Category: Standards

Why Preachers Fall

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

The higher you rise, the harder you fall. There seems to be nothing more universally revolting than the fall of a big name preacher.  The scandals of Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard all made the national news headlines.  But not every scandal gets such nationwide attention. Sadly, such falls by “men of God” are all too common.

Yesterday, I found out about one such fall that sits far too close to home for my liking.  Rodney Stewart, an evangelist who was a frequent preacher at the Bible College I attended, was recently caught in an online sex sting.  I own several cassette tapes of this man’s preaching, which always struck me as intense and radically serious. He was a great preacher who stuck close to the Biblical text in most of his messages.  Yet he was found out in his sin and now is sitting in prison awaiting his trial and sentencing.  The sad story is covered by a local news station in the Cleveland area here.

Why is it that men who are respected and hold a revered office (such as pastor, evangelist or preacher) would do such horrendous things?  Why would they be found soliciting sex online from a 15 year old? And why exactly are such failures so commonplace, as it seems?

I can’t speak for all sectors of Christianity, or for the Roman Catholic Church. I do know that sin is common to all men, that is sure.  But for conservative evangelical churches, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, there are several factors which I believe contribute to this problem.

1)  Too much emphasis on morals

This might sound crazy to some.  But an over-emphasis on morality actually encourages sin.  Moralism cannot save.  It cannot free someone of sinful urges within. Only the Gospel of grace can truly transform our hearts.

2)  An external focus

Many fundamentalist churches stress external conformity to rules and standards.  Christians need to look different, act different and dress differently than the world.  Christians need to read their Bibles, spend time evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and actively serve in their church.  All of this, people can trick themselves into thinking they can do.  And then keeping up the appearance of spirituality can in turn become a heavy burden.

3)  Little emphasis on grace

Grace, or God’s favor for undeserving sinners, is not emphasized.  God’s holiness and his high standards are.  Grace comes into play in salvation, but living the Christian life is all about effort, character, and duty. So when people struggle, there is no saving grace that can help them.  They must dust themselves off and try harder.  Often a do-it-yourself-mentality is the practical effect of an over-emphasis on externals and conformity.

4)  Failure to appreciate the Gospel

Similar to what was said above, the Gospel is seen as the 101 class for becoming a Christian.  The meat and the nitty-gritty of Christian living leaves the Gospel behind.  The Gospel is good news for the lost unbeliever, and its an assumed thing for believers.  This misunderstanding cuts off the Christian from his only sure hope.  The Gospel teaches that God accepts us not on the basis of how well we behave, but as a matter of pure grace and on account of Jesus’ death on the cross in our place.

5)  Legalism and burnout

All of this leads to a practical legalism.  Christians live as if God is not happy with them.  To please God and to truly grow in faith, one must add mountains of work to the faith that saves.  If we measure up to our own (or our group’s) expectations, if we perform, if we put out, only then are we satisfied with ourselves, and only then is God pleased with us.  When we fail in a myriad of ways, we have to struggle on alone.  This leads to burnout.  All work, no recognition of God’s love and approval, and no grace.  It’s hard struggling on in such a condition.

6)  No mutual accountability

The ethos of a legalistic church does not lend itself to mutual accountability.  Pastors rarely mention that they too struggle with sin.  If one confesses a sin, he is dealt with as a sinner. Grace isn’t proffered.  There is no benefit to opening up to others about your struggles.  You’ll be rejected, written off and then treated so differently.  For those struggling with sexual addiction, mutual accountability is balm to the soul.  Understanding that others share the same struggles and hearing others be open about their struggles to overcome the sin are key to victory.

7)  Lone Ranger Christianity

This final aspect is an American trait that has affected the church.  People think that the Christian life is something that is purely personal, and can be accomplished on their own.  The Bible stresses the role of the church and the need for brothers and sisters in the faith to encourage each other.  Often, in a high-stress environment, where a judgmental spirit is present, the communal aspects of church life are downplayed.  We get together to eat and socialize but never to discuss the impact of the Gospel on our personal lives.  This is only intensified in the life of a pastor or evangelist.  They are even more prone to the lone ranger phenomenon.  The pastor has to keep himself aloof from his congregation, it is thought.  The very thought of a pastor wanting help for struggling with his personal sins and thought life, is unheard of in many such legalistic environments.

I suppose other factors come into play, but these are certainly influential in many fundamentalist church environments.  But it isn’t only legalistic churches that can harbor such ideas about the Christian life. People can tend toward legalism in any context.

