Tuesday, February 25, 2025

A Ministry Training through Fire

When I was a teenager, from about the age of 11 to 18, I attended a church that met in a Christian school in my home city where we would often stay behind after Sunday morning service and play basketball, sing, eat lunch, etc, until the time of the evening service. One of those Sundays, I was sitting behind the pulpit and talking with some of the youth, and the daughter of the pastor said to me, “You should become a pastor one day.” I was about 16 or 17 years old and in no way wanted to become a pastor, having seen what her father had to go through. I proclaimed, extremely confidently, “I will NEVER become a pastor.”

I tell that story because after leaving the city in my early twenties for Bible college and seminary, and determined to never return to the city, many years later I would return and “accidently” end up becoming a pastor at the very church I proclaimed I would never be one. I say, “accidently,” because the church had moved, had completely differently people in it with a completely different name, and a completely different pastor. We just “happened” to start going to it and there just “happened” to be a split leaving open a dire need for an elder/pastor, and I just “happened” to become one, only learning afterward that this was the church of my youth.

Providence. We weren’t going to come back to my home city but we were almost forced to since our landlord across the country decided to remodel the house we were renting and made a deal with a handyman that he could live there if he fixed it up. We had no place to go but home. Having now completed my study, God sent me back to shepherd (and soon I would understand, to save) the church in which I had proclaimed I wouldn’t ever be shepherding any church.

I had just come off of a seven year rest from ministry in a Northeastern state. It was meant to be a much longer rest, a permanent one, as I did not plan on entering ministry again after my last experience, but when I came to what I would later learn was my home church, there had been a massive split in the church where most of the people had left. The rest of the church was in shambles. The pastor was a wreck and teaching all sorts of false teaching: antinomianism, new covenant theology, an almost full preterism with just a little room for an end time, a permissive doctrine of divorce and remarriage, a hedonistic view of sex, not to mention many other lesser doctrinal errors that many would not consider reformed. The people were in failing marriages where he was counseling them to get a divorce, adultery, and just a general state of superficial Christianity in terms of their spiritual maturity. In terms of their theology, there was such a permissive atmosphere that there were vocal advocates of full preterism, hypercalvinism, and outright rejections of penal substitution in favor of a liberation theology of the scapegoat theory when it came to the cross (i.e., a French liberation theory where Christ died to show that the scapegoats that men needed to satisfy their bloodthirst was wrong and that God doesn’t need or want a scapegoat to forgive men’s sin). They even had a self proclaimed unredeemed pedophile who had to be continually watched and propositioned one of the men in the congregation when I began attending in those early days.

There was a general atmosphere of darkness in the church and the pastor had led it there, so when a choice was set before me to go into the ministry again and to become an elder there, even with my chronic illness, I decided I could not just walk on by and turn away. So I made sure that the pastor was aware that I was chronically ill, something he had already come to know anyway, but told him that I would likely not be there a lot because of it. To which he answered, “We’ll take you when we can get you.” Because he said this, it was the final okay I needed to enter into the pastorate of the church.

One of the things that confirmed to me that God wanted me to be here and to take upon the position was that only after we had been coming to the church for some time did I realize that it was the church of my teen years. The fact that, after all of my travel across the country, all of the education to become a professor, and after all of the places I could have ended up, God had me become a pastor in the very church in which I declared I would not become one in order to revive it from the grave this other man had buried it in. Through blood, sweat and tears, many hours and sacrifices of time, energy, and family, the Lord resurrected it through me. I say this because the irony is that I will be later slandered from trying to steal the ministry from this other pastor as though the church I had revived resembled in any way the church he had killed.

My ministry was filled with correcting all of these dark things he had brought into the church or allowed to be brought in. Countless hours of teaching, both publicly and in private, counseling and debate, slowly brough the church out of the chaos. As usual, many rebellious people who were not used to being corrected in their sin left because they hated the new atmosphere that was not as permissive. If someone was going to hold to full preterism, he was going to be refuted. One family wanted to stop any church discipline from being done toward their son because they were hypercalvinists who believed there was nothing we could do but wait to see what God would do, since no one can make anyone repent but God (I got chewed out by the pastor for merely stating that he would need to be put on church discipline for it). Regardless of his opposition, that wasn’t going to fly anymore. Slowly and surely, through many of the heretics either changing their minds or leaving in offense, the church, at least externally, became a healthier environment.

