, not consult them for confirmation. Here is the test: Does it accord with Scripture? If this is in fact the Spirit’s influence directing what has been said or taught, then the answer will assuredly be yes, for He is the author of that perfect and complete revelation. Would you have a gift of discernment? Here is its application. It’s not a rolling of the eyes into the head and making lofty-sounding pronouncements as to what spirit has influenced the latest message. That, after all, will incline toward favoritism, no matter how fine the discerner’s intentions. But, true discernment lies in recognizing when the thing that has been claimed as truth accords with Truth and when it does not. The only sound basis for such an assessment is the clear teaching of the Bible. Here is Truth. Truth does not change. Truth does not shift with the tides of fashion, or the ‘latest move’. Truth remains True.
It is an utterly false conception that newness is the evidence of the Spirit. Oh, we love the idea of learning something new. We lust after novelty. It’s in our nature. Why do you suppose our car manufacturers find it necessary to introduce design changes every year, however hideous or banal the result? It doesn’t even matter if our tastes have actually changed. It just has to be new. It needs more lights and buttons. Why, pray tell, does the iPhone need to be even more powerful this year than last, aside from driving a new wave of purchasing? It’s because we are addicted to novelty. If it’s not novel, it’s not worthwhile. But, that’s a false perspective, and that false perspective has, sadly, infiltrated the Church, just as every other foolishness. It is not to be accepted and catered to. It is to be countered and corrected. “Examine everything. Hold fast to that which is good” (1Th 5:21). Discern! Use your noodle. Don’t play Christian Ouija board games of ‘ask the spirit’. Test. Learn. Remain teachable, but not naïve. If it is new, I would maintain, hold it as utterly suspect until it has been tested against that which is tried and true. Then, and only then should we consider that it might be a valuable lesson to be learned.
One last point on this matter of proper deployment of gifts: Don’t think yourself to have arrived. We never, certainly not in this life and quite likely not in the next, arrive at a point of knowing it all. We shall never be beyond the need for being taught. This is a great danger, I think, to those of us who teach. We think, because we are teachers, that we must have the answers. That’s where it starts. It’s awkward to be standing in the place of teacher and have nothing more to answer when faced with a question than, “I don’t know.” We don’t like those words. We are pretty sure we should know. After all, we’ve been at this long enough. We’re teachers, for goodness sake. We have to know. If we don’t, who will? The problem is, in our sinfulness, our first inclination will be to offer whatever plausible answer arises in our thinking. We will seek to appear more knowledgeable than we are. That’s step one down an awful path. It doesn’t stop there. We come to believe our own nonsense, and begin to accept that we know more than we do. Pretty soon, we have set ourselves in the place of the unquestionable expert. Nobody else is buying it, but it doesn’t matter because we are fully sold on the idea. We are an unassailable tower of sound doctrine which no sound can any longer penetrate. But, here one of the better teachers in the history of the Church. “For no one will ever be a good teacher, who does not show himself to be teachable.” These are words from Calvin, one who, if any man, ought to be able to lay claim to expert-level understanding of God and Church. Here is a teacher’s teacher, and what does he teach? Remain teachable.
A Paucity of Gifts (10/02/18)
Calvin, I must say, also utterly surprises me in his reaction to this passage. For, he doesn’t satisfy himself with observing the dusty remains of Corinth revealed in this correction. He sees his own church through the lens of what is taught. What does he observe? Corinth, it seems had what we might call an embarrassment of wealth when it came to gifts such as prophecy. They had so many with that gift that it required instruction and effort to ensure that each was granted his turn. Would that we had such a problem! Would that our Sunday Schools were not constantly hunting for willing and capable teachers. And, dear ones, this is how it should be! We should be awash in teachers, for we have many believers of longstanding in the congregation. And yet, every year, not only the children’s classes are out begging for teachers, which I might understand, but also the adult classes. Are there really only three people, apart from the pastors, who can rightly handle the Word of God? Are there really only a handful who can lead a scripturally based, God-centered discussion on topics that impact our life and witness? I can’t believe it. But, that always seems to be the case.
What I discover is that Calvin recognized, if not this issue, a similar one in his own church in Geneva. In comparison to Corinth, we are in a state of poverty as concerns these gifts. It’s not, at least by this comment, a question of them having passed from the scene. Thus far, I do not recall Calvin suggesting any such thing. Rather, as he observes in regard to this passage, it is a just punishment upon our ingratitude. Now, I could readily enough imagine a Charismatic preacher delivering such an assessment of the Conservative church down the street. They have not because they ask not! Why, from his perspective, it’s probably questionable whether they actually count as a church, given the complete absence and even rejection of gifts. But, from Calvin? From the Conservative’s Conservative preacher? This is most unexpected. It is also far more concerning coming from so careful a theologian.
At the same time, I do see a bit of rationality from him on the subject of gifts. He writes, “The Church can, without any inconvenience, dispense with tongues, except in so far as they are helps to prophecy, as the Hebrew and Greek languages are at this day.” Understand what he is saying. In part, he nears the understanding of tongues that Clarke insists upon, that it was a question of reading the Hebrew texts of Scripture in their original language, regardless of being in a congregation that spoke no Hebrew. Thus, the need for interpretation. And, in that regard, I could look at our own pastor, who will pronounce and explain one or more Greek terms most every week and suggest that here is one speaking in a tongue and interpreting. Mind you, he would likely cringe at the thought. But, that is one way of understanding the gift as it applied in the congregational setting then, and as it might apply now. I don’t quite buy it, but it’s a perspective.
See the assessment, though: If the pastor never saw fit to explain another bit of Greek syntax or a single Hebrew word in the course of delivering his sermon, we would not be much the less for it. That’s not to say it’s of no benefit, but it’s far more important that he has the capacity to translate in the privacy of his preparations than that he can properly enunciate the language before us and give us the technical underpinnings. Mind you, in some crowds, it’s nigh on essential to be able to defend one’s interpretation on such grounds, but I still wouldn’t think the sermon was the place for such a defense, and the majority of those listening are not really in much of a position to debate the point anyway, not on those terms. More likely is an argument based on what one has always been taught by others, or what some favorite author wrote on the subject. But, again, that’s assuming Calvin’s application. And note, he’s offering that as the one place where tongues might still serve a purpose in the Church.
Now, I must observe that where Calvin ministered, a commonality of language was the norm. Geneva wasn’t a melting pot, per se, as is so often the case today. There weren’t a lot of foreigners passing through, ala Corinth, such that we would need a capacity for myriad foreign tongues in order to deliver the Gospel message to those in our midst. Today, that is not so much the case. I think back on an occasion in our own church not so many weeks ago. We had a visitor in from India, somebody’s family member, I believe. He didn’t speak a word of English, and yet he had sat in our services week upon week. He wanted to give something back. (There’s that idea of coming to give again!) He wanted to sing a psalm in his native language as a gift to the church that had blessed him during his stay in the states. But, in order to learn what it was he was asking, it was necessary that somebody translate. Somebody needed to translate his request into English that those talking with him could understand his request. Somebody needed to translate English into his language, that he might grasp the reply. In our case, the gift of tongues was found on the iPhone. You can argue amongst yourselves whether that was by the Spirit or not. But, the point is simply this: If we understand tongues as a gift given for the promotion of the Gospel to the lost of the nations, then a) it is actual, comprehensible languages that are given in that gift, and b) the need remains, and not just for our missionaries. We have need for missionaries right here in our own congregations, for many come into our services who, even if they can understand English, do not speak it as their primary language.
So, then, on the one hand, I would have to agree with Calvin that an absence of tongues in the church really doesn’t have much of an impact. And, given the way tongues are generally practiced where they are practiced, their presence doesn’t either, at least not much that’s positive. It’s great for stirring up feelings of excitement, but as to edification, it’s generally pointless. That said, if tongues were practiced for its actual, intended purpose, there is plentiful need for it, and every reason to allow it. The foreigner in your midst has every bit as great a need to hear the Gospel as do you. How wonderful, if the Church could deliver it to him without making a scene of it.
Edification and Its Results (10/03/18)
Edification takes us beyond mere knowing. Doctrine, perfect doctrine perfectly learned, will only supply us with knowledge. We will know that Jesus is Lord, and may perhaps be able to provide rational demonstration of why this is so. Congratulations! Demons also know this, and believe it, too. And they shudder for the knowledge (Jas 2:19). Knowledge doesn’t save. Doctrine, necessary though it assuredly is, doesn’t save. Jesus saves. The grace of God poured out upon us, quite apart from any work of ours, saves. But, even that grace, to be salvific, must be internalized.
I don’t offer this as the one work that we add to God’s gift, because God’s gift doesn’t need any addition. But, to take the example of water that is implied in the pouring out of God’s grace, if that water just pours over us and drips to the ground, we shall come through that experience just as thirsty at the end as we were before. Water cannot quench our thirst unless it is internalized. Pouring it on one’s head might cool you for a bit, but it will not assuage the thirst. Just so, grace poured out upon an individual is of limited use if that individual doesn’t take it in. Consider that God’s grace is shown to all creation, all creatures. Narrow it a bit, and let us consider the human condition. Still, every man, woman, and child through all time has had experience of God’s grace. Yet, it is the smallest of remnants that have been found to be among the elect. It is the smallest remnant that is saved by grace. Why? They have internalized it. And, to be painfully clear, this, too, is a gift of God, the work of the Spirit in and upon us that we might receive what is pouring out.
So far, so good. We’ve made a start, thanks be to God. But, there remains that lifelong work of sanctification to consider and to face. What happens? Well, Our sanctification is the purpose of edification. Edification doesn’t just provide us with further facts and data points. Edification doesn’t stop at teaching application of the data in hand. Edification produces wisdom from knowledge, and fuses it to that grace which has been poured out over and into us. If I were to take it into the Greek, edification takes the observations of eido, and the wisdom garnered by experiential ginosko, and produces epignosis. I’m sure I could find Greek scholars who would take issue with my use of these terms. I’ll get over it. Epignosis, I find, is that knowledge that is so deeply implanted and so deeply significant, that it becomes life-changing. Things can never be the same again.
The realization of Christ as Lord and Savior is a key example of epignosis. It’s all well and good to observe (eido) that He was a real human being born into real history, and died a real death. But, many know this today, yet fail to know Him as Lord and Savior. Oh, He was a fine teacher, perhaps even a prophet, but still just a man. Others, indeed I would argue all, have experience (ginosko) of His goodness, for God causes the sun to shine on saint and sinner alike. He sees to the daily provision for enemy and ally alike. All have tasted and seen, but not all have known (epignosis) that the Lord is good. Epignosis is that knowledge that has been joined to the inflowing grace of God to become so deeply lodged within us as to become a permanent feature of our mental, spiritual, and moral landscape. It shall not be moved. This is the knowledge that opens our eyes to the things of God, and grants us to appreciate Him for Who He Is. This is the knowledge that opens our eyes to the nature of self, and grants us to know ourselves as we truly are. Thank God the knowledge of the latter is accompanied by knowledge of the former, else we should be utterly lost in despondency!
Edification is, then, God’s greatest gift to the Church, because it is the purpose of edification to bring about that fusing of grace and wisdom. Edification is, as I have observed often enough, a term from the construction industry of the day. It is the work of building upon the foundation, creating an edifice. But, observe, as Paul has earlier on in this letter: The foundation is already laid. Don’t mess with it. Build upon it. Build straight and true. Check your materials and check your work. Better still, since personal edification is really a team effort, see to it that your brothers and sisters are in a position to check your materials and your work, and do your part for them by checking theirs. The Church is, when it comes to edification certainly, the greatest mutual aid society that ever was or ever shall be. We grow together, or we fail to grow at all. Coming together, we live in light of the knowledge and grace of Christ, welcoming Him as our rightful Ruler, honoring Him as our only Savior, loving Him as our dearest Friend.
This is the goal of every gift given by the Spirit to the Church, the bride of Christ: That by these gifts, our knowledge of Him may increase, our love for Him may increase, and our worship of Him may become more worshipful. By these gifts, we are equipped to satisfy our mandate: Go and make disciples. To use them to any other end is gift abuse, and dishonors the Giver in the extreme.
The Nature of God, the Nature of the Church (10/03/18)
What have we seen, then, as concerns our God and our Church? We see that in the Church we are involved in a construction project, one that involves us all. As I stressed under the previous head, it is an effort of mutual aid. We are each building, but we are also set together in order to help each other in our building efforts. Turning back to Peter’s description, we are living stones being built up as a spiritual house (1Pe 2:5). But, it would be a pretty useless house that was built of one stone alone. If I am the only stone I am working on, what sort of house can I hope to build? Or, perhaps I am wise enough at least to know I shall need my fellow stones if I am to become part of this house. But, if, in pursuit of that grand project, I only look to my own part and place, how ever will this edifice fit together?
We’ve all seen the images of grand construction projects – let us take things like the Intercontinental Railway – where men were working from the ends towards the middle. They meet in the final stretch and discover that the middle won’t meet. Somehow, those working from one end have come out a foot to the side of those from the other, or even so little as an inch. I could think, as well, of the Mackinaw Straits Bridge, that we crossed a few times last year. That marvelous construction project would have been to no avail if, for example, the center span was built a foot too long or too short. How could such a thing happen? Well, it happens all the time when a worker, or even a group of workers, become so zoned in on their one task that they lose sight of all else. It will happen to the Church, or the individual in the Church, as well, if they become so inwardly focused as to lose sight of their fellow believers.
We have also discovered what I described as the three pillars of Church life a year or two back. What are those three pillars? We can start with the introduction of this passage: You all have something to give. Having read the CJB translation this morning, I really like their choice of phrasing here. “Let everyone be ready with a psalm or a teaching or a revelation, [etc.]”. Come prepared!
For the second pillar, we return to the bridge from the previous chapter to the present. “The greatest of these is love. Pursue it! Even as you seek the things of the Spirit, pursue it” (1Co 13:12b-14:1a). Indeed, if you pursue the love of God as you seek the gifts, then you will give that which you have to give from a heart of love for God and man. Come prepared to give, then, from a heart of agape.
Now, the third pillar; the central premise of this chapter: Give so as to edify all who are present. It’s not enough to build one’s self up. Build others. Don’t show off. Help. Be constructive. If that requires correction, so be it. If that comes in the form of an exhortation, praise God. If it comes as encouragement, by all means, encourage. But, do it for all, and do it from love. You have something to give, but don’t destroy your gift by the desire to show off.
Recognize that church, love, and edification are one. God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – is One. He has fashioned the Church in His image, as He has fashioned us in His image. The Church without love is no church. The Church without edification is a pile of dead rocks. Edification, apart from love, cannot build a church. The three must combine, and do so in so thorough a manner as to be inseparable.
Where this is the case, the disorder and foolishness of the Corinthian example will not arise. This turns us to the final point I would consider. Barnes writes, “True religion prompts to peace and regularity, and not to discord and tumult.” Now, many today are offended by the term religion. But, this is no fault of religion. Rather, it is the bad impression left by practicers of poor doctrine, or poor practicers of good doctrine. It’s not religion that is bad. It’s bad religion that is bad. Bad religion shows in, amongst other things, its severe lack of resemblance to the God it claims to honor. This takes us right to the end of our passage. “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” God is not the author of chaos. Why would we suppose Him pleased by a chaotic worship? Oh, but David danced wildly do the street! Surely, we must all abandon ourselves to the holy. Well, yes. I suppose if you encounter the holy, perhaps you should. But, holiness is not abandonment, nor is wild abandon holy. It may not be unholy, but the two are not in any necessary relationship one to the other.
God is not the author of confusion. This being the case, it would be a very strange thing were His religion to tend toward disorder. This is to be seen throughout Paul’s corrective. Don’t make it a bedlam where nothing can be understood, let alone learned. Don’t make God seem to be a god of confusion by your actions. He is not, and you who are supposed to represent Him to the world must not be agents of confusion. Don’t mistake fervor and noise for righteousness. When it comes to the right worship of a holy God of peace, worship is “calm, peaceful, thoughtful. It is not boisterous and disorderly.” I return to Barnes for that tidbit. Oh, we love our excitements. We love to jump up and yell our approval at sporting events and concerts. I’ll withhold judgment as to the appropriateness of such display, but if there’s a time and a place, I suppose those would suit. The Church does not. The service of worship to a holy God of Peace is not the place for rowdy shouting and unbridled passions. Indeed, we are instructed everywhere to get those unbridled passions under control. Don’t misrepresent the God Who saved you. Demonstrate Him. Edify one another and present the true Gospel to the lost. There’s your purpose. Go be fulfilled in it.