It’s so easy to cast stones at the fallen pastor.  I would hope that we could pray for him and his family, and be on guard lest the sin in our own hearts come to overcome us as well.  I certainly don’t excuse him for his crimes. however.  I just wish the system he was in would have been more grace-oriented.  But for the grace of God, I too could be consumed by my sin.

I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this, too.  Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.

John Piper on Glorifying God in Your Movie-Watching

~ Bob Hayton

Desiring God just posted John Piper’s thoughts on watching movies, from an Ask Pastor John live event from some time back. From my vantage point I see his thoughts as a helpful corrective to contemporary Christianity. When Christianity Today can publish a glowing review of the “Sex and the City” movie, something is obviously wrong. May we all take care in our entertainment choices and guard our hearts.

Here is the video clip of Pastor John answering the question. Below you’ll find the edited transcript of his answer.

Is it possible to glorify God through the enjoyment of music, movies, literature, etc. produced by secular artists?

Yes. I assume the computer you are holding there was probably not built by Christians, and I hope that you are glorifying God as you tap away at it. And of course out from there, there are a 1000 things that we use all day long, and God says, ‘whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.’ And he knows that you are eating this meat that may have been sacrificed to idols, so that means it was probably butchered by an unbeliever, or handled by an unbeliever, shipped by an unbeliever, it may have been cooked by an unbelieving cook. And here you are savoring the product of all those unbelievers’ work because you are in that moment giving thanks to God for it, recognizing that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof and taking the strength and the joy that comes from it to render back to him.

Now with the arts and with media it is more morally complex than with food. But it is the same principle. The complexity of it is, in those moments what do you do with the moral elements of it that are so contrary to your faith?

I’ll just point out one principle because we can talk about this forever. What concerns me is the distinction between entertainment and cultural analysis. To watch something, to study the culture, learn from the culture, be more able to interact with unbelievers for the sake of the glory of Christ is one thing. To just sit and bask in nudity, or bask in fifty f-words, or bask in a world view that is shot through with arrogance to the core, and enjoy it? Hmm. That seems to point to something going on in the heart. And frankly, I have tasted it big time. I think today we are going to have to work at not being shaped by the world because the world has made its world view so scintillatingly attractive.

Movie after movie after movie has come out and most young reformed people are, I would say, indiscriminate. “Let’s go to a movie tonight.” OK, and then we just choose the best. None of the movies in that theater at that night are any good, probably. But you are just going to do it, because that is what you do. You go to the movies on Friday night, or whatever. And then of course you think, we’ve got to Christianize this thing somehow.

I just think we need to test our hearts big time. Big time. Why are we able to enjoy hell bound, God ignoring, Christ dishonoring, false world views because we can give it a little twist at the end that it taught us this or that about the world? So, I think the main thing I’m saying there is, test your heart as to whether entertainment is defaulting to the world, or to something more wholesome. We live in an age where we tend to default to the world for entertainment. [Quoted from Desiring God’s post, emphasis added]

[HT: Sharper Iron’s Filings]

What’s Wrong with Bikinis?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Speaking from a male’s perspective, everything is WRONG with bikinis. They certainly don’t help a man pursue godliness in this present world. Recently, however, Nancy Wilson at the Femina blog has taken up the topic of beach wear and bikinis. She points out that emphasizing what Bible verse condemns bikinis or any other specific item of clothing is not the best perspective. What would be RIGHT about bikinis for a woman to choose to wear one? Consider her thoughts:

Let’s come at it another way. Rather than looking for the absence of evil motives, let’s look for the presence of good ones. The Bible says women should be (to list a few things) sober, discreet, chaste (Titus 2:4-5), meek and quiet (1 Peter 3:4) holy (vs. 5-6), modest, dressing with propriety and moderation (1 Timothy 2:8), characterized by faith, charity, and holiness with self-control (vs. 15). So let’s say a Christian woman is wearing a thong to the beach. She says her conscience is clear and her husband doesn’t mind and she has no impure motives at all. But that is not the same thing as having good, Christ-like motives as she puts on her thong. Is she being discreet, chaste, holy, etc.? Show me how a thong (or a bikini) is a demonstration of propriety and moderation, chastity and self-control….

We want to measure the amount of skin, the hem length, or the neckline in square inches and defend our ground based on our lack of evil motives and the lack of a Bible verse that mentions skinny dipping. But we should be looking somewhere else entirely, and that is to Christ. How does our clothing demonstrate that we belong to Him? How does it display our discretion, holiness, chastity, moderation, self-control, and meekness? When we look at it that way, we are getting closer to the truth.

