Financial Faithfulness

Financial Faithfulness


Introduction

One of Satan’s most effective delusions is the idea that happiness consists in the things that we possess. Through his deceitfulness, he has erected a golden calf, an idol called materialism. Like a barker on the midway, he calls to every passerby, “come and worship at its feet, buy, sell, get gain, and possess, and it will make you happy.”

Christians, though a people with a spiritual calling and heavenly assets beyond compare, are not automatically exempt from Satan’s schemes nor inoculated against infection from the deadening disease of materialism. Like a plague, it stalks us from every corner—on television, the printed page, the display window, the showroom, the Jones’ driveway. Everywhere the seductions of materialism fill the air and seek to come into our lives through both conspicuous and subliminal messages.

In a context that instructs us to live as aliens and strangers (1 Pet. 1:17-18; 2:11), and as a people who are to live with a view to a heavenly inheritance that is untouched by decay, unstained by evil, and unimpaired by time (1 Pet. 1:4), Peter also warns us to be sober and alert against Satan’s devices (1 Pet. 1:13; 5:8). Why? Because, if we are not on guard, Satan will distract us through possessions from our heavenly calling as a people for God’s own possession who are to proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness (the delusions of Satan) and into His marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:9).

Money is a very little thing (Luke 16:10). Why? Because money cannot buy happiness. Money cannot give eternal life nor real meaning in life (Isa. 55:1-3; Rev. 3:16-18). Yet, there is nothing that reveals our spiritual orientation and relationship with God like our attitude toward money.

Jesus Christ made it clear that a mark of true spirituality was a right attitude toward wealth. The mark of a godly and righteous man is his preoccupation with God and heavenly treasure.

Scripture has a tremendous amount to say about money or material possessions. Sixteen of the thirty-eight parables of Jesus deal with money. One out of every ten verses in the New Testament deal with this subject. Scripture has 500 verses on prayer, less than 500 verses on faith, but over 2,000 verses on the subject of money. Money is an extremely important issue because a person’s attitude toward it is so determinative of his relationship with God, on fulfilling his purpose in this life, and on his character.

The Responsibility for Planning

Without planning based on biblical values, goals, and priorities, money becomes a hard taskmaster and, like a leaf caught up in a whirlwind, we get swept into the world’s pursuit of earthly treasures (Luke 12:13-23; 1 Tim. 6:6-10).

Financial planning is biblical and is a means to good stewardship, to freedom from the god of materialism, and a means of protection against the waste of the resources God has entrusted to our care (Prov. 27:23-24; Luke 14:28; 1 Cor. 14:40).

Financial planning should be done in dependence on God’s direction and in faith while we rest in Him for security and happiness rather than in our own strategies (Prov. 16:1-4, 9; Psalm 37:1-10; 1 Tim. 6:17; Phil. 4:19).

The Responsibility for Discipline

If our financial planning is to work, it will require discipline and commitment so our plans are translated into actions. We must follow through on our good intentions (Prov. 14:23). Financial faithfulness is an important aspect of complete, well-rounded spiritual growth and godliness (2 Cor. 8:7). But godliness requires discipline (cf. 1 Tim. 4:8; 6:3-8).

Good intentions are useless without plans that translate them into actions. The Corinthians had indicated their desire and willingness to give and had even been instructed on planned giving (1 Cor. 16:1-2), yet they had failed to follow through on their good intentions (2 Cor. 8:10-11).

The Responsibility for Stewardship

Financial faithfulness ultimately flows out of the recognition that everything we are and have belongs to the Lord (1 Chron. 29:11-16; Rom. 14:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). Life is a temporary sojourn in which Christians are to see themselves as aliens, temporary residents, who are here as stewards of God’s manifold grace. All we are and have—our talents, time, and treasures—are trusts given to us by God which we are to invest for God’s kingdom and glory (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11; 4:10-11; Luke 19:11-26).

The Responsibility for Working

One of God’s basic ways to provide for our needs is through work—an occupation through which we earn a living so we can provide for ourselves and our families (2 Thess. 3:6-12; Prov. 25:27).

The money we earn is also to be used as a means of supporting God’s work and helping those in need, first in God’s family and then for those outside the household of faith (Gal. 6:6-10; Eph. 4:28; 3 John 5-8).

Guidelines Regarding Savings

BIBLICAL SUPPORT

(1) God directed Joseph to save for the future (Gen. 41:35).

(2) Saving for the future shows wisdom and is demonstrated in God’s creation (Prov. 21:20; 30:24-25; 6:6-8).

(3) Saving for the future is responsible stewardship when designed to meet both the predictable and unpredictable needs of the family (1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Cor. 12:14).

BIBLICAL GUIDELINES

(1) Maintain a proper view of ownership. Remember, all our wealth ultimately belongs to God. We are managers, not owners (1 Chron. 29:11-16; Luke 16:12).

(2) Maintain a proper view of our security. We are to put our trust in the Lord and not in our investments (1 Tim. 6:17).

(3) Beware of impure and unbiblical motives, priorities, and reasons for saving such as anxiety and hoarding as a result of insecurity or covetousness (Matt. 6:25-33; Luke 12:13-31).

(4) Decisions concerning future investments are to be made prayerfully in view of the Lord’s will (James 4:13-15).

(5) Don’t use money in saving/investment programs that God desires be used for giving. This occurs when savings or investments become extreme and for the wrong reasons as seen above (Luke 12:16-21; 1 Tim. 6:18-19; 1 John 3:17).

(6) Avoid high-risk investments or get-rich-quick schemes (Prov. 21:5; 28:20, 22; 1 Tim. 6:9).

(7) Watch those priorities. Make the kingdom of God your number one investment (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31; 1 Tim. 6:18-19).

Guidelines Regarding Spending

CONTENTMENT

We need to learn to be content (spiritually independent on the details of life for our happiness and security) with what we have (Phil. 4:11-13; 1 Tim. 6:6, 17-19; Heb. 13:5). When we are content with what we have, we are free from servitude to materialism. This means freedom to follow the Lord; freedom to pursue His values and objectives. How does one acquire contentment? Contentment is the product of possessing heavenly treasure and casting the whole of one’s care on the sovereign God as our loving heavenly Father (Matt. 6:19-33; 1 Pet. 5:6-7).

TEMPTATION

Be on guard to the temptations and messages of the world (Rom. 12:1-2; 13:11-14; 1 Pet. 1:13-16; 5:8). There are thousands of messages every day that clamor for our attention through the press, television, radio, billboards, salespeople, and store displays—all designed to get us to buy things we don’t need, with money we don’t have, to impress people we don’t know, and to find happiness where it simply cannot be found.

EVALUATE PURCHASES ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

(1) Can we pay cash or will the purchase put us in debt? (See Guidelines Regarding Credit.)

(2) Do we have complete peace about it with no doubt? (Rom. 14:23; Col. 3:15) We need to watch our tendency to rationalize—giving ourselves deceptive answers to do a bad thing.

(3) Is it a real need or a matter of greed? (1 Tim. 6:9; 1 John 2:15) Will it be profitable to our family, our spiritual growth, our health, our ministry, the Lord’s reputation, and will it increase our love for the Lord or could it hinder it? (1 Tim. 3:4: 5:8; 1 Cor. 6:12)

(4) Is our lifestyle adequate or more than adequate? Do we need to reduce our spending by lowering our expected standard of comfort? (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:15, 23; Prov. 15:16-17; 16:8; Eccl. 5:10-11).

Guidelines Regarding Credit

BASIC PRINCIPLES

(1) God favors lending (investing) over borrowing because it promotes freedom and wise stewardship (Deut. 15:5-6).

(2) Unwise borrowing can put us in a position of servitude (Prov. 22:7).

(3) Use credit wisely and avoid it whenever possible. Though not prohibited by Scripture, credit is generally mentioned in a negative sense. Romans 13:8 is often used as an absolute prohibition against borrowing, but it does not necessarily forbid the use of credit. It may simply teach the necessity to pay one’s obligations whether physical or spiritual as they come due.

(4) Concerning credit there are two basic alternatives: (a) Buy now on credit and pay the installments with interest. (b) Save now and buy later with cash and save the interest.

KEEP BORROWING TO A MINIMUM

(1) Interest adds to the cost of living and thereby reduces our capacity for wise stewardship. If we must borrow, we should seek low interest for short terms.

(2) Credit can be risky because it can place people in bondage to creditors and to their own desires rather than to God’s will. It makes impulsive buying too easy. The world system depends heavily on impulsive buying as a balm for being bored and frustrated with life.

(3) Credit can be used as a substitute for trusting God or to get what we want in place of waiting on Him. We use it to buffer ourselves from having to depend on the Lord. Why? Because we are often afraid He won’t give us what we want when we want it (Ps. 37:7-9, 34; 147:11; Matt. 6:30-34; Phil. 4:19).

(4) Credit reduces our ability to give to God and to those in need.

(5) The use of credit is often nothing more that a failure to be content with what we have (the sin of dissatisfaction) (Phil. 4:11; 1 Tim. 6:6-8; Heb. 13:5). The materialist is never content, but the godly learns contentment.

DON’TS FOR BORROWING

(1) Don’t purchase something on credit if it will jeopardize your financial freedom.

(2) Don’t go into debt today based upon a future event (such as a raise or a potential sale). This is presuming upon the Lord and His sovereignty.

(3) Don’t go into debt for a house before you have secured a source of income (Prov. 24:27).

(4) Don’t finance daily needs, living expenses, or pleasure items.

(5) Don’t finance items that depreciate quickly, except on very short terms (i.e., 30-90 days).

(6) On appreciating items, such as a house or for business investments, don’t borrow beyond your ability to cash out of the obligation through sufficient collateral plus the value of the item, should it be necessary to sell.

(7) Don’t allow debts (excluding mortgage) to exceed 20 percent of your take-home pay. Shoot for ten percent or less.

(8) Don’t allow a mortgage payment (including insurance and taxes) to exceed 25 or 30 percent of your take-home pay.

Questions to Ask Before Borrowing

(1) Do I really need it?

(2) Have I asked God for it and waited long enough for Him to supply?

(3) Am I impatient and seeking immediate gratification?

(4) Is God testing my faith, my values, my motives, etc.?

(5) Did I wrongly spend the money God provided for this item or have I violated God’s financial principles?

(6) Am I guilty of:

Stinginess: “There is one who scatters, yet increases all the more, and there is one who withholds what is justly due, but it results only in want” (Prov. 11:24; 11:25-27).
Hastiness: “A faithful man will abound with blessings: but he who makes haste to be rich shall not go unpunished” (Prov. 28:20).
Laziness: “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, then your poverty will come as a robber, and your want like an armed man” (Prov. 24:34).
Guidelines for Giving

GOD EXPECTS US TO GIVE

(1) By His Grace Work: Through fellowship with Him, giving is to be the product of God’s grace working in the life so that it first produces a commitment of one’s total life to God with giving as an overflow of that previous commitment (2 Cor. 8:1-2, 6-7; 9:9-11).

(2) In faith: He has promised to supply all our needs; our giving will not be our lack (2 Cor. 9:7f; Phil. 4:19).

(3) Purposefully: We are to give from careful and prayerful planning. “Let each one do just as he has purposed (planned beforehand) in his heart” (2 Cor. 9:7).

(4) Regularly: “On the first day of every week” helps promote diligence and disciplined giving. This creates a consistency and regularity that translates good intentions into actions (1 Cor. 16:2).

(5) Personally: “Let each one of you” brings out the need for every believer to take giving as a personal responsibility for which God holds us each responsible (1 Cor. 16:2).

(6) Systematically: “Put aside and save” brings out the need to have a method or system whereby money for the Lord’s work is specifically set aside, stored up for giving, so that it is not used for other things (1 Cor. 16:2).

(7) Proportionately: In the New Testament, set amounts of compulsory giving (as in the tithe) have been replaced by the grace principle of voluntary, purposeful, and proportionate giving. The new standard for today is “as He may prosper” (1 Cor. 16:2), “they gave of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3), “it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he does not have. For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality …” (cf. 2 Cor. 8:12-15, Mark 12:41-44), and “let each one do … not under compulsion” (2 Cor. 9:7).

To Whom Should We Give?

THE LOCAL CHURCH

“And let the one who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches” (Gal. 6:6; cf. also 1 Tim. 5:17-18). If the local church is to form a solid home base for other ministries of outreach, it is only logical that it should become a first priority for our giving.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

This would include missions, para-church groups and individuals who are involved in these ministries (3 John 5-8).

FELLOW BELIEVERS IN NEED

Those unable to support themselves or who have faced serious problems are to be helped as we are able. Those who refuse to work are not to be supported (1 John 3:17; Jam. 2:15-16; Gal. 6:10; Heb. 10:33-34; 13:1-3 with 2 Thess. 3:6-10).

UNBELIEVERS IN NEED

Our first priority is to those who are of the household of faith, but we are also to reach out to others in need as we are able (Gal. 6:10).

The Tithe of the Old Testament

The word “tithe” means “a tenth.” In the Old Testament, however, there is good evidence that the Old Testament saint was required to give at least two tithes and possibly even three tithes per year.

(1) The first was ten percent of all one’s possessions (Lev. 27:30-33). This was given to the Levites for the temple ministry (Numb. 18:20-21).

(2) A second tithe was taken from whatever produce was left after the first tithe was given. This tithe was for the Lord’s feasts and sacrifices (Deut. 12:17-18; 14:22). “This command was considered by Jewish interpreters to be for a second tithe (see Lev. 27:30 and Num. 18:21 for the first; also the note on Mal. 3:8), which was brought to the central sanctuary either in kind or in money. Apparently the offerer could use a part of this tithe for a feast at the sanctuary (vv. 26-27).”1

(3) Another tithe was taken every third year for the welfare of the Levites, strangers, orphans and widows (Deut. 14:26-29). This third tithe may have been separate from the second, though we are not certain. At any rate, each Jewish family was responsible to give not ten percent, but approximately 19 percent.

If the tithe was God’s will for believers today, then believers who give ten percent are under giving.

Because the tithe was required in the Old Testament, it was more of an income tax than a gift given under the theocratic kingdom of Israel. In fact, the Old Testament often speaks of “tithes and offerings” which makes this distinction. Frieson says, “that is why failure to submit to the ‘whole tithe’ could be described as robbing God.”2 If one of God’s people wanted to express his worship through a voluntary offering, it had to be over and above the two tithes of his income which was owed (Deut. 16:6, 11; 1 Chron. 29:6, 9, 14).

The New Testament Economy of Giving

There is very good evidence the tithe is not for believers today. There are godly men who teach the tithe, but they are clinging to an Old Testament theology that does not apply to the church today. The following is presented as evidence in support of this position.

The tithe of the Old Testament was a part of the economic system of the Law but the New Testament specifically teaches that believers are not under law (Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6; 8:3; 2 Cor. 3:11; Gal. 3:19-25; 4:21-31). There is a two-fold emphasis here.

(1) Believers today are not under the legal, economic, social, or religious system of the Old Testament Law. The Law was a temporary system until the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ and the New Covenant, as it applies to the church, supersedes the Old Covenant with a higher law, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which enables believers to fulfill the spiritual and righteous requirements of the Law but through the leading of the Spirit rather than by the imposition of legal regulations.

(2) “Law” in Romans 6:14 is anarthrous. It is qualitative. It is not talking about just one specific law, as the Old Testament Law, but any kind of law. This means we are not under any kind of legal system of external rules or legal regulations which we are to keep in relation to our walk with God. Though we are not without law, being under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), the standard for how much we give in the church age is not an amount set by some external law or some form of compulsion. This would include the tithe either under the Law or even before the Law, because either way, the moment a definite amount is established for believers to give, it becomes a legal and external matter rather than a matter of the inner man and the leading of the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:1, 18, 24, 25).

The New Testament teaches us that giving for the church age is to be proportionate by the grace work or leading of God through the Spirit (2 Cor. 8:1-3, 7; 1 Cor. 16:2; 9:7). In keeping with this concept, when we turn to the New Testament we find no New Testament regulation or commandment which continues the tithe for New Testament believers. The word “tithe” is never used in the New Testament as a command or regulation for the church. In fact, it is used only of historical occurrences where it pertained to Israel under the Old Testament economy, but never in such a way it could imply this is the rule of life for the church.

Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42. Both of these passages applied to Israel. Christ was speaking to Jews who were still at that time under the Law. They were also offering sacrifices in the temple.

Luke 18:12 is merely an historical reference of the prayer of a self-righteous Pharisee who was still under the Law and before the coming of the Spirit and the beginning of the church age.

Hebrews 7:5-9 is an historical reference to Abraham who paid tithes to Melchizedek. Some use this as proof the tithe is legitimate for today. They say it was pre-law, so it should be used as a guideline for all dispensations. But there are two things wrong with that line of reasoning:

Other Old Testament practices predated the Law, yet they are not used as norms or as requirements for the church. (a) The concept of the Sabbath predated the law (cf. Heb. 4:3-9), but it has been replaced by the first day of the week, and even that is not presented as a legal requirement. (b) Circumcision also predated the law (cf. Rom. 4:9-13), but it has been replaced by baptism. (c) Likewise the tithe which also predated the law (Heb. 7:5-9), has been replaced by proportionate giving (1 Cor. 16:2). To insist on a tithe is really a disobedience to the direction of 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Giving according to a tithe is a hindrance to proportionate grace giving as it is prescribed in the New Testament. Let me explain.

Many believers give their tenth and never even consider that they could (and perhaps should) be giving even more. Actually, to demand a tenth from all believers is disobedience to the principles set down in 2 Corinthians 8:12-15 because the tithe may become an unequal yoke. By that I mean it is a burden to some, and a limitation to greater giving by others according to the principles of equality and proportionate grace giving (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Please note the following:

(1) Giving ten percent for one man might be considered “sowing sparingly” if he was giving proportionately.

(2) Giving ten percent for another could be considered “sowing bountifully,” if he was giving proportionately.

(3) Giving ten percent for some would be giving beyond their ability and could be considered sacrificial giving, giving “according to what they do not have” (cf. 2 Cor. 8:12; 9:6).

(4) In essence this means some are being eased of their responsibilities because of their abundance and others afflicted by the tithe compulsion because of their lack (2 Cor. 8:13).

(5) Proportionate grace giving in the New Testament eliminates this and brings about what Paul calls “equality” (2 Cor. 8:14-15). See the illustration below concerning proportionate giving.

(6) This means to be a good steward of the resources God supplies, the more prosperous believers give more out of their abundance, not just in dollars but in the percentage (20, 30 percent and even more), while those with less give a smaller percent, one determined out of their walk with the Lord. They may decide to give sacrificially as did the Macedonians, but it should be the product of the work of the Spirit of God and not the legal demands of a church that insists on the tithe. Indeed, the tithe is an unequal yoke. Think about it. If you tithe, you may be sowing sparingly.

Proportionate Giving

The big question is, what does it mean to give proportionately? How does one determine how much (what percent) to give? It is easy enough to figure ten percent of something, but how much is “as he purposes in his heart,” or “as he has been prospered,” or “may prosper,” or “if there is a readiness it is acceptable according to what a man has …” How much is that?

(1) It is not a specific amount, or a certain percent, but a proportion based on what one has, one’s own needs, and on the needs of others, including the work of Christ or the ministry of the local church.

(2) Those who have little may give the little they are able (2 Cor. 8:2-3).

(3) Those who have nothing, if there is a readiness, are not expected to give anything (2 Cor. 8:12).

(4) Those who have less than enough (genuine needs) are to receive from those who have more than enough so there is a balancing out, a kind of equality (2 Cor. 8:13-15). This is not socialism or communism which is coercive and seeks for a total equality that does away with any variations in society based on individual differences in hard work, in giftedness, and personal incentive (cf. 1 Tim. 6:17f).

(5) God is not asking those who have plenty to become poor or burdened that others may be made rich (2 Cor. 8:13). The equality envisioned here through proportionate giving is twofold: (a) It involves aid to help people through a condition of need until they are able to get on their feet financially by working (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10-15). We do not give so others can live in ease or have the same standard of living as everyone else. (b) This creates an equality in the sense that those with less give proportionately less and those with more give proportionately more and are able to carry more of the load in giving.

(6) Those who have an abundance are to be rich in good works; they are to use their abundance liberally in the cause of Christ (2 Cor. 8:14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18).

(7) Increased prosperity should not result in a higher and higher standard of living, or wasteful spending, but in an increase in giving, not only in the amount but in the percent given. If believers today were committed to proportionate giving, many would be giving far in excess of ten percent. Statistics show, however, that most believers give no more than 3-5 percent.

DEFINITION OF PROPORTIONATE GIVING

Proportionate giving is giving in proportion to God’s blessing, as a steward who wants to invest his life in heavenly treasure. Proportionate giving does not mean just giving more, but giving a greater proportion of one’s income—a greater percentage invested in God’s work.

In Proportionate giving:

(1) OUR MOTIVE for giving is God’s spiritual blessing, to increase fruitfulness and bring glory to God (2 Cor. 9:8-15).

(2) OUR MEASURE for giving is God’s material blessing (1 Cor. 16:2).

ILLUSTRATION OF PROPORTIONATE GIVING

Believer A has an income of $20,000 per year and he gives ten percent which is $2,000. Believer B has an income of $50,000 per year and he gives ten percent which is $5,000. Believer B has given $3,000 more per year but this is not proportionately more because Believer A has $18,000 left to live on and Believer B still has $45,000 left, over twice as much. Believer B could give 20 percent ($10,000) and still have $40,000 left to live on which is still over twice as much as Believer A. Believer B would then be giving not only more, but proportionately more as well.

PROMISES FOR THE GENEROUS PROPORTIONATE GIVER

Luke 16:10-11: Generally, God does not entrust more wealth to us to manage until we prove faithful with what we have now.

Second Corinthians 9:8-11: Our giving will never be our lack; God will not only resupply what we have given, but He will increase our giving capacity as we give abundantly. The goal here is not increased personal wealth, but greater giving.

Biblical Challenges Regarding Earthly Riches

WHERE IS OUR TREASURE?

Basic Principle: What we treasure is determined by our perspective or insight to the real values of life (Matt. 6:22-23).

Biblical Insight: Our treasures should be in heaven (Matt. 6:19-20).

Biblical Reasons:

(1) Our treasures in heaven are permanent (Matt. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:4).

(2) Our treasures on earth are temporary and can be lost. We can’t take earthly treasures with us (Luke 12:20-21; 1 Tim. 6:7).

(3) Our treasures on earth are really unfulfilling in that they cannot buy true happiness or significance (Isa. 55:1-3; Luke 12:15, 23; Eccl. 5:10).

(4) Our treasures on earth cannot prolong life or give security (Luke 12:16-21).

(5) Our treasures determine our pursuits and priorities. Without the right treasures, we will pursue the wrong things and waste our lives (Matt. 6:21; Luke 12:34; 1 Tim. 6:9-10; Luke 19:23-26).

(6) Our greatest treasure is godliness with contentment (1 Tim. 6:6; Heb. 13:5; Phil. 4:11-12; Prov. 15:17; 16:8; 17:1).

Biblical Explanation: Heavenly treasures consist of crowns, rewards, and responsibilities given to believers at the judgment seat of Christ for faithful stewardship (Luke 19:16-19; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 9:25; 1 Thess. 2:19; 1 Tim. 4:8). The ultimate treasure is glory to God (1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 4:9-11).

WHO IS OUR MASTER?

A servant cannot serve two masters. We cannot serve God and mammon (materialism) (Luke 16:1-13, cf. Matt. 6:24).

Biblical Reason: It is impossible to hold allegiance to two masters at the same time. “For either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other” (Luke 16:13).

Biblical Insights:

(1) Luke 16:1-2: Life is a stewardship and we are each servants of God who will be held accountable for the way we have used our stewardship. Stop thinking like an owner. Start thinking like a manager.

(2) Luke 16:1, 11-12: Are we squandering God’s investment in our lives or investing it wisely for His glory?

(3) Luke 16:10: Money, in terms of true value, is a “little” thing, however, faithfulness in little things (money) is an indicator of our faithfulness in big things (eternal values).

(4) Luke 16:11: The use of money is a test of our faithfulness.

(5) Luke 16:11: Money does not constitute true riches.

(6) Luke 16:12: Money is to be used wisely and faithfully as part of our stewardship from God.

(7) Luke 16:12: Money and its acquisition, if we are not careful, can become our master.

Biblical Challenge:

(1) Am I a slave to money and earthly treasures? Is it possible that I am and do not even know it? We must choose between serving money and serving God!

(2) Do I sacrifice Christlike qualities and responsibilities in my pursuits for earthly treasures? (a) Clear conscience; (b) Honesty, moral character; (c) Friendships; (d) Family (wife, husband, children, in-laws); (e) Reputation; (f) God’s glory, etc.

(3) Do I care more about earthly treasures and money matters than I do about my relationship with the Lord and the pursuit of the kingdom of heaven? (a) Priorities; (b) Use of my time, how and where is it spent; (c) What do I think about most—money and what I think it will purchase or God and my trust in Him?

(4) Do I seek from money and earthly treasures (prestige, power, position, pleasure, possessions, etc.) those things that God alone can give? (a) Happiness, real joy; (b) Contentment; (c) Peace of mind; (d) Security; (e) Purpose or meaning in life.

If your answer is yes to any of the above questions, money has become your master to some degree!

Conclusion

Having studied these principles, let’s ask ourselves a question: Am I willing to commit myself to these concepts as a way of life in order to become a good steward of the grace of God? May God keep us from the altar of the golden calf of materialism.

And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:17-19).

What is spiritual adultery?

Question: "What is spiritual adultery?"

Answer: Spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to God. It is having an undue fondness for the things of the world. Spiritually adultery is analogous to the unfaithfulness of one’s spouse: “‘But like a woman faithless to her lover, even so have you been faithless to me, O house of Israel,’ says the LORD” (Jeremiah 3:20; see also Isaiah 1:21; 57:8; Ezekiel 16:30).

The Bible tells us that people who choose to be friends with the world are an “adulterous people” having “enmity against God” (James 4:4–5). The “world” here is the system of evil under Satan’s control (John 12:31; Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 5:19). The world system, with its contrived and deceitful scheme of phony values, worthless pursuits, and unnatural affections, is designed to lure us away from a pure relationship with God. Spiritual adultery, then, is the forsaking of God’s love and the embracing of the world’s values and desires (Romans 8:7–8; 2 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:15–17).

Spiritual adultery includes any form of idolatry. In the Old Testament, the children of Israel tried to mix the worship of other gods such as Baal with that of God (Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 16:31–33; Jeremiah 19:5). In doing so, Israel became like an adulterous wife who wanted both a husband and another lover (Jeremiah 9:2; Ezekiel 6:9; 16:32). In the New Testament, James defines spiritual adultery as claiming to love God while cultivating friendship with the world (James 4:4–5). The person who commits spiritual adultery is one who professes to be a Christian yet finds his real love and pleasure in the things that Satan offers. For believers, the love of the world and the love of God are direct opposites. Believers committing spiritual adultery may claim to love the Lord, but, in reality, they are captivated by the pleasures of this world, its influence, comforts, financial security, and so-called freedoms.

The concept of spiritual adultery against God is a major theme throughout the Old Testament (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; Ezekiel 16:15–19). This theme is illustrated especially well in the book of Hosea. The prophet’s wife, Gomer, symbolizes the infidelity of the children of Israel (Hosea 2:2–5; 3:1–5; 9:1). Hosea’s commitment to Gomer symbolizes God’s faithful, patient love with His erring people.

Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). The Bible exhorts us, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16). Believers must echo the words of the old hymn: “The world behind me, the cross before me; no turning back.”

“As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:14–16). Spiritual adultery is like trying to straddle the fence with one foot in the world and the other heaven. We cannot have both. As Jesus warned the church in Laodicea, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15–16).

The love of the world is primarily an attitude of one’s heart, and we can cast away worldliness by cultivating a new affection. To avoid spiritual adultery, “set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2, KJV).

The Impeccability of Christ

The Impeccability of Christ by Arthur W. Pink

We are living in a world of sin, and the fearful havoc it has wrought is evident on every side. How refreshing, then, to fix our gaze upon One who is immaculately holy, and who passed through this scene unspoilt by its evil. Such was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate. For thirty-three years He was in immediate contact with sin, yet He was never, to the slightest degree, contaminated. He touched the leper, yet was not defiled, even ceremonially. Just as the rays of the sun shine upon a stagnant pool without being sullied thereby, so Christ was unaffected by the iniquity which surrounded Him. He ‘did no sin’ (1 Pet. 2:22), ‘in Him is no sin’ (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He ‘knew no sin’ (2 Cor. 5:21), He was ‘without sin’ (Heb. 4:15). He was ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners’ (Heb. 7:26).
But not only was Christ sinless, He was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning. No attempt to set forth the doctrine of His wondrous and peerless person would be complete, without considering this blessed perfection. Sad indeed is it to behold the widespread ignorance thereon today, and sadder still to hear and read this precious truth denied. The last Adam differed from the first Adam in His impeccability. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it. Necessarily so, for He was ‘the Almighty’ (Rev. 1:8). True, Christ was man, but He was the God-man, and as such, absolute Master and Lord of all things. Being Master of all things—as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated—it was impossible that anything should master Him.
The immutability of Christ proves His impeccability, or incapability of sinning: ‘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever’ (Heb. 13:8). Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin’s womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.
The omnipotence of Christ proves His impeccability. That the Lord Jesus, even during the days of His humiliation, was possessed of omnipotence, is clear from many passages of Scripture. ‘What things so ever He (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise….For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will’ (John 5:19, 21). When we say that Christ possessed omnipotence during His earthly sojourn, we do not mean that He was so endowed by the Holy Spirit, but that He was essentially, inherently, personally, omnipotent. Now to speak of an omnipotent person yielding to sin, is a contradiction in terms. All temptation to sin must proceed from a created being, and hence it is a finite power; but impossible is it for a finite power to overcome omnipotency.
The constitution of Christ’s person proves His impeccability. In Him were united (in a manner altogether incomprehensible to created intelligence) the Divine and the human natures. Now ‘God cannot be tempted with evil’ (James 1:13); ‘it is impossible for God to lie’ (Heb. 6:18). And Christ was ‘God manifest in flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16); ‘Immanuel’—God with us (Matt. 1:23). Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been ‘made in the likeness of men’ (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.
It is objected to the truth of Christ’s impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is argued, cannot be tempted to sin. As well might one reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked. ‘Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as His natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable’ (W.G. Shedd, 1889).
Probably there were many reasons why God ordained that His incarnate Son should be tempted by men, by the Devil, by circumstances. One of these was to demonstrate His impeccability. Throw a lighted match into a barrel of gunpowder, and there will be an explosion; throw it into a barrel of water, and the match will be quenched. This, in a very crude way, may be taken to illustrate the difference between Satan’s tempting us and his tempting of the God-man. In us, there is that which is susceptible to his ‘fiery darts'; but the Holy One could say, ‘The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me’ (John 14:30). The Lord Jesus was exposed to a far more severe testing and trying than the first Adam was, in order to make manifest His mighty power of resistance.
‘We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, without sin’ (Heb. 4:15). ‘This text teaches that the temptations of Christ were ‘without sin’ in their source and nature, and not merely, as the passage is sometimes explained, that they were ‘without sin’ in their result. The meaning is not, that our Lord was tempted in every respect exactly as fallen man is-by inward lust, as well as by other temptations—only He did not outwardly yield to any temptation; but that He was tempted in every way that man is, excepting by that class of temptations that are sinful, because originating in evil and forbidden desire.
‘The fact that Christ was almighty and victorious in His resistance does not unfit Him to be an example for imitation to a weak and sorely-tempted believer. Because our Lord overcame His temptations, it does not follow that His conflict and success was an easy one for Him. His victory cost Him tears and blood. ‘His visage was so marred more than any man’ (Isa. 52:14). There was the ‘travail of His soul’ (Isa. 52:14). In the struggle He cried, ‘O My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me’ (Matt. 26:39). Because an army is victorious, it by no means follows that the victory was a cheap one’ (W.G.T. Shedd).
One other objection may, perhaps, be noted, though we hesitate to defile these pages by even transcribing the filthy exhalations of the carnal mind. If the humanity of Christ was, because of its union to His Divine person, incapable of sinning, then in view of its being Divinely sustained how could it hunger and thirst, suffer and die? and seeing it did, then why was it incapable of yielding to temptation? It is sufficient answer to this impious question to point out that, while the Mediator was commissioned to die (John 10:18), He was not commissioned to sin. The human nature of Christ was permitted to function freely and normally: hence it wearied and wept; but to sin is not a normal act of human nature.
To be the Redeemer of His people, Christ must be ‘mighty to save, travelling in the greatness of His strength’ (Isa. 63:1). He must have power to overcome all temptation when it assails His person, in order that He may be able to ‘succour them that are tempted’ (Heb. 2:18). Here then is one of the solid planks in that platform on which the faith of the Christian rests: because the Lord Jesus is Almighty, having absolute power over sin, the feeble and sorely-tried saint may turn to Him in implicit confidence, seeking His efficacious aid. Only He who triumphed over sin, both in life and in death, can save me from my sins.

What is spiritual adultery?

Question: "What is spiritual adultery?"

Answer: Spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to God. It is having an undue fondness for the things of the world. Spiritually adultery is analogous to the unfaithfulness of one’s spouse: “‘But like a woman faithless to her lover, even so have you been faithless to me, O house of Israel,’ says the LORD” (Jeremiah 3:20; see also Isaiah 1:21; 57:8; Ezekiel 16:30).

The Bible tells us that people who choose to be friends with the world are an “adulterous people” having “enmity against God” (James 4:4–5). The “world” here is the system of evil under Satan’s control (John 12:31; Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 5:19). The world system, with its contrived and deceitful scheme of phony values, worthless pursuits, and unnatural affections, is designed to lure us away from a pure relationship with God. Spiritual adultery, then, is the forsaking of God’s love and the embracing of the world’s values and desires (Romans 8:7–8; 2 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:15–17).

Spiritual adultery includes any form of idolatry. In the Old Testament, the children of Israel tried to mix the worship of other gods such as Baal with that of God (Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 16:31–33; Jeremiah 19:5). In doing so, Israel became like an adulterous wife who wanted both a husband and another lover (Jeremiah 9:2; Ezekiel 6:9; 16:32). In the New Testament, James defines spiritual adultery as claiming to love God while cultivating friendship with the world (James 4:4–5). The person who commits spiritual adultery is one who professes to be a Christian yet finds his real love and pleasure in the things that Satan offers. For believers, the love of the world and the love of God are direct opposites. Believers committing spiritual adultery may claim to love the Lord, but, in reality, they are captivated by the pleasures of this world, its influence, comforts, financial security, and so-called freedoms.

The concept of spiritual adultery against God is a major theme throughout the Old Testament (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; Ezekiel 16:15–19). This theme is illustrated especially well in the book of Hosea. The prophet’s wife, Gomer, symbolizes the infidelity of the children of Israel (Hosea 2:2–5; 3:1–5; 9:1). Hosea’s commitment to Gomer symbolizes God’s faithful, patient love with His erring people.

Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). The Bible exhorts us, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:15–16). Believers must echo the words of the old hymn: “The world behind me, the cross before me; no turning back.”

“As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:14–16). Spiritual adultery is like trying to straddle the fence with one foot in the world and the other heaven. We cannot have both. As Jesus warned the church in Laodicea, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15–16).

The love of the world is primarily an attitude of one’s heart, and we can cast away worldliness by cultivating a new affection. To avoid spiritual adultery, “set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2, KJV).

Praying the Scriptures

Praying God's Word

.
Would you like your prayers to be more powerful? Pray the Scriptures. Hebrews 4:12 says that God's Word is alive and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword. When we speak and pray the Scriptures, we are coming into agreement with God, and His power is released to answer our prayers.

Maybe you feel like God doesn't hear your prayers? Or maybe you don't know what to pray for in certain situations. On the Prayer Promises page, I have gathered Bible Scriptures such as 1John 5:14, which tells us we can have confidence in God. Not only does He hear our prayers, but He also promises to answer them when we pray in line with His will. He hastens to perform His Word

Benefits of Praying the Scriptures

Praying the Scriptures will increase your spiritual growth. You actually learn what God says about certain situations, and by praying His Word you will see His results. Many people have testified that just by praying the healing scriptures they have been healed, physically as well as mentally.

You can live a stress free life if you will only just pray because when you pray, you are turning the situation over to God. You're taking the situation out of your hands, and putting it in His hands. You're releasing it to God. These Scripture Prayers are very easy to read, and if you'll read them every day, even within a week, you will have memorized Scripture and won't even realize it until a situation arises, or until someone asks you to pray for them.

Commitment to Pray the Scriptures

Most people when they hear the word commitment, their first response is, "I don't have time for another commitment." But if you want your circumstances in your life to change you need to make a commitment to pray the Scriptures out loud everyday. Then you will see how praying with the powerful force of God's Word will cause you to be praying in victory. You will have victory in your life, in your home, and be able to handle situations as easily as Jesus would have handled them.

It doesn't take long to read these prayers, and you can print them out and take them with you, and read them whenever you want. But it is important for you to pray the prayers outloud, even if it is in a whisper, the spoken Word, makes things happen! Why pray your prayers out loud?

Can a man who is divorced and/or remarried be an elder?

Can a man who is divorced and/or remarried be an elder?
1 Timothy 3:2, Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 9:5, Titus 1:6

Whenever the subject of divorce and remarriage is discussed, the inevitable question of whether a divorced and/or remarried man can ever serve as an elder follows closely behind. This discussion has lead to much confusion as well as a great deal of heartache for many individuals and churches. Multitudes of men who have desired the work and service of an elder have also encountered great opposition to that desire simply because of a previous divorce.

The opposition often comes from those who believe that regardless of any past circumstances, no one who has had a previous divorce is biblically qualified to serve as an elder. Yet on the other side of the spectrum, many today are advocating that we abandon all efforts to examine the nature of anyone’s past marital status. They say we should appoint men to the eldership based on present-tense circumstances alone. Their argument follows that because divorce is so rampant in our society, affirming non-divorced men is becoming an even greater challenge.

In addition, increasing numbers of pastors are becoming divorced and yet are remaining in positions of elder/pastoral ministry! Alexander Strauch writes that this issue “was dramatically highlighted when a leading evangelical journal in America brought together five divorced pastors and asked them to share their feelings, experiences, and views on divorce and the ministry. The journal’s staff published the forum because they believed the growing problem of divorce among ministers needed to be faced openly and honestly.” Strauch went on to say that the article “claimed that a recent survey of divorce rates in the United States showed that pastors had the third highest divorce rate—exceeded only by that of medical doctors and policemen!” (“A Biblical Style of Leadership?” Leadership 2, Fall 1981, 119-29, cited in Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership [Littleton, Colo.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995], 67).

The ultimate answer to this question, of course, must come from the Word of God. But what does Scripture teach on the subject? What insights do we have from God’s Word that could help us in this regard? Can a man who is divorced (or who is married to someone who has been divorced) ever serve at the highest level of spiritual leadership? These crucial questions must be answered if we are to maintain the true biblical standards of spiritual leadership.

First of all, those who oppose any divorced man serving as an elder almost universally do so on the basis of the apostle Paul’s language in 1 Timothy 3:2. There Paul says that if a man is to serve as an elder, he must be the “husband of one wife” (this English translation comes from the Greek phrase, mias gunaikos andra, which when literally translated means, a “one-woman man,” or a “one-wife husband”). There are generally four different ways this phrase has been understood:

elders must be married
elders must not be polygamists
elders must have married only once in their life
elders must be sexually pure and therefore totally committed to their wife (biblical monogamy)
The following will be an attempt to summarize the various views and a biblical response.


Must Be Married

Those who take the view that an elder is to be qualified only if he is married mis- understand Paul’s intent in this passage. If this were Paul’s meaning here, he would obviously be contradicting himself in what he wrote to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-35; see also Matthew 19:12). There, he states that it would be better if believers were to remain single “even as I myself am” (v. 7). He reiterates this in verse 8 when he says, “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.”

Paul was not only an apostle, but also a pastor (he served for three years as the pastor at Ephesus, for instance), so he certainly could not be commanding Timothy to examine potential elders on the basis of what he himself was not qualified to undertake. Likewise, he also says to the Corinthians that as apostles, they had “the right” to “take along” (marry), a believing wife, “even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas [Peter]” (1 Corinthians 9:5). Even though he did not personally choose the option of marriage (or that he had in fact been married before but at the time of his statement, was speaking as a widower (as many would contend from 1 Corinthians 7:40), Paul could have served as an elder and yet have remained single.

To put it another way, if one of an elder’s requisite qualifications is his marrying, then every single man would be automatically disqualified, including, of course, Jesus Himself! It is obvious that this view is not a serious consideration of what the phrase, “one-woman man” really means.


No Polygamy

The second possibility is that Paul intends to convey that no elder candidate is qualified if he has more than one wife at the same time (polygamy). This was certainly an issue in Paul’s day, but it is unlikely that this is what he had in mind. The main reason is again the use of the specific phrase, “one-woman man.”

Paul could have used a couple of different phrases to speak against polygamy if he had truly wanted to. For instance, he simply could have said, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, having no more than one wife,” or “having no more than one wife at a time.” This would have most assuredly dealt with any polygamy sins that were occurring at this time. Another reason Paul must have meant something else is that the phrase, “one-woman man” occurs three other times in the New Testament (1 Timothy 3:12; 1 Timothy 5:9; Titus 1:6), which by their usage help us conclude that polygamy was probably not in view.

In the 1 Timothy 5:9 passage, the phrase is used to speak of a widow and whether or not she is to receive some financial assistance from the church. Even though Paul uses the corresponding phrase, “one-man woman,” or “one-husband wife,” he is essentially speaking of the same kind of qualification and speaks to whether a female widow had demonstrated a faithfulness to her one husband (who is obviously now deceased).

We can conclude that because polyandry (a woman who would be having at least two husbands at the same time) was repugnant both to the Jews and Romans, Paul would have no real need to address this issue in the church. Therefore, if Paul used the corresponding phrase to refer to these polygamist men in 1 Timothy 3, he would be very confusing to his readers, and certainly should have been far more specific.

Only One Marriage

A third group of interpreters view this “one-woman man” phrase as meaning that a man could marry only once in his lifetime. This view also will often reflect the belief that once divorced, a man could never remarry, with some even going so far as to say that a widower could not remarry! As in the first view however, this plainly contradicts other passages of Scripture. First Corinthians 7:39 distinctly says, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Likewise, Romans 7:2 says, “The married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband.”

Nowhere in God’s Word does it state that remarriage after the death of a spouse automatically renders a man no longer “above reproach.” Indeed, Paul himself urges young widows (meaning those who were still in their prime childbearing years) to “get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach” (1 Timothy 5:14). Immorality being rampant in that pagan society, and with Christianity being so new, Paul was saying the best way to avoid a lasting reproach was to become married.

Finally, Paul even warns Timothy a chapter earlier that some false teachers were actually forbidding marriage (1 Timothy 4:3), and those men should be exposed. Surely, this no-marriage view in 1 Timothy 3:2 would need to be clarified since he condemns those false teachers only a chapter later! Lastly, it would also set up a very difficult double standard. Those outside the spiritual leadership of the church could marry or remarry, while those within leadership could not.

Marital Faithfulness

The fourth view says that Paul is simply emphasizing in this phrase, “one-woman man,” the concept of marital faithfulness to one’s present spouse. This seems to be the most natural way to interpret the phrase. Strauch concludes,

…the phrase ‘the husband of one wife’ is meant to be a positive statement that expresses faithful, monogamous marriage. In English we would say, ‘faithful and true to one woman’ or ‘a one-woman man.’…Negatively, the phrase prohibits all deviation from faithful, monogamous marriage. Thus, it would prohibit an elder from polygamy, concubinage, homosexuality, and/or any questionable sexual relationship. Positively, Scripture says the candidate for eldership should be a ‘one-woman man,’ meaning he has an exclusive relationship with one woman. Such a man is above reproach in his sexual and marital life (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 192).

In other words, are you completely committed to the wife you now have? Is your love for her ever growing and do you serve and love her as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25)? It is possible that if our English Bible translators had simply translated the phrase literally, much confusion could have been avoided. But since the phrase has been translated as “the husband of one wife,” it has evoked much needless debate and anguish.


Elder Qualification

The only remaining question regards the general question of whether a divorced man should ever serve as an elder, even if he has proven to be a present and faithful husband to his wife. This matter is covered in Paul’s first qualification of 1 Timothy 3:2, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach.” Being above reproach means that there is nothing for which one can be accused or blamed; those things which could render a man as being validly accused of sinful behavior. He must not have a chargeable character; that is, he has an impeccable reputation. He lives his life in such a way that no one can accuse him of scandalizing the body of Christ in any way. This is the kind of man that, even with his critics, can find no fault in his character.

Another very important reminder is this: we must remember that the qualifications as listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are present-tense qualifications. The main evaluation of a man’s life must take place in the present, not in the past. Does this automatically mean that a man’s past actions have utterly no bearing on his present life? No. A man’s past could, in fact, render him as reproachable in some way. What ways could this be true? A man could be disqualified if his past divorce has continuing implications. For instance, a man who has had a divorce in his past (whether it is his pre-Christian past or his Christian past), might be rendered reproachable in the eyes of the congregation if the man’s former spouse is in the same community as his local church, or in the same local church itself. In some cases, this may mean he is not qualified to serve as an elder there. Another example is if his children from a previous marriage(s) are not believers or are a reproach to him in some way. This may also become a disqualifier.

It is very unlikely a man who has had a divorce in his past will be able to serve as an elder regardless of whether it happened before or after he became a Christian. Usually, there are circumstances which render him as not above reproach in the eyes of the church’s leadership and/or the congregation. This does not mean that he cannot serve the Lord in the local church. It simply means that his service will by necessity be in a non-elder capacity. Indeed, he can serve in a variety of ways by God’s design. It would seem to be an extremely rare occurrence for a man who has had a divorce, whether biblically allowed or not, to fulfill the role of elder in the local church. This is never intended to make anyone think that he, because of the fact of his divorce, is a second-class Christian, and that his divorce is a stigma which follows him forever. But at the same time, however, it is true that divorce oftentimes is a stigma, and it has tragically become a stigmatic reproach for many. God’s grace can cover the sin, but the consequences sometimes do have lasting effects.

Finally, regardless of the specifics of any one situation, the general principle is this: Does he enjoy the complete and full affirmation of the leaders and people of his own congregation, and is he presently living out the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? If a particular local church scrutinizes his life and ministry and sees nothing in his present character or past conduct that brings a reproach, he may, in God’s good providence, serve as an elder in that place. Strauch gives wise words on this account:

What does 1 Timothy say about sexual and marital sins committed before a person’s conversion to Christ? What about people who have legally divorced and remarried (assuming the local church allows for such)? What about the forgiveness and restoration of a fallen spiritual leader? These and many other painful and controversial questions are not answered directly here. They must be answered from the whole of Scripture’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, forgiveness, grace, and restoration, as well as its teaching on leadership example and the full spectrum of elder qualifications.


All deviations from God’s standard of marital behavior confuse and perplex us. Sin always confuses, distorts, and divides, so there will always be diverse opinions on questions such as these. This in no way, however, diminishes the local church’s obligation to face these issues and make wise, scripturally sound decisions. In all these heartbreaking situations, the honor of Jesus’ name, faithfulness to His Word, and prayer are the supreme guides (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 192-93).

Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?

Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?
January 13, 2012 by Dave Miller

This is the beginning of a series of articles I will be posting in the weeks (months?) ahead on this topic. This series is based on a series I did several years ago on my personal blog – which is now engulfed by spider webs.

Is divorce always a sin, or are there times when obedient followers of Christ are permitted to end a marriage? If divorce is permissible in some circumstances, may those who divorce also remarry? Should those who have been divorced be considered eligible for service as pastors, elders or deacons? What does the Bible say on such topics?

Once, the evangelical church spoke with an essentially united voice on issues related to divorce. Those who divorced were sinners and were largely marginalized, sometimes shunned. They were certainly not permitted roles of influence in the church. Divorcees were not pastors, elders or deacons; at least not in evangelical churches.

It was pretty easy to enforce an ethic like that in days gone by. Divorce was rare; it was something respectable people just did not do. I remember as a child hearing the whispers and sly comments about the woman who lived across the street and a couple of doors up. She was a divorcee and, to compound things, had given birth to a child outside of marriage. We were not the kind of neighborhood that practiced shunning, but she was not considered respectable. There may have been sin, dysfunction, unhappiness or abuse going on behind closed doors, but our neighborhood was one in which mothers and fathers lived together in lifelong marriage and raised children together.

Then, a (not so) funny thing happened. Divorce swept through our nation and churches were filled with people who had been divorced. As so often happens, the doctrines and convictions of the church conveniently changed to reflect the new culture of divorce. We developed a man-centered, therapeutic faith that was more about making people happy than making them holy. Gradually, divorced people took more and more significant places in the church. As the moral slide continued, divorce turned into a minor issue. Some denominations today are discussing whether to marry and ordain unrepentant homosexuals. In that kind of culture, divorce seems like a much less crucial issue.

American Christians have a long history of being led more by our culture than by the Scriptures. When Southern culture approved and defended slavery, so did Southern Christians. As the feminist agenda took hold of our national mindset, women in pulpits became more common. As homosexuality has become more acceptable in culture, it has become more acceptable to Christians. Is this what has happened with divorce? Has the prevalence of divorce caused us to sacrifice biblical moral standards for the sake of convenience? Or, perhaps, did the prevalence of divorce cause us to reexamine beliefs that were long-held and traditional, but not biblical?

There is only one way to answer such questions. We must seek to understand what God’s Word says about the topic. We are called to be biblical and our first responsibility is to God and His Word. If what the Scripture teaches is offensive to culture, we must offend. But as we must let Scripture confront what is culturally popular, we must also allow Scripture to confront our personal and denominational traditions. We like to assume that our traditions are firmly based on Scripture, but many may not be. So our goal is to look at the biblical evidence and live by that, even if we find ourselves in conflict with cultural norms or church traditions.

You will have to continue reading to get my full view on divorce. But this I will say now. I believe that many Christians have wrongly let our cultural norms dictate biblical interpretation and have made unacceptable compromises that lower our standards of holiness. But I also believe that much of the traditional church teaching on divorce was based on cultural norms and church traditions more than it on the Bible.

So, in this study, we will set forth some preliminary concerns, and then we will look at every passage in the Bible that deals with the subject of divorce. We will look for answers to several questions. Is divorce always a sin? Can a divorced person remarry? What positions of service can a divorced person hold in the church?

We will seek biblical answers. I know that some who read this will disagree with my position. I will argue that my position is soundly based in the proper interpretation of Scripture and that it is the view that is most faithful to the intent of the Word of God. I will argue that those who disagree are misinterpreting Scripture and arguing more from traditional bias than from biblical truth. I believe that the position I am advocating here is the one that bests fits all the scriptural pieces together.

But I do not question the faith, biblical integrity or love for our Lord of those who disagree. I can disagree with someone’s position on this issue without calling their love for Jesus or for the Word into question. I can say I think your position is wrong questioning your faith. So, I am going to argue forcefully for the position I believe, but not break faith with those who hold to a different position.

In fact, the church I serve as pastor operates on an unwritten policy that is different than my position. I have told them what I believe and why I believe it. Several men thought my position was a signal of compromise and could not accept it. Several stated unequivocally that they would leave the church if my position was adopted. I think the official position of my church is wrong. Yet, I still serve that church with joy. I will continue to try to convince them that my position is biblical and I assume they will continue to advocate for their position. But, as we study this, we can have uninterrupted fellowship and I can abide by a church policy with which I do not agree.

Defining the Sides

There are just about as many positions on divorce as there are teachers on the subject. I am going to try to categorize the views, but it is actually more of a continuum. Each of the major positions has subtle variants. The danger of simplifying is always over-simplifying. I believe that there are three major positions on divorce that modern evangelicals have fallen into.

The “Compassion” View

Divorce is traumatic – it rips apart homes and families, devastates lives and brings heartache to all. There is really no such thing as an easy divorce. You hear celebrities sometimes talk about a “friendly” divorce. In reality, those are very rare. Those affected by divorce have their lives blown apart.

The advocates of this position are primarily concerned with ministering to the divorced and helping them. Of course, all of us must do that. Advocates of every position believe in ministering to divorced people and their families.

This position is unique because it refuses to hold divorcees accountable for their behavior or apply any moral standard to the situation. The church is told to be compassionate, non-judgmental and accepting of those who have been divorced. A pastor in my community recently announced to his church that he and his wife were getting a divorce. He then told them that he and the board would be meeting to decide whether it would be best for him to continue in the pulpit of that church. Compassion without standards marks this view.

Churches do not want to seem judgmental or exclusionary. That is a heinous sin in our culture. So, these churches welcome the divorced without judgment. They are permitted to serve in any and every position in the church without distinction. Biblical mandates have taken a back seat to therapeutic concerns. We don’t want to harm people’s self-esteem by confronting them with sin.

The positive side of this view is its compassion for those whom life has damaged. Every viewpoint should include the desire to minister to and make welcome those who have gone through the trauma of divorce. The doors of the church must be wide open to the divorced.

But we who love the Word cannot so easily dismiss its teachings. We cannot just pretend the Bible does not hold up the standard of “till-death-do-us-part” marriage. We cannot ignore the warnings of our Savior that those who divorce and remarry contrary to Scripture are adulterers. Those commands have not been abrogated and we have no right to act as if they are not in God’s Word. Our position must be biblical. It must uphold Scripture, not compromise it.

The “Prohibitionist” View

“We must uphold the biblical standard of marriage.” That is what I have heard almost every time I have advocated my position. Of course, I agree with that statement, as any Biblicist must do. We cannot abandon scriptural truth that is unpopular or unwanted by our society. To do anything less than to uphold biblical standards in marriage is a sin. But the assumption behind this statement is that the Bible advocates a strict prohibition on divorce, on remarriage after divorce and on service in the church. Those who say this often make an assumption I do not think is warranted by the biblical evidence.

To the proponents of this position, the clear teaching of Scripture is that all divorce is sin and all divorcees are prohibited from leadership in the Body of Christ. Most make an exception for adultery, but some do not even grant that. Because all divorce is sin, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Since adultery is sin, those living in adulterous relationships are not eligible to serve in positions of responsibility in the church. Pastor, elder, deacon; these and other leadership positions are prohibited to those who have been divorced. Some make exceptions for those who were divorced before they were saved, figuring that what a person did before salvation should not be held against them afterward. Those who hold this position are often still reluctant to allow the divorced to serve in key church positions.

On the positive side, proponents of this view have a high view of Scripture and are willing to stand by Scripture even if it offends culture. This is admirable. If their position is biblical then their stand is noble.

My problem, though, is that I do not believe that the Bible teaches the position they are advocating. I think that position is based on church traditions and ancient cultural mores. So, if the proponents of this position are not upholding the standard of Scripture, they are enforcing an extra-biblical position on divorced people. They are excluding them contrary to the revealed will of God. If their position is biblical, it is noble. If it is not biblical, it is unnecessary and cruel.

So, the question is simple: is the prohibitionist position biblical or not? That is the focus of this study.

The “Redemptive” View

This is the position that I will advocate. Obviously, I have chosen a sympathetic name for this view, but I also believe it is an accurate descriptor. I reject the “Compassionate” view because it does not uphold biblical standards. I reject the Prohibitionist view because I think it enforces a standard that goes beyond that which is taught in Scripture. It is exclusionary beyond what scripture permits. In fact, I believe that the Prohibitionist view fails to fully appreciate the redemptive power of Christ. I know that such is not the intent of anyone who advocates that view, but I believe that it is the effect.

The redemptive view is based on the transforming power of Jesus Christ and the Cross. This view upholds the biblical standard of lifelong marriage and recognizes that divorce is the result of sin on the part of one or both partners. What this view refuses to do is put divorcees into a special category of sin. And it emphasizes the transformational, renewing power of Christ.

Jesus came to forgive sin and redeem sinners. A murderer can be forgiven and redeemed. An adulterer can have his sin washed white as snow. So can a thief, a drug addict, a prostitute, even a homosexual. In the same way, those who are divorced are forgiven and redeemed by the power of Christ.

Leadership in the church is a matter of character and integrity. Those who lead the church must have spiritual integrity in their walk with Christ and must have demonstrated character to the church and community in their public walk. We are all sinners, though that sin takes different forms. God is working to conform us to the image of Christ. Those who lead the church are those who are farthest in the process of Christlikeness.

What matters is not what I did 20 years ago, but what I am today. Maybe 20 years ago I was a drug dealer. But today I am walking with Christ and people can see what I am. Maybe 20 years ago I robbed a bank. I did my time, got right with God and began to grow. If I have demonstrated that I am a new man in Christ, and have reliable character, I can be a leader in God’s church.

Why is divorce any different? If I am in the middle of a divorce, I am certainly not ready to be a pastor, elder or deacon in the church, even if I am the “innocent” party in the divorce. But if I was divorced 25 years ago, remarried, and have been a faithful husband to my wife for all these years, should that divorce forever eliminate me from significant service?

I believe that blanket elimination of a person who has been divorced from service in the church is a denial of the redemptive power of Christ. Jesus came to redeem sinners and to make them like Christ. To continually throw a sin of the past in the face of someone who has repented and has been renewed in Christ is, to me, an unintentional but real denial of Christ’s transformational work.

Once again, if the biblical evidence supports the Prohibitionist viewpoint, then my view is weak and compromising. If Paul, when he told Timothy that leaders must be “the husband of one wife” meant “never divorced”, then my view is wrong. That is why we need to inductively study Scripture.

Toward a Biblical View

The biblical position strikes a balance between the opposing sides of prohibitionism and compassion. We must take into account both God’s terrible holiness, and His gracious forgiveness in view of the sinfulness of man. It must stress both the sanctity of marriage in God’s eyes, and the harsh reality of life in a sinful, fallen world. It must stress forgiveness and restoration to divorced people, just as is true for people guilty of other sins. To find the biblical position on divorce and remarriage issues, we must:

1. Approach the Scriptures open-mindedly. We all have the tendency to believe what we’ve always been taught, without looking at our views critically to see if they are consistent with Scripture. The person who desires to know God’s mind must always come to the word with a pure heart and an open mind, leaving prejudices and preconceived ideas behind. What is most important is that we find out what God’s Word says about divorce, not what our traditions or culture say.

2. Look at all the scriptural evidence. We cannot just rely on those verses which support our cherished positions. That is how we so often argue Scripture. I marshal several texts which support my position, then deny or ignore the texts you have marshaled to support yours. For a view to be biblical, it must fit every scriptural text into the view without denying or doing hermeneutical violence to any position.

3. Look at each Scripture in its context. The context of a passage will never change the meaning of a verse, but it will clarify the meaning. Each text must be studies on its own, faithfully understanding it in context. Then, we seek to put all the verses together into a unified and consistent whole. If the Bible is God’s Word, then every verse’s clear meaning will fit together into a totality that is logical and consistent.

Secondary Separation - When to Stand Apart from Biblical Error

Secondary Separation - When to Stand Apart from Biblical Error

From The Sword & Trowel 2013, issue 1 by Dr Peter Masters
It is clearly a vital duty of Christians to stand apart from false teachers who deny the fundamentals of the faith. 'Do not be mixed up with them,' says the apostle Paul (see 2 Corinthians 6.14), 'Do not associate.' Full Bible references follow the article. This duty has become known as the doctrine of separation.
However, there are Bible-believing ministers and congregations who belong to apostate denominations, where people who reject the true Gospel constitute the overwhelming majority, as in the Church of England, or the Baptist Union.
Sometimes evangelical minsters and clergy in these denominations can function in a rather ‘independent’ way, but more usually they co­operate with their denominational leaders and colleagues who deny the fundamentals of the faith. In so doing, they ignore and repudiate the clear duty of biblical separation. They recognise and work with those whom the Lord called 'wolves in sheep’s clothing'.
Is Secondary Separation Right?

The question arises – how should evangelicals who obey God's call to stand apart treat fellow-evangelicals who refuse to do so? Should they maintain full fellowship, or stand apart from those who disobey? The latter is called secondary separation.
In the past, independent churches, Strict Baptist churches and Brethren assemblies in Britain have practically all held that secondary separation, often with great regret, is also our duty, but nowadays we hear pastors of such churches saying they do not believe in secondary separation. Some call it 'hyper-separation' and make it sound harsh and loveless. We have even heard it called 'the sin of schism'.
Far from being loveless, it is a Gospel-preserving and church-protecting duty designed for our blessing
It should not be forgotten that the duty of separation, whether primary or secondary, is laid upon us in the Bible by the infinite kindness of God. Far from being loveless, it is a Gospel-preserving and a church-protecting duty. It is designed for our blessing and power. It is to keep us from a thousand snares and heartaches.
Separation with Discretion

One of the reasons why some pastors recoil from secondary separation is they are seemingly unaware that it is to be applied with discretion, in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 16.14 – 'Let all your things be done with charity.' (Paul says this immediately after exhorting to stand firmly for the faith.)
If a minister in an apostate denomination is knowingly, wilfully and actively cooperating with false teachers we should have no fellowship with him, but if such a man is grieved by his non-evangelical colleagues, remonstrating with them, witnessing to them, and declining cooperation with them, then we must respect him, and be charitable. Perhaps he has never considered his position. We should certainly recognise him as a brother, fellowship with him privately, pray for him and persuade him to leave that denomination if we can.
However, we would be unable to share a platform with him, or ask him to preach for us, because that would endorse his apostate denomination and confuse God’s people. But we would not withdraw ourselves from him to the extent that we would from a wilfully disobedient evangelical minister who cooperates with his denominational false teachers.
The KJV rendering of Jude 22 also expresses charity in reproof – 'And of some have compassion, making a difference,' or (in this case) distinguishing between levels of involvement with error.
Years ago there were many in apostate denominations who were 'rebels within'. They stood very definitely for the Truth and opposed false teaching. There are few like this today, but where we find them we admire them, and fellowship warmly with them, even though we think their position illogical.
Dr Lloyd-Jones on Separation

In recent times the claim has been made that secondary separation is extremism. This writer has been named as going much further than Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), the famous minister of Westminster Chapel, who made a call to evangelicals to leave apostate denominations. It is claimed that Dr Lloyd-Jones opposed secondary separation, saying, 'If I am convinced that a man is my brother I am going to bear with him. I am not going to divide from him…We are born again by the same Spirit into the same family…I do not separate from my brother' (Unity in Truth pp 120-121).
Dr Lloyd-Jones, however, was not speaking about secondary separation in that quotation, but about unity between evangelicals who had left apostate denominations. His dream and hope was that all British evangelicals would separate from error and join together in a new denomination. Not all were enthusiastic, some saying to him, 'We are Baptists, and we could not join with paedo-baptists,' while others said, 'We are Calvinists and could not join with Arminians.' Dr Lloyd-Jones was appealing to these and said that he would not separate from his brother and nor should they. He was not talking about separating from evangelicals who cooperate with non-evangelicals in their denominations, for he advocated such separation. He was appealing for unity among those who had separated. He felt they should set aside their convictions on baptism and the doctrines of grace, and so on, for the sake of unity.
Dr Lloyd-Jones and Billy Graham