But as I would learn, it was far from it on the inside. On the inside, I had learned that the pastor had let one of his sons bring over his girlfriend to the house and fornicate with her. When it was brought to his attention by his other son, that son was told to hush up about it. I then learned that the other son was in an adulterous affair with the wife of a couple who had been good friends with the pastor and his wife. This was kept from me and my other fellow elder until the husband called me and told me that this was going on behind our backs. It was first explained that the pastor wanted to bring us in but was forbidden by the woman who threatened to commit suicide if they said anything. I later would learn from their own mouths and a meeting we had between everyone that in reality, the pastor and his wife had participated in the adultery each in their own way. The wife of the pastor, who was best friends with the adulteress woman, had encouraged the affair from the get go and was trying to set the husband up with another woman so that her son could have his wife. Apparently, she was also going out with her and trying to get her to go into bars with her in order to flirt with men and see what happens. This all came out at the meeting. Likewise, the pastor had participated by hanging out with his son and the man’s wife and suggesting that since they seem to like one another so much maybe they could get alimony from the man so that he could financially support them and they could be together that way since the son didn’t have much of an income and neither did she. He said he would marry them secretly so that the state would continue to make the husband pay alimony so that she and his son could live comfortably together. They were going out to restaurants with them on a sort of double date, on trips to their hometown, and hanging out. At no time was she encouraged to reconcile with her husband but was rather instructed on good divorce attorneys she might utilize. The woman reported that the pastor was smoking marijuana one time while she was crying over everything and he rebuked her because she was ruining his buzz. I was so sick to hear all of this cold betrayal and then when the man asked for an apology from the pastor for suggesting such a thing, the pastor snarked back with what is probably the worst apology of all time, “I’m s-o-r-r-y. I was trying to find a way to be with MY son.” It was said in a tone of offense as though to say, How dare you question me! The pastor had even threatened the husband (after also threatening him physically by getting in his face and saying very hostilely that “you and I are going to have a problem”) to not spill all of the information he apparently had on them or he could tell the job he worked for that this all had made him seriously depressed and could get him fired, something he had confided in the pastor but was now being used as a manipulative tool since it could get him fired. And that was my first lesson of that night. That these two people, the pastor and his wife, were likely Christians in persona only and were highly manipulative. In fact, by the end of the night, the wife of the pastor had the husband who was defrauded by her son apologizing to her, as she threw a crying fit saying how she was just trying to help him out when she was trying to set him up with other women, one of which the husband said was herself, as she would come over his house alone in lowcut clothing with wine in hand. This crying fit came after leaving the meeting, going back and strategizing in the car, and then coming back into the meeting, something this couple did a few times. Looking back on it, even though tensions eventually died down, I now realize that there was absolutely no repentance on the part of these people, and the couple later confirmed that there was in fact none. They only cared whether we would take them out of ministry for it. I was in such a whirlwind of the bomb just dropped on me, my default was to be merciful, thinking because tensions died down that somehow repentance was there when in reality it wasn’t, and that maybe this was just a horrible one-off mistake, a really really bad mistake that I’ve never heard of anyone else in ministry making before, but sadly I didn’t know if this was disqualifying at the time if there was repentance, a decision I would later regret and realize was completely in error. The other elder just followed my lead, again, regretfully. It is to my eternal shame that I did not immediately remove them from the ministry and place them on church discipline, something I should have done time and again throughout the next ten years since.

Over the course of the next few years, other signs that this was not a one-off egregious sin came up. The son that had been in the adulterous affair would continually do the same with other women, although some officially divorced or separated (I do not know which) and the son who slept with his girlfriend in the pastor’s house was now moved out and sleeping with his girlfriend that he lived with. During these periods, the pastor continued to have full relationships with his sons, knowing that it disqualified him from ministry. They only resolved themselves as time went on and they each found more acceptable relationships (more on that later), but not because there had ever been any genuine repentance.

In the midst of all of this I would hear from multiple witnesses that they would go over to the pastor and his wife’s home to watch movies and TV shows like Game of Thrones that contained naked women and explicit sex scenes in them. During that time, many people were making the argument that such doesn’t really affect them nor did they necessarily believe it was wrong to do these things. Licentiousness seemed to abound along with drinking, as it was reported to me by more than one witness that the pastor had become drunk on more than one occasion throughout the time I was doing ministry with him. He had called me a couple times where he sounded quite drunk but if not for these other witnesses that would never have been confirmed.

On top of all of this, I started having multiple people come to me to tell me that the pastor’s wife and son were horribly slandering me and my family. This occurred around the time that I started to take a salary as a pastor after serving the church with no salary for a few years. My family had been dirt poor due to my illness, but the church was unable to support us, so I labored for the first few years just as hard as any paid pastor without any compensation because I cared about the people and still thought I would be able to save them from this nightmare of church leadership. It only became possible for the church to pay me once we sold a building. But it was told to a women’s group that the pastor’s wife thought all of that money should be theirs. I imagine she wanted her husband to come out on top both financially in case there was a split so she needed to mold me into a villain and him into a victim. This slander went on and on until the day of the church split ten years later. Every time someone would come into the church, they would be excited to study the Bible and learn Christianity and then suddenly I would see them again (or not, as many didn’t want to go to a church with me being such a horrible person) and the air would be so thick with tension I could tell that they had been with at least one member of the pastor’s family. Whether he knew it or not during those earlier days, I believe that he full well did, it benefited him because a faction began to grow between us in the church. My teaching was transforming lives. His teaching had killed everyone. Marriages were being saved under me whereas marriages had been counseled to dissolve under him. His preaching was void of the Spirit and those who had been enlivened by the Spirit knew it. I said none of this to congregation or even my closest confidants for fear that I or my wife would turn into what this pastor and his wife had become. I kept my mouth shut and hoped that God would still save and transform whomever He wished within the congregation despite the evil that lurked there through the pastor and his family.

In the midst of all of this, from the time I first knew them, they seemed to have a lot of financial need, or at least presented themselves that way. I cannot speak to the illness of his wife that was reported to the church and made front and center when asking others for money, but regardless of the reason, there seemed to be no shortage of people who were asked for money. I remember our deacons being offended because they were presenting themselves as not being paid enough when they were being paid a small fortune for just two people. We had the same salary to show that we were equals and not to be seen as a hierarchy by the laity even though my family was made up of 11 people. They demanded to live in luxury and did not want to move when they claimed to not have enough so I agreed to up our salaries going up each month to cover what they “needed.” He would charge the cc to pay for meals that were not authorized, ask to be reimbursed when they had to buy food for fellowships (something we paid for as a poor family out of our own pockets), and ask the church for thousands of dollars to supposedly pay for credit cards right around the time of his son’s wedding.  I realize now that their presentation of themselves as economically upper class would be used against us later on, as we were still living under the poverty line with the same salary with an 11 member family, and we would be presented as the gross poor and unsuccessful family as one of the many ways to slander us.

As time went on, the pastor’s son that had been in adultery found a woman he wanted to marry and it came out that he had been married before. It kicked up a lot of dust to where I was lied to by the pastor’s wife (she had presented the girl as coming in one night and on a whim just getting her son to marry her when I had been on the girl’s facebook account a week before and saw a picture of the pastor, his wife, their son, and the girl all dressed up and going out somewhere a month before they got married). Her own sister reported that she had a problem lying and did it quite a bit so I actually expected it at the meeting. Most in the church held the permanence view I had taught them by this time and would have seen as partaking in a marriage like this as participating in adultery if they attended the ceremony or remained on good terms with their son. So this was hidden from the church until it was revealed by the sister of the pastor’s wife. I was able to resolve the issue (once again, working it out rather than repentance occurring) with a biblical understanding that since the guardians of the girl did not agree to the marriage and broke it up, it was illegitimate. The pastor said he simply forgot his son had been married before. About a year or two after they were married, we found out that the new girl he married had been married before, so that everyone involved was led into the communal sin of adultery much like the sin of Achan in the Book of Joshua. Whether the pastor, who was also the one who counseled them for marriage or his wife, knew or not is unknown.

Some time before this, my eldest son had come to me expressing that he was lonely and really wanted friends. As many who homeschool know, it can be hard for the kids if there are not a lot of kids their age in the church. We prayed together about it and some of the young adults in the church started to invite him out. Unfortunately, this group ended up turning into just hanging out at the pastor’s house most nights and it was there that my son turned from being in submission to me to being told that his views concerning leaving the household and becoming his own man before I thought he was ready to leave the household were right and mine were wrong. Coupled with the constant derision I would get from the household, my son developed such a rebellious attitude toward me that it caused a horrible division in our family and not long after my son left my household. He has since realized that he was given evil advice and used by them but the damage was done. Ironically, he would be used as an example of why I was not a good father. After all, I have a rebellious son because I must have been too strict and overbearing. It couldn’t have been because he was poisoned against me or anything by a household who had been slandering me for the past half of decade before he got there of course. BTW, I have eight other children, seven sons and one daughter, who are all in loving submission to me, and of whom I am very proud as they excel in their godly character in the hidden person that the world does not admire and in their pursuit of Christ.

But my children were attacked because they were not up to the standards of the upper classes, or those who thought themselves as such, within the congregation (again, a slander largely started and perpetuated by this family). All the while, his sons had gone on further to other debaucheries. His one son had lied that he had become a Christian in order to get a girl in the church. Then he was sleeping with that girl in the pastors house (yes, another one), all the while courting other girls with his parents help in other parts of the country. His other son was attending a heretical church and was rebuked for it but did not repent, again, until it all worked out and they had to move away. The one son finally married the girl he was sleeping with in his father and mother’s house and he seems to have become a Christian, although the last I heard the slander of me and my family continued on even after he had admitted to me that he was doing it and supposedly repented of it.

Within all of this, I was made to play bad cop whenever there was a disciplinary issue at hand. I was the one the pastor wanted to go talk to this person or that person when there needed to be a correction. I had to deliver the bad news that they would be put on church discipline. I was made out to be the mean one, the legalistic one, the tyrant. Indeed, I am a strict father when it comes to rebellion and unrepentant sin but I am also a loving one with a lot of mercy (as you can see from this very testimony, probably too much mercy to a fault), but that wasn’t the narrative that benefited this other family. Of course, my preaching style is like the Billy Graham of the 1950s and his was of the Billy Graham of the 1990s, so it fed into this idea that I was a harsh judge. If anything, I was more like Paul in that I was weighty in my medium of communication but personally much softer, unless someone was in rebellion. So he painted a picture of himself as the loving and nurturing pastor, even though I don’t think he actually cared that much about most of the congregation. He always had small groups of young men he hung around and who he really cared about and probably who actually controlled the church (along with his wife who imposed herself into every conversation and meeting of the elders of course until we banned her from the official meetings at least). The irony is that he had a horrible temper and would throw fits and tantrums whenever the elders made a decision he didn’t like. If I were to sum up his demeanor in a sentence, it would be that he was agreeable with what he agreed with, tolerant of what he didn’t care about, and insufferable when it came to anything he didn’t like.

In the midst of all of this going on, the pastor had turned from being receptive to what I taught to constant opposition, undermining what I said in secret, mocking what I would teach sometimes, telling others he did not agree, etc. So as I pulled one way, he pulled the other. He would create factions of people and his family would stir them up against me, all “knowing” the same false information about me even though none of them had spent five minutes with me. If anyone came to him offended by something, he would side with them and agree with them that I was in the wrong and that he did not agree. It was incredibly difficult to pull the congregation out of the mire when they were being told by one of the pastors that the mire was just fine. Some of this may have been due to a lack of biblical qualification in terms of scholarship. He was clearly educated by a seminary that saw pastors as different than scholars and so trained their pastors to be “pastoral” which I would define as relational rather than to be able to do any serious work in the original text or the real difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Much of my ministry early on was to teach exegesis and correct a lot of the errors he had made in bringing the church into some of the errors mentioned at the beginning of this testimony. Some of it was just because he didn’t like it and it went against what he wanted to do in his own life (much of it having to do with sexuality) or what he was brought up to believe in fundamentalism (literal Genesis creation days or that Daniel was written in the Sixth century). The latter wasn’t a big deal to me, as I didn’t really care, but the former issues were of a much greater importance and so I fought for those.

He would often call me and chew me out for teaching what he did not agree with but then go on to teach whatever he wished without consulting me. He called me one time to tell me that he was resenting me because I had too much influence in the church and eventually it got to the point that I could not say two words without him cutting me off and showing his disgust for me. It reminded me of the girl at school who got all of the attention until a prettier girl walked in and started getting it. The disgust and envy oozed out from him and it was vile. He would proclaim with his lips that he loved me and my family because that’s what he knew he should say, but his actions and disdain were clear to everyone who met with us in our leadership meetings. He would always remind me how much everyone hated me. It got to the point that there was almost not a single time he saw me that he didn’t have a story about someone who didn’t like me and he would let me know it.

It became very clear that he had started to see himself as the supreme authority, the head pastor, rather than an equal elder, and he wanted the congregation to see him that way as well. He did not like to give up the pulpit and even if he was away a lot (and he was) he would make sure he was back in time to fill the pulpit on Sunday morning. So while I would be on the phone with people from morning to midnight every day during the week, often not even able to eat anything because I had little to no breaks in between to do so, he and his family made himself out to be the martyr, the victim of some sick guy who was just collecting a salary while he did all of the work. When it was suggested he give the pulpit more often to another elder, he refused to do so. He knew that his age and being in the pulpit would manipulate the people into believing a falsehood. They would see him as senior pastor and the one in authority even though our church had always taught the equality of the elders and the authority of elder majority. He even took people off church discipline one time without consulting the other elders—a decision made without the two or three—and I did not agree that they should be.

This would turn out to be beneficial for him as I had gotten violently ill when Covid hit and even though our church went online for about six months or so, and I did the bulk of the teaching and ministry through it, I was not able to be present on Sunday mornings for about four years. So I continued the online ministry and counseled and held meetings and dinners and Bible studies from my home. During that time I held on because I did not want to give this church back into the hands of this man and his family. I deeply loved these people and did not want to abandon them or my family to a fate I knew would take place if I gave up my position. So even though he wanted me out, he did not have consent from the rest of the leadership and so I stayed on even though it was all causing me tons of anxiety and likely giving me a really bad case of PTSD. It was worth it to me to save the church from the darkness. And I knew if I left that would be all that was left. The other elder would be easily outvoted or discouraged so that he would quit too and then the church would completely fall into the abyss. To abandon the people I loved was a worse option for me than having health and peace.

He typically ignored the biblical qualifications for ministry and put in whomever he liked. So since he liked a lot of the young guys, he would put a bunch of young guys in ministry positions, many of whom were rebellious and later either became churchless or apostatized against Christianity altogether. This was a constant throughout the time I knew him. Partiality and nepotism were the words that ruled the day. Even if not put in official positions of power, he would primarily consult his wife and unqualified young men, including his immature son, about spiritual matters above the elders. I should say that I think this is the worst of his sins even though most will see it as minor due to the state of the American church today and how it picks its leadership but I knew if I left, it would subject the congregation to unqualified men under a disqualified man, and I could not just turn away and let this happen no matter how much pressure was poured on me and how much I was presented as a bad guy for hanging on.

Finally, this led to a coup where he secretly met with a deacon and launched a campaign to coerce the family members of the church to leave and start a new church under a particular denomination. This was when the slander was elevated to a massive level. Anything and everything was said by them to “win over” congregants. They began giving reward certificates and gifts and very visibly praying with people in the assembly so that all could see (we didn’t usually display all of these things in such a show and I thought people would see through this narcissistic love-bombing, but I was wrong). In the mean time, I and the other elder were left in the dark to what was happening but it became clear when the pastor began to preach against me from the pulpit, insinuating that I was arrogant because I would tell people that I knew what the Bible said and could help them understand it. This was a five or six week long series against me, but he never mentioned my name. It was simply clear to everyone who was in the know and afterward when asked if that is what he was doing by my fellow elder, he admitted it. He then preached a sermon acting like the reason we were agreeably splitting was over a ministerial difference when it was actually his deep seated hatred toward a minister that had given nothing but far too much mercy and had done nothing but good to him and his family the entirety of the ministry. I found some comfort, ironically, in a book published by his cousin, where his cousin had become an atheist and lists in his very famous book that one of the three reasons for becoming an atheist was this very pastor and his wife (they were both mentioned explicitly in his book but he made sure to list the wife’s full previous and current name, telling me that she was heavily involved). What he did with his cousin was to slander him to the rest of the congregation as one who was trying to take his power from him as a pastor and so this pastor and his wife turned people who had previously loved his cousin into people who hated him. He notes that they took away the illusion from him that a Christian community was a loving one. After splitting the church, the pastor and his wife left only to do the same thing to me at another church.

Eventually liars believe their own lies. If you tell enough people that someone is a villain then you either have to admit you’re the villainous slanderer or you have to make every reason to believe it yourself. It is an irony that I had such mercy on this family so as to counsel them in their many egregious sins, and that they didn’t think that any of their utter wickedness toward God and the congregation was what threatened the congregation. Instead, they fabricated this narrative in their minds that it was me, as a tyrant, who was the villain because I was trying to pull them and the congregation out of their sins. No deed goes unpunished and this testimony will likely go unbelieved or dismissed as unweighty until the Lord brings us all before Him in judgment. So be it. Come, Lord Jesus!

So when he and his family began making arguments that I wasn’t qualified to be a pastor because I was either too harsh when I taught or rebuked someone, or wasn’t there on Sunday morning (which I was beginning to rectify btw after starting to get better), or my house wasn’t of museum quality, you can imagine the absurdity I thought of it all since this family was actually disqualified by things God considers actual sins but they were trying to disqualify me for superficial reasons that were not sin, not to mention that it was a complete 180 on “we’ll take you when we can get you,” and that after working my butt off beyond measure, it was presented that I wasn’t doing my part of the ministry (this guy took more vacation and family time than any other pastor I have ever known, but he made sure he was back for most pulpit shows on Sunday morning). I don’t think most pastors worked as hard as I did. I certainly never worked that hard in ministry before when I was healthy nor even after the split, which finally left us with largely a peaceful, submissively loving, and uneventful church. I’ve even started writing more books because I feel like I don’t do anything near as much as I did in that ministry. Irony is simply all over this thing.

On top of this, he had family members tell me that he was looking to run off to other churches throughout the ministry if he could get the church’s money and another church would hire him (which would actually show how little he cares about the people). He contemplated leaving on the phone with me before and has tried this coup before with other people so I know there is truth in this claim. Even after this recent split, I'm told he was contemplating leaving the people behind to move up with the in-group in the church.

He was accused and suspected of many other things by some people but unlike him, I would always shut them down if they had no reliable witnesses.

If I have learned one thing about others among the many personal things that I needed to change about myself, I would have to say regretfully that people are easily manipulated by people of low moral character because only people of low moral character seek to manipulate them and are good at it.

What I learned about myself is that my desire for God to be merciful to me often gets in the way of my enacting justice, and thus, distorting the character of God to people because I want to show them mercy when it would actually be unjust to do so. Ironically, and it is a huge irony, is that I was painted as a tyrant and a cult-leader, but if anyone slandered me personally (and there were many largely because there were many influenced by this family) I never put them on discipline. I just chalked it up to immaturity and turned the other cheek. But I realize now that in letting the slanderers in this family go, I hurt the church. I let these clouds without rain corrupt and take over the church by doing nothing about their very now documentable evils. Although I truly was guarding it by holding on and not resigning as I was constantly pressured to do by this pastor because I thought I provided a shield and the balance from God’s judgment, I ended up destroying it anyway because I did not follow what I now see as the clear instructions of God to remove anyone who even commits one of the egregious sins above much less all of them.

I have two roads before me that I now contemplate the future. I’m thinking of stepping down because looking back now all of this is due to my colossal failure to rid the church of these charlatans. Perhaps it was the arrogance in me that thought I could redeem even them with the Word of God. I did truly believe that I could and it looked like I was for a time, but I failed in the end. My other path is to take what I’ve learned and to truly repent and never let this happen again, and to encourage my fellow elder and one day elders to never let it happen, even if it is with me. To be merciful to the wicked is to be burdensome to the righteous. Honestly, I could go either way right now. If I’m really honest, I feel the weight of the guilt on me and because of my willingness to be a “martyr” and just take all the slander on the cheek, and because I only really knew of the one other sin of their son’s adultery that happened toward the beginning of the ministry for most of my most of my ministry, the majority of the church I tried so hard to save fell back into the darkness of this man’s leadership. For this reason, you may think that the pastor and his wife are the villains here, but unfortunately, I must come to grips with the fact that I am because I had the responsibility to rid the church of this evil and did not do it. And this is what I struggle with the most. I really thought at the time that mercy was to triumph over judgment because of the problem that most pastors have in trying to figure out when someone is merely ignorant and immature and when someone is rebellious. Coupled with confusing qualifications for ministry and forgiveness, this led to a really bad decision on my part to let him continue in ministry.

I can only give nothing but praise and admiration for a young elder that God sent in my place and because of my failure, he did what I could not do by giving this corrupt man the ultimatum that either he leaves the church or he stays and we take him out of ministry. Unfortunately, the bulk of the church went with him but that may be a sign of their judgment too, as I heard many reasons for why they went with him and not one was because they believed the Word of God taught by him was powerfully transforming them into the image of Christ. They went with him for convenience, to maintain friendships, to become a part of a denomination they wanted to be a part of, because they liked him, because they knew him a long time, etc. None of them submitted to the actual authority of Christ through the church which is through the majority of elders, not through some pastor to whom they gave authority because he stood by a wood box up front on a particular day of the week. That’s for them to reconcile to Christ on the day of judgment and not everyone may be as equally culpable depending on how just they acted in all of this.