And one last point. Christian women are to adorn themselves (1 Peter 3) in a manner that impresses God. But dressing to be attractive is not at all the same as dressing to attract. [read the whole post]

Nancy has two recent posts on the topic: Beach Treats and More on Beach Wear. As much as I hope women help us guys out in the fight for pure thoughts, Nancy’s thoughts on how immodest clothing affects women and reflects their heart may be even more helpful in promoting virtue in this area. With the summer heat upon us, I thought it would be good to highlight these helpful posts and encourage my readers to consider this matter more fully. [HT: Sharper Iron Filings]

The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22

~ Bob Hayton ~ 26 Comments

Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).

These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.

This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.

Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22

The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”

It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”

It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”

In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”

Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”

A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.

David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.

A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22

Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδους‚ (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.

Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:

The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.

The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]

I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.

The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)

The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σχημα.

Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind” or “species” for the word ειδος. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικος‚ meaning “one’s own” comes from the word ειδος.

The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.

Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.

Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.

If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.

Other Articles

I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.

Confusion Over Fighting Sin

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

how high is your fence?Within fundamentalism, as in other areas of Christianity no doubt, there is quite a bit of confusion over fighting sin. The thinking goes like this: if we erect a big enough fence, or hedge people in with enough rules, we will prevent them from falling into sin. Sadly, this tactic most often fails, to one degree or another.

The Former Fundys Blog recently posted some thoughts in this regard. In a post entitled What’s Wrong with Fundamentalist Pastors?, the problem of pastors running headlong into adultery is brought up. I thought the main point of the post, however, applied to more than just the fall of big name pastors. Here is an excerpt from that post that may be a help to some of my readers.

Fundamentalism has claimed to have the answers to stopping sin, by their superior standards that will keep one from sinning. Don’t go to the theater, and you won’t struggle with impure thoughts or with using foul language. Women have to dress a certain way, in order to protect men from lusting after them. Men and women can’t touch unless they are married(to one another), so they won’t fall into sexual sin. If one is a faithful soulwinner who reads/studies the Bible on a regular basis, they won’t fall into sin. I have heard “remedy” after “remedy” for stopping the presence of sin in one’s life, for keeping one away from sin by placing barriers in place to protect one from sin.

But these remedies do little to protect the very pastors who put these rules in place from sinning….

Fundamentalism misses the essence of what the Christian life is about. One is not moral because they follow rules. One is not moral because they go to church every Sunday. One is not a good Christian because they follow those rules. One is not a Christian because they follow those rules. Rule-keeping does not make a good Christian. And it does not make a good person. It is pure moralism, instead of Gospel.

The answer is in teaching the Gospel, instead of rule-keeping. Too many Fundamentalists fail to teach repentance from sins as part of the salvation process, thus watering down the Gospel to something that is more palatable to sinners. They make their Christianity easy for those who love their sin, but want fire insurance. The answer is also in desiring Christ, and desiring to live for the glory of God. So much of Fundamentalism is about keeping rules, and following a list of do’s and don’ts. But that’s not what the Christian life is about. Sure there are things that a Christian can’t do, like have sex outside the confines of marriage, or get drunk or high, or lie to others. And sure there are things that Christians need to do, like read the Bible, pray, go to church. But that is not the essence of the Christian life. Following Christ is more than not doing or doing those things. I would strongly recommend that Fundamentalists look to books written by non-Fundy authors that deal with things like sin, or living for God, because Fundamentalists don’t have the answer. Books like “Overcoming Sin and Temptation” by John Owen(the Puritan), or “Desiring God” by John Piper.

In short, such men are able to sin so gravely because they don’t understand the nature of sin, the Gospel, or the essence of the Christian life…

My response to all of this is first to point out that the post is primarily addressing the IFBx wing of fundamentalism. Not all fundamentalists that I’ve known are this bad. However, in seed form, this idea concerning sanctification is prevalent throughout fundamentalism.

The problem, as I see it, amounts to a widespread confusion over the nature of sin. It doesn’t attract us externally, the desire for sin comes from within us. We need the internal change of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Too often, Christians fail to remember that the Gospel is for them — for believers. And sadly, preaching is too often about moralism rather than the gospel.

A few of my previous posts may be of interest to those looking to dig more deeply into this topic: