Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: a new look at the ordinances of the church.

"Never mind the bread and wine, unless you can use them as folks often use their eyeglasses. What do they use them for? To look at? No, to look through them. So, use the bread and wine as a pair of glasses. Look through them, and do not be satisfied until you can say, “Yes, yes, I can see the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world….We believe that Jesus Christ spiritually comes to us and refreshes us, and in that sense, we eat his flesh and drink his blood.” ― Charles Spurgeon

---

Dear Friends,

If you want my opinion, I think that theologically speaking we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in many instances just to distance ourselves from tradition, or ritualism. Take Communion or the Lord’s Supper—whichever term you prefer. We have proudly clung to the ceremony as a symbol or sign of Christ sacrificial death, burial and resurrection in this sacred service; however, I am increasingly persuaded that we have fostered a culture that has a form of Godliness but denies the power thereof, and from such we must turn away (2Timothy 3:5).

Friends, the scripture plainly teaches that we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as often as we meet, yet we Pentecostals as well as other Evangelical and Protestants alike have decided that once a month is enough, or once a quarter or some even say once a year. What gives? Is Communion not more integral to faith and saving grace than that? I think so. We should not, I feel, be guilty of treating this sacred ceremony so cavalierly.

Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood (as gruesome as that may sound to an unbeliever) you have no life in you (John 6:53), he said. Oh, some would counter, he’s talking about spiritual things here. So? Is it not the Spirit that gives life? And, how in anyone's imagination would that exclude the visible symbol or sign of His Spirit?

The thing at issue here is the general understanding of what a sign or symbol's nature is—we tend to think of a symbol as separate from what it symbolizes. Not so, I would argue. A symbol in the Biblical sense is a sign that is intimately connected with what it symbolizes.

Allow me to use this analogy. Two lovers, say, for instance, have caught the twinkle in each other’s eyes—that’s love felt, but not consummated, there’s nothing concrete there. They then move closer, hold hands, smile at each other—that’s love felt again, also. Then suddenly they kiss. That is then unmistakably a visible, undeniable sign and symbol of their love for one another. (This is, of course, in an ideal world.) Once they kiss, the symbol is not external to the love which it symbolizes but is part of it.

At communion, Christ in some mysterious way presents himself to us as we eat the bread and drink the wine and is in no way external to the symbol. Christ actually meets us there. If He didn’t why bother? Just to say that this is simply a gentle reminder, a remembrance only of what He has done for us falls short in pronouncing the efficacy of Communion. If there is no efficacy, then why the caution not to take it unworthily (1 Cor. 11:27)?

In closing, may I say that Communion may well remind us, but friends, to my way of thinking the kiss is there, too.

 Like Jacob of old, let us meet Him at the altar (Gen. 35:1)!

JimR_/

The transcendence of our assurance

---

"God loves each of us as if there were only one of us” ― Augustine  

---

Any theology worth its salt must combine a Christology from above (the Word-or eternal Logos) with a Christology from below (the Word-or eternal Logos).

To put this in practical terms, our friend is also our Savior. “He walks with us and He talks with us” is far more than just words from a song, it is a living reality. For sure, we on our own are not capable of achieving all the good things God has prepared for us but because He lives, we, too, shall live victoriously throughout all the ages that come. He conquered death, Hades, and the grave and because of Him so shall we.

For, in the final analysis, Christ is the unsurpassable, irrevocable, victorious presence of God’s grace who comes as a friend to walk alongside us throughout all of our life. This is to say that the crucified Christ and the risen Christ is the ground of our hope for eternal life because the incarnate Logos is one and the same as the Logos from above. We must not ever separate the two in our thinking for that Christ is as close as the air we breathe and we must not confuse that with our faulty imagination that at times sees Him as the Christ from afar.

Therefore, I say rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say—rejoice! (Phil. 4:4). Rejoice not in what we have achieved, but rather in what He has achieved through and for us. Only a loving God could and would do that. I am, indeed, thankful that God in His eternality made His “would” our “could” and thereby strengthened our will to accept such a lovingly and freely given salvation for us all.

This is really good news for us all—Jews, and Gentiles of every race and ethnicity; and as with the Twelve we are commissioned to “give as freely as we have received (Matt. 10:8).” Therefore, we can boldly declare to all the that eternal Logos still calls out as with Isaiah,

"Come, all of you who thirst, come to the waters; and you without money, come, buy, and eat! Come, buy wine and milk, without money and without cost (Isa. 55: 1)!”

For even if we have sold ourselves for nothing, we have been redeemed without money (Isa. 52:3). So, "Come, [He says] all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost (Isa. 55:1).” 

Now, friends, this is no ordinary banquet, it is one prepared by God himself and the invitation is to all (Rev. 19:7-10; Rev. 21:17).

Now, may we all feast on the assurance of His word,

JimR_/

Women in ministry . . .

Question:  What gives? Some denominations ordain women, to others, it is an anathema. I’m confused. Does the Bible contradict itself, or is one of the camps misinformed? Further, why are Southern Baptist, the Churches of Christ, and the Catholic Church so nasty about this?

Answer: Male chauvinism is nothing new, it is as old as the Bible itself. Some think that perhaps Adam was the first since he tried to claim the high ground by blaming Eve for misleading and tempting him. Be that as it may be, however, let us look at one of the most quoted scriptures that are used in favor of denying women equal status in the ministry.

First Corinthians 14:33–35 states, 

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (ESV). 

Some take this verse as a hard and fast rule that all women should absolutely remain silent in the church; thereby, excluding them from any pastoral or priestly role. However, we notice that earlier in the same epistle (1 Corinthians 11:5), Paul allows women to pray and prophesy in the church. So, what gives is that the prohibition must be taken in context. Apparently, not all women in Corinth 14:33–35 were to remain silent at all times in the church services. So, the prohibition must be limited in some way by the context. The context is simply this: in Corinth, there were two groups of women, those that were chatterboxes, perhaps even gossips; and there were those anointed women who were called and capable of leadership. We also know that elsewhere scripture states that:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Further, the New Testament is resplendent with women in ministry. And, surely no one would argue that women are excluded from the ministry gifts of the Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12: 1-11, if so, then why did Paul say in verse one: “Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers, and sisters …” if women were excluded?

Now for those that are interested to follow this discussion further, I refer you to an excellent “Position Paper” on The Role of Women in the Ministry by clicking onto the underlined portion of this sentence.

Finally, I wouldn’t say any of the groups mentioned are “nasty” by opposing the ordination of women; I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they sincerely believe these things. I will say, however, in my opinion. by are bucking the tide of culture and times as well as the clear teaching of scripture. Perhaps, I will not see the change against that in my lifetime but most certainly I feel that in the lifetime of my grandchildren change will come, including in the Catholic Church. 

Trust this helps,

Take care, and remember He cares for you!

 JimR_/

Holiness: a way of life or a goal?

---

" There is no key to happiness; the door is always open.”— Mother Teresa of Calcutta

---

It’s a fact, we learn more through pain than we do pleasure. “God,” said C. S. Lewis, “whispers to us in our pleasure, and shouts at us in our pain.” This I have found to be true, I would say, without exception. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a spiritual masochist. I certainly don’t get pleasure out of pain, but when it inevitably comes I have found it is best to embrace it until I find a remedy. Sometimes there is none, but as with Paul, I find that God’s grace is really all that I need to get through the tough times (2 Cor. 12:9).

You see, God is more interested in our character than our comfort. Or to put it another way, God is more interested in our holiness than our happiness (James 1:4) “for without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).”

This brings us to the vital question: “What is holiness?”

Well, back in the day, as they say, holiness was “I don’t drink, I don’t cuss, I don’t chew, and I don’t run around with them that do.” Of course, right alongside that, if you were raised in old-timey Pentecostal circles, were prohibitions against movies, television, make-up, and short hair for the women, plus a whole host of “worldly” recreational activities. Made it a pretty sterile life for a young fellow like me in those days who could not throw a ball or read the comics on Sunday, either.

However, as I grew older, I found out that God is generally more interested in what we do than what we don’t do. Love at all times, though, must permeate any and all attempts at holiness. Motivation is key. Love should motivate all. Godly love, however, not a misguided love to be perceived as holy or saintly, but rather for God to judge us as loving people. “By this shall all know that you are my disciples, said Christ, in that you love one another (John 13:35).”

There is, however, a kernel of righteousness in our feeble attempts for holiness by abstaining from all appearances of evil (1 Thess. 5:22). So, we mustn’t just throw caution to the wind. We must avoid evil and that goes for evil as a form of dramatic pleasure. A filthy book produces a filthy mind, and the same goes for television and movies as well. Nor would I suggest that we start a Bible study at some strip joint. We are to be faithful with all godly propriety. The gateway to the soul is through the conscience; and an ill-informed conscience is certainly no pathway for holiness. By all means, we must not grow weary in well-doing, for at the proper time we will reap a plentiful spiritual harvest if we do not give up (Galatians 5:16-26; Galatians 6:9).

May God give us all the strength to persevere,

   JimR_/

Divorce: Moses, Jesus, and Paul . . .

Question: Dear Dr. Roane, I'm confused. Did Christ ever condone divorce? If not, why then do we see all the divorce in our churches today? I am not talking about the world, I mean the churches.

Answer: Dear friend, wow ... you have packed about 15 questions into this one. But to answer your question: Yes, Jesus did reluctantly (I suppose you can say) condone divorce on the condition that one of the married partners is promiscuous—to use an old fashioned word, a fornicator (Matthew 5:32; see also Matthew 19:9). 

Paul, in some cases, does discourage remarriage for the sake of ministering to the Lord. “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Corinthians 7:27,28). All divorced persons considering remarriage should remember Paul’s instructions to the Christians at Corinth, “but he [in this case, the new spouse] must belong to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

This is a quick answer. However, let me say this: if you are being severely abused verbally, or abused physically beyond all means find a safe place and beyond all means get a least a Stalking Protection Order (SPO) which in most cases will give you time to mitigate the situation until you can reach a final settlement. Also, according to Assemblies of God denominational policy, it is stated that, 

"Jesus clearly assumed that those who were divorced by sinful spouses, or those who divorced sinful spouses for “marital uncleanness” or abandonment, were free to remarry without any tinge of adultery. However, believers are to remarry one who “belong[s] to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39) and the new marriage covenant is to be permanent.

For further help, read 1 Corinthians 7, and seek the advice of your pastor when possible.

  

I hope this helps,

JimR_/

A religion-less Christianity

---

"For prayer is nothing else than being on terms of friendship with God. ― Saint Teresa of Avila

---

Dear Friends,

Count me in on a religion-less Christianity. To reduce God to a set of creeds and/or half-baked definitions misses the point of true Christianity altogether, in my opinion. As St. Thomas ‘a Kempis once asked,

“What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed, it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God?” (Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ)

Christ is first and foremost found in an encounter, an experience. Indescribable, yet vividly true. Surely in all cases, the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.

The central question for every man is, ‘Do you know Christ? Not about Him, but know Him as a friend and a brother?  We must concern ourselves with the "who" in the incarnation, not the how." We must not concern ourselves with “How is Christ in the Church but rather who is Christ in the Church.” We must never reduce Christ to a “how?” but rather on all occasions relate to Him as a “who?”

As with Peter, the Apostle, the perennial question Christ asks all is, “Who do you say that I am.” Peter answered, and rightly so, “You are the Son  of the Living God!”

Surely the letter of a dead creed kills unless it introduces us to the Son of a Living God. Christ said, and not without cause, “Behold, I am alive forevermore! (Revelation 1:18)”

May God burn this reality on the hearts of us all,

JimR_/

Cockroaches and sanctification

---

" It's hard to imagine repenting fully of something that one does not understand fully.”— Brett Salkeld

---

Dear Friends,

God has not called us to be incremental Christians, nudging ahead one step at a time forever struggling in a mire of doubt, despair, and defeat. No, we are called to be conquers, in fact more than conquerors. We are called to be holy, Christlike—that is our destiny! His gifts and callings are without repentance, too (Romans 11:29). That’s good news.

Now, for the bad news. Far too few Christians get beyond the swamp. Their lives are a never-ending swirl of self-doubt, guilt feelings, and just a whole lot of “Oh, if only I had done it differently.” The truth of the matter is that fretting is the worst tool in our mental arsenal to defeat the enemy of our souls.

In earlier days we used to hear a lot about sanctification. Now, it seems to be all about justification. Justification declares us forgiven— sanctification keeps us that way, and since it is the purpose of both to transform us into the image of Christ ( Romans 12:2 ;Romans 8:28-29) both are of equal importance.

Mark declares that Jesus said we all shall be salted with fire—that is the imperfect is burned away with only that which is pure is preserved (1 Peter 1:7). Fire burns, destroys, salt preserves. Spiritually, this necessary process is for us all. It is something none of us can or should wish to escape (Job 23:10).

Salt however that has lost it properties is useless, and must be thrown out—along, presumably with the putrid food it was to preserve. This is to say that there are a lot of good men and women in the world, but goodness alone is not good enough for Heaven. That goodness must be salted and strengthened and made stronger with fire that purifies.

It is comforting to know that we are not left on our own to bring about this transformation for our God is a consuming fire—a consuming fire that purifies and burns away the doss gets rid of the imperfections and preserves us for all eternity (c.f. Ezekiel 43:22-24).

The tongues of Pentecost may be exhilarating, but it is when we are salted with fire that we are preserved for service. Tongues don’t make us proper witnesses, but the fire does. Oh, that the cloven tongues of Pentecost would fall on us all!

I won't get into all of the ins-and-outs of the doctrine of salt and fire, only to ask this. ‘What good is it to forgive a thief, release him from jail, only to allow him to go out a steal some more?’ He or she must be rehabilitated, remediated for past sin and declared fit for society again.

Far too many are  "talking the walk, but not walking the talk" these days, in my opinion. Declaring that sins have been forgiven is one thing, but it is quite another to stay that way. Imagine a woman walking into her kitchen late at night and watching the cockroaches scurry for cover. Now, imagine that same woman walking about the next morning with the bright sunlight flooding her kitchen floor and then announcing that her kitchen is free from those filthy critters. Why that's silly you say. Sure, it is. Yet this is precisely what just a whole lot of “born again” Christians do. The truth is; however, God wants to get rid of the cockroaches that loiter hidden in the dark places of our soul. Yes, we are justified, but the justified must be sanctified.

Quite frankly I see a lot of false security in teaching that once someone declares faith in Christ as their personal savior everything will be fine and dandy. That’s not what my Bible teaches me.

So, we must ask ourselves, is becoming a Christian a zap or a process? Now, do you need an answer? The answer is it is both. Standing alone neither is sufficient. We must declare outright war on the cockroaches, as it were. But, generally speaking, that takes time. 

Let me put it this way, if you don't feel you are making any spiritual progress in your life, you most probably are not. You see, God is not so interested in what you did, but who you are. That’s why He keeps nudging us along to do better, to become more Christlike, to get rid of the cockroaches that pollute our lives.

What you did has been forgiven, who you are is an entirely different matter. God is most interested in who you are, and nothing less than Christlikeness is enough.We can't scam God. He's 'unscramble.' So, we mustn’t play around with God like some child playing hide and seek, He knows precisely where we are when we visit the dark places in our lives where the cockroaches hide. There are no places hidden from God.

May God give us all the strength to persevere,

 JimR_/