In Revelation 2, Christ speaks of a Jezebel that had taken over the church and swayed many within it to partake in corrupt doctrines and practices. I’m reminded of the scene in Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, where the Puritans had a law that refused to take testimony from a whore. It was because whores were seen as having demons and as liars by nature. It is interesting that Jezebel here is described as a whore who brings others into the lies belonging to whoredom. At one point in the play, John Proctor proclaims to the court, “You are pulling heaven down and raising up a whore!” What the court should have done is dismiss any testimony from the whore as lies and damnable lies, but it persisted in receiving her testimony, and because it did, the innocent suffered. I am ashamed to have not silenced the whore. I wish I was John Proctor in this story, even after his sin of adultery he regains his integrity and resolve, but I’m the gullible and unjust court instead, and as such, am not able to throw my hat in with the innocent and pretend that I am as pure as God’s fingers for letting this go on. I’ve often wondered at the horrific scene of these people standing before Christ and answering for all of these crimes on judgment day. But now I ponder my own judgment and worry more about myself than others.

I could bring up that I didn’t have any real power in the congregation and so could not take them out because people follow who they like, not who has authority by divine rite. It would simply have been me leaving the church and leaving behind people that needed my help.  I could argue that I wanted to save this pastor and his family too and was waiting patiently for God to turn them around, and genuinely thought that He was. I could argue that I didn’t think I was supposed to remove them because all things seemed like they were reconciled and worked out, so I had no more reason to give to the congregation for their removal and they were learning and growing earlier on and so it looked like the right decision at the time. After all, if God had forgiven them it would be wrong, so I thought, to then remove them for a sin of which they were no longer guilty in the eyes of God. All of these would be a true testimony for how I thought at the time, but in the end it doesn’t matter because I should have known and done what was right in God’s eyes and not in my own. I should have had a better understanding of what I was supposed to do. I was the Bible scholar and yet didn’t understand the Bible on such a pivotal point. I had always struggled in figuring out what constituted repentance. Is it just a confession? Is it a long term removal of the sin? Is it regret and hatred for the sin that causes one to turn away from it even if only for a few moments? I’m sad to say, I think I’ve just now figured it out. Because of this, good intentions or not, I acted foolishly in the matter, and am now ashamed by it, and that is a very jagged pill to swallow.

Authority carries so much responsibility. Fools fight for it. The arrogant steal it. The wise only take hold of it with trembling hands because they must. But woe to me that I took it. Whether fool, arrogant, or wise, I failed nonetheless and I will forever regret it.

It seems clear to me now that my primary mistake was confusing forgiveness and qualification for ministry. Everyone who repents (and again I don’t believe they ever did of any of this) has forgiveness, but not everyone is qualified to be a pastor. Anyone can be restored to the church, but some people should never be restored to the pastorate. That may include even me, and I’m left weighing these things for my own future and the future of the church.

I wish I could go back now and warn the young 19 Year-Old to not enter ministry before he was 50. I wish I knew then what I know now. Nothing would have been easier but what I was to do would have been clearer. I would have stayed in seminary for thirty years and just soaked up the Bible without becoming a teacher until I understood it fully. But I know that’s not how it works. It’s through failures that come from ignorance, stubbornness to do it our way, and even sin that God causes us to look again and see where we have so greatly erred. The church is seminary. I just wish someone else had gone through this to learn the lessons these regrets have taught and passed them onto me. But I can’t go back, so it’s me. Whether I stay in ministry or not, I will forever warn those going into it and who are already in it to get this one right because if you get everything else right but this it will devastate the church.

Maybe I shouldn’t have gotten into ministry again. There is a scene in one of the Spiderman movies, cheesy as they may be, that always affected me emotionally. Peter decides that he just wants to live a normal life and not be Spiderman anymore. One day, he passes by an alley where a man is being beaten up and robbed, he stops for a moment but then just passes on by and lets it happen. I often wonder if it would have been better if I just kept walking. I don’t tell anyone this but I was actually offered a lot of ministry jobs after I was fired from my previous one. I simply turned them all down. My pastor at the OPC church we went to afterward was so relieved that had another minister there who could take some preaching off of his hands and give him a break for a while, to which I replied, “I’m sorry. I just don’t do that anymore.” But when I saw them scattered like sheep that had been massacred across a field I could not walk by. Surely, God brought me back here to deliver the church from this chaos, and although He did deliver many from it, I obviously failed to do it in a manner that was swift and decisive. Maybe it wasn’t my place to intervene. Maybe someone better would have come. It’s all so uncertain. I just don’t know. Either way, may the Lord forgive me for what I have done incorrectly and what I have failed to do correctly and may He now and forever grant peace and mercy to those in the church who followed Him by faith despite the mess that men have made of the church.

Monday, February 24, 2025

The Already-Not Yet and the Actual Message of the Book of Acts

 In Acts 1:6-11, Luke lays out for the reader a foreshadowing of the message he will present in the rest of the book, namely, that the kingdom will not be restored to Israel until all Israel is restored, and this includes both Jew and Gentile that must be gathered into the one body of Israel first.

       So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

As we have seen in Daniel, Luke here expands on this theology by indicating the already-not yet nature of the kingdom. First, the disciples ask when Christ will restore the kingdom to Israel, which tells us that this is the subject with which the book will concern itself. Second, the fact that the new era of the new covenant has come is signified by the coming of the Spirit of God, and that the disciples are not merely to testify of Christ and to disciple Israel alone, but rather to go as far as the ends of the earth, which indicates that Gentiles will be brought under the Davidic throne and become Israel as well (something the book will indicate time and again throughout). Third, the Son of Man imagery in Daniel, where Christ is lifted up in the clouds to the Ancient of Days in order to receive the kingdom exists here in Acts in two stages rather than the singular one in Daniel. In Daniel, the reception of the kingdom from the Father when the Son of Man goes up in the cloud is parallel to the Son of Man coming and destroying all other nations, including the persecutor of Israel. Luke, however, has split the event in two. The first is a reception of the kingdom in Christ’s exaltation depicted as His riding upon the cloud to be seated at the right hand of the Father and claim not only God’s sovereign throne but also the mediatorial throne of Israel as the descendent of David.

Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” ’

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:29-36)

Sitting at God’s right hand is parallel to receiving all rule and authority, i.e., God’s cosmic, sovereign authority that he has always had but has now been given to Christ as a reward.

These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand over the invisible realms, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Eph 1:19-23).

Notice that being seated at the right hand of God is parallel to being exceedingly above, i.e., cosmically seated above, “all rule and authority and power and dominion, every name that is named both in this age and in the one to come.” So all things are in subjection to him in the sovereign rule sense but he is head over the church, which Paul calls the commonwealth/citizenry of Israel in Ephesians 2:12-22.

 But this is a position above all rule and authority, not the abolishment of it, as one reads of in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11-12. As Paul continues argues in the passage that follows 1:19-23, the ruler of the present age is “the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Eph 2:2), who is most-likely “the devil” and “the evil one” Paul identifies in 6:11 and 16. In Ephesians 6:12, Paul presents these wicked rulers and forces as still ruling the current world.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the invisible realms.

Likewise, both Paul and John present Satan as being both the god of this age (2 Cor 4:4) and the one who has ruling and conquering authority to give to not only the nations but to the most powerful nation ruling an empire, i.e., Rome (Rev 12-13).

Christ is said to rule until the time all his enemies are placed as a footstool under his feet, an ancient Near Eastern and biblical phrase that refers to the conquering and abolishment of a rival authority. In Pauline theology, this occurs at the time of Christ’s return, which is parallel to the resurrection of saints in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28.

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται. Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν. δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι οὗ θῇ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς* ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος· πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ °ὅτι πάντα ὑποτέτακται, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε °[καὶ] αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα,* ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς °1[τὰ] πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until the time which He is going to put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.  For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

The already-not yet is seen in this verse as Paul states . Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ “But each one in their own order: Christ as firstfruits then those who belong to Christ at his Parousia/coming.” Paul states that it is at this time that the end has come when he says εἶτα τὸ τέλος “then comes the end.” The word ὅταν “when” “at which time” in the phrase ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν refers to τὸ τέλος. It is at that same time of the end, which is also the same time of the resurrection of those who belong to Christ, that Christ will καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν “abolish all rule and all authority and power.” Paul then says that this is why he is reigning. His reign is not a result of having put all of his enemies under his feet as though he rules their mediatorial positions now, but rather it is a intermediate cosmic reign where he sits in God’s position and orchestrates the salvation of Israel, i.e., his nation, the church. When that is completed, he will hand that cosmic throne back to the Father and return at his Parousia to expand the throne of David to the ends of the earth by abolishing all of the enemies of Israel/the church that have authority over it, including death.

So the already-not yet understanding of Pauline theology is echoed here in Acts, where Christ has ascended to save Israel, not to overthrow the Roman Empire yet, as Christ’s work of abolishing the world’s rulers in the invisible realm is at his return in the clouds, and since these rulers choose whomever they wish to rule, they will continue to put wicked men upon the throne even as Christ gathers from the nations his kingdom, the kingdom of God manifest mediatorially through Israel/the church.

Luke will argue in the book that Israel is made up, not merely of Jews, but anyone, Jew or Gentile, who believe and receive the Holy Spirit. The original question the apostles ask, therefore, should be understood as their inability to see the already-not yet plan of God at the beginning of the book and by the end of the book have been enlightened as to God’s plan, which is a plan that not only incorporates both Jews and Gentiles, i.e., all who repent and believe into Israel, but logically, therefore, must take a lot of time between his ascension and Parousia in order to first gather Israel from the nations before the day he has set to judge the world (Acts 17:30-31; 28:20, 28).

Hence, the reason for Christ's first ascension is given in Acts 5.

ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ °[τοῦ] δοῦναι μετάνοιαν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον °ὃ ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ

The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you violently murdered by hanging him on a beam of wood. This man God exalted to the position of Royal Founder and Savior at His right hand in order to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:30-32)

So the reason for Christ's exaltation is in order to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel, not abolish authorities or take over the physical world yet. That will be the second coming, not the first. Hence, the church's mission is gospel-centric as it looks for the members of Israel as they make disciples of people within the nations (Matt 28:18-20).

Monday, February 17, 2025

Does the Bible Condemn Polygamy/Polygyny?

 Yes.

Christ condemns it. His condemnation of divorce and remarriage is a condemnation of having more than one woman and a woman having more than one man. If what he says in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16 does not make having more than one woman unlawful then not only is divorce and remarriage permitted, so is polygamy, polygyny, prostitution, lusting after virgins, pornography as long as it doesn't involve married women, promiscuity before marriage, etc. 

This is why Jesus is not just condemning divorce and remarriage but rather that a man cannot have more than one woman, and therefore, he cannot be remarried to another person while his wife lives. 

This is why the elder or deacon who is to have a mature Christian character is to be a "one woman man."

It is why Paul says that because of sexual immorality, "each man is to have his own wife" (singular) and each "woman is to have her own husband," meaning that he is not shared with any other woman in the same way that a man having his own wife means that she is not to be shared with any other man.

Christ argues that God did not press this upon people in the old covenant because men were stubborn (i.e., the mind was set on being polyamorous), but this is not what God intended. Instead, He tells us that God made them male and female and made the two become one flesh. They, the two, are now one flesh. He quotes the LXX translation here that makes explicit the implicature of the text of Genesis 2, i.e., that there are only two becoming one and are therefore one flesh that cannot be divided. Any addition to this one flesh union, Jesus says, is adultery. Hence, He expands the adultery law, which originally only involved a married woman, to any man who joins himself to another woman while he is one flesh with his wife.

The NT is very clear. What messes people up is that they see that the OT does not condemn polygamy and presents God as even using it as a means of blessing, and therefore, in their minds, God must approve of polygamy.

The problem with this sort of reasoning is that God uses lots of less than ideal practices to bless His people. This is a part of OT theology that shows that although humans are flawed, God still blesses them. There is no law against polygamy in the OT, and hence, marrying multiply wives is not seen as contrary to God's revealed righteousness. The same goes for prostitution and divorce. God blesses Judah and eventually the whole world through the Messiah that would come about eventually through Tamar's prostitution. Certainly, God will bless through what he did not explicitly condemn because He will bless His people even when explicitly condemned evil is done.

God gives Lot children through his daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him (something that gets the death penalty in the law). God blesses the brothers of Joseph and saves them from famine through their evil act of kidnapping and selling him into slavery (something that also gets the death penalty) penalty in the law).

Instead, even in the OT, there are texts that lean toward monogamy on top of the Genesis 2 text. Job 31:31 states that God has made a covenant with his eyes to not look upon a virgin in lust. This is likely what Christ is alluding to in Matthew 5, i.e., a married man lusting after any other woman, not just looking with lust at a married woman (as some polygamists will argue). Throughout Genesis and the OT, polygamy is presented in literary texts as hindrances to preserving God's covenant children. Likewise, Malachi 2 indicates that God desires the foreign women they divorced their wives to marry is an evil, but one might ask why they divorced their wives to marry another woman if they could have just multiplied wives. Now, of course, there may be many reasons for it, but all of these texts were used by Second Temple Judaism to argue for monogamy and God uses this to bring them into a place where they can finally be told that man cannot have more than one woman while both are living due to the one flesh union created by the two being put together by God in marriage. 

Hence, even in the OT, polygamy is not only not commanded, it is viewed as a bad thing even if it is not viewed as doing evil in the OT.

I could also argue that if the one flesh union is the way God sees marriage, and Lesbianism is evil, then to join oneself to a man who is one with a wife is to also join with the wife. This is the logic of the Levitical laws concerning incest in Chapter 18. One cannot join himself to his father's wife, not just because it is adultery but because it uncovers his father's nakedness, i.e., it is to sleep with one's father through the one flesh union. 

I could also argue that polygamy conveys a false message about God and His people/Christ and the Church. God is not married to many people groups. It's Israel alone. Christ is not married to many wives. It's the Church/Israel alone. God has a covenant with one nation, not many. One wife, not many. If our marriages are to reflect Christ's commitment to the Church then polygamy/polygyny conveys Christ's interests divided and having multiple groups that are saved apart from the Church. This is a false gospel.

Polygamy is adultery. Polygamy is sexual immorality. Polygamy is a false gospel. Does the Bible condemn polygamy/polygyny? 

Yes.

The Bible is the entire context of all 66 books. It is the sum total of the testimony of God. The Word of the Lord is not confirmed and finalized until He is done speaking. Hence, to take the OT and ignore the context of the NT is to cut God off while He is in mid-sentence. God has now made clear through Christ that what He intended in the beginning, although not observed by Israel to show their stubbornness, is to now be observed by all who follow Christ.

An Interpretive Fallacy: contra implicationem

 I've been listening to a debate on polygyny (yes, I know, a great use of time but we're discussing it on the podcast this week), and it dawned on me, in light of the previous post a few months ago, that there is a fallacy often committed that people often just label as an argumentum ex silentio when, in fact, I don't think it is. 

Take this example. Two guys are arguing over whether Isaac was a monogamist. Now, the text never says that Isaac does not have other wives, and so the polygynist wants to argue that it can't be determined whether Isaac was a monogamist or not since both arguments are arguments from silence.

The problem with this is that it ignores the literary ques within the implicatures of what is said and what is not said both in terms of the pattern of commentary on this sort of relationship in the author (statement of marriage, genealogies, rivals to Jacob and Esau from other marriages, etc.) and in the way that Isaac and Rebecca are described in their devotion to one another. I would even say that when it says that Isaac "loved" Rebecca it refers to him choosing her over any other woman to be his wife, i.e., a statement of exclusivity. However, nothing is definitively stated.

This is not an argument from silence. It is an argument from implicature, which is just as much a matter of authorial intent as any explicit statement. 

What this means is that the person arguing against these implicatures, these literary ques, that lean in one direction and not the other is making what I would call an argument "contrary to the implicature," or contra implicationem  (i.e., what is contrary to things entangled within the explicit text) if you prefer Latin for your fallacy chart.

If one commits this fallacy, he is not on equal footing with his rival interpreter. If the text leans in one direction due to what is implied by the literary context, what is expected but left out, or other explicit statements then an argument to the contrary of these facts fails and the one who leans on them is on the right track to interpreting the text correctly.