To prove the point we remember the way in which Dr Lloyd-Jones refused to work with Billy Graham, and this is a significant example of secondary separation. In 1963 the evangelist asked Dr Lloyd-Jones to chair the first World Congress on Evangelism (eventually held in Berlin in 1966; predecessor to Lausanne). Dr Lloyd-Jones told Billy Graham that if he would stop having liberals and Roman Catholics on his platform and drop the invitation system he would support and chair the Congress.
Billy Graham would not change his views, and Dr Lloyd-Jones declined to endorse or commend or work with him. No doubt the meeting between them was courteously conducted (it lasted three hours) but the outcome was a firm application of secondary separation.
Dr Lloyd-Jones adopted the same attitude to Billy Graham's London crusades. He took the view, and stated it publicly, that to have visible unity with those who are opposed to essential matters of salvation was sinful. (He also believed the invitation system was a source of mass-delusion and harm to churches.)
Despite Billy Graham's high standing with most British evangelicals, the enthusiastic support he received from the secular media, the fact that his name was a household word, and despite the significant place in world evangelicalism that he was offering to Dr Lloyd-Jones, the latter stood by his biblical principle, and declined all the overtures. He would not commend or work with Dr Billy Graham. This is true loyalty to God’s Word, and protectiveness of one’s congregation.
For what it's worth, as far as the present writer is aware he goes no further in his view of secondary separation than Dr Lloyd-Jones (although he does not share the great man’s latter day enthusiasm for a new evangelical denomination).
Spurgeon on Secondary Separation

In a famous sermon, C H Spurgeon expressed the very same position in these words: 'That I might not stultify my testimony I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them' (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 1888, No. 2047). Dr Lloyd-Jones was of the same mind, but both exercised tender discretion.
We sometimes hear it said that there is no text in the Bible that requires secondary separation, but we find this assertion astonishing. For one thing, the many texts that command primary separation are emphatic, insistent, obligatory, and imperative, showing how great a wrong it is to reject them. They are categorical and absolute. They are compulsory and not merely permissive. Disobedience certainly puts a believer into the category of one who 'walks disorderly' and not in line with the instructions of the apostles. For such the word of 2 Thessalonians 3.14 is clear: 'And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.'
For another thing, the solemn words of Revelation 18.4 express a deep and prophetic principle – 'Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins…'
These scriptures certainly require that we stand apart from those who recognise and assist false teachers
In 2 John 11 we learn that the one who even expresses a blessing to a false teacher is a participant in his evil deeds. God assigns guilt to the non-separator, and we must not brush that aside.
In the end, those who mistakenly remain in apostate denominations contribute to (whether they aim to or not) the victory of the Lord's enemies. We see this in the historic decline of once great evangelical denominations.
In this article we have called it a great wrong to disobey the separation texts. Dr Lloyd-Jones called it a sin. These scriptures certainly require that we stand apart from those who recognise and assist false teachers.
Some are anxious about secondary separation because they believe we have a duty to promote interchurch unity in line with the Saviour's high-priestly prayer of John 17. This question will be answered in a tail-piece to this article, but first we must consider another important ground of separation.
Separation from Wordly Evangelicals

The biblical duty to stand apart from certain fellow-evangelicals applies not only to false teachers and those who help them but also to evangelicals who promote sinful, worldly and harmful conduct. This category of separation includes those who commit serious offences, such as immorality and the other disfellowshipping sins referred to in 1 Corinthians 5.9, 11 and 13 and elsewhere. Even secular professional and sporting associations exclude those who bring their cause into disrepute.
Worldly and harmful conduct certainly includes cursing and swearing, gross disrespect to Christ or to Scripture, and deliberate sexual innuendo or verbal pornography. There are preachers today claiming to be sound evangelicals, who bring the testimony into disrepute by such behaviour, and we cannot possibly endorse them. It is truly astonishing that some evangelicals do commend them. They may claim to be reformed in doctrine, but in fact they deny by their conduct a fundamental of the faith, effectively saying that God is not holy after all. He does not mind boozing, swearing, coarseness and worldly exhibitionism! Indeed, he delights in watching his people indulge. This is the 'confessional statement' of their lives.
Then there is the enormous problem of other forms of wilful worldliness. Who can tell what harm worldliness is doing in the churches of Christ?
Separation from Rap and Rock

Who would have imagined twenty years ago that rap, with all its debased cultural associations, would be used in worship and applauded by reformed churches? Incalculable harm is done, reverence forfeited, the message distorted by the culture, and the young deprived of any distinction between the church and the world.
Sinful things first permeate and then dominate the dumbed-down, world-conforming worship of today, often because pastors thought that to distance themselves from these things would be lacking love. Consequently the flock is soon maimed, holiness is stunted and love for Christ gives way to mere self-indulgence and entertainment.
The new and massive invasion of worldliness began in a small way in the 1960s, but the scale of today was not attained until the 1990s, long after the ministries of Dr Lloyd-Jones, E J Poole-Connor, and other notables who included protective warnings in their ministries. They did not warn of today’s extreme worldliness because it had not yet arisen. In fact, nothing quite like it has been seen in the entire history of the Christian church. Younger people today have no idea how much church culture has become conformed to that of a carnal world.
It is never schism to expose error, to discipline obvious sin, or to stand apart from deeply injurious influences.
The Medium is the Message

Right now there are some preachers who possess fine presentational skills and winning personalities, and say they want to see souls saved, but who have mistakenly attached to the Gospel the menace of heavy rock, rap and other sin-stained methods. It is wrong to say that their belief in the Gospel, and their desire to win souls, is all that should concern us.
The phrase coined in 1964 by philosopher Marshall McLuhan is true – 'the medium is the message'. He meant that the manner of communication deeply influences and shapes the hearer's perception of the message. The preacher speaks of God’s holiness and man’s sin, of Christ's atoning death, and of repentance and faith, but the sinner observes the culture, the scantily dressed performers, and the music style borrowed from worldly people who designed it to proclaim immorality and indulgence. Consequently he perceives the message to say – 'you may continue to enjoy the sinful aspects of the world, and yet Christ still will get you to Heaven.' Thus the Gospel is distorted and compromised. (In fact, the degree of manipulation employed to get a response to the Gospel is far more distorting to the message than that of the invitation system that Dr Lloyd-Jones refused to work with.)
Gospel Harm Texts

Serious Gospel harm makes it necessary for us to 'stand apart' from this brand of worldly, harmful evangelism, no matter how great the human appeal of its culturally-­compromised preachers.
Referring to the ministry of himself and his fellow-workers, Paul speaks of 'giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed' (2 Corinthians 6.3). In other words, we put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no one will stumble because of us, nor our ministry be blamed. Nothing must be allowed to discredit the Gospel, distort it, negate it, or bring it into disrepute.
The passage goes on to show how Gospel labourers are approved and authenticated by such virtues as patience and pureness, and by the Word of Truth and the power of God. The harnessing of worldliness is biblically condemned, not advocated.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not teach that the Gospel could be commended by overt worldliness, let alone cursing and sexual innuendo. On the contrary he said, 'Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven' (Matthew 5.16). Paul said he would suffer anything rather than ‘hinder the gospel of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 9.12). We are to be 'blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life' (Philippians 2.15-16).
No matter how soundly the Gospel is proclaimed, the 'medium' may distort the message, making it a license to sin, not a deliverance from sin
The deliberate imitation and adoption of music and clothing associated with sin and godlessness constitutes an alarming misrepresentation of the Gospel and we should not cooperate with it.
Paul repeatedly gives exhortations to godliness 'that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed' (eg: 1 Timothy 6.1). Titus is told to live a life that is 'a pattern of good works' with 'sound speech, that cannot be condemned' (Titus 2.1-11). It is by distinctive good works that the Gospel is authenticated (1 Peter 2.12), not by conformity to the lifestyles of a sinful world. No matter how soundly the Gospel is proclaimed, or how earnest the proclaimer, the 'medium' may distort the message, making it a license to sin, not a deliverance from sin.
We see the error in the results secured by many who employ the new worldly-conformed methods. Anyone may watch the internet clips of major young people's conferences where immorally clad youngsters behave just as the world does in 'Christian rock' praise sessions. The Gospel preached did not bring them out of the world.
We also hear of the colossal fall-away rates in churches that go in for these things. We are reliably told of packed student congregations where hardly any continue to walk with the Lord after graduation. We are informed by concerned workers in a well-known contemporary-method mega church how few people really know salvation and live lives committed to holiness and service.
Separation from Satan's Strategy

When Satan inspired Evangelicals and Catholics Together in the late 1990s in the USA, large numbers of evangelical churches rejected the proposals. Satan discovered that to try to join Bible believers with Catholics on a doctrinal basis was a step too far and too fast. His next campaign against churches appears to have been the accelerated promotion of contemporary worship and worldly lifestyles, first in a moderate way, but driving the movement ever harder and faster. Perhaps Satan saw that once Catholics and evangelicals all worshipped the same way, then they would no longer see any difference between themselves. Who knows where matters will end? Who knows what harm has already been done?
If only we would listen to the directions of God, in his protective, preserving kindness, to stand apart from worldly and harmful things. Secondary separation means standing apart even from Bible believers when they do things that maim and harm the Gospel and the churches.
As we have mentioned already, we stand apart with discretion. If a minister or church is employing contemporary material only to a small extent, we would far rather appeal and persuade, than break fellowship.
If, however, the drums are in with the full manifestation of worldliness, we cannot work together. James 4.4 hangs over the situation – 'Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.' 2 Thessalonians 3.14-15 must be honoured – 'And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.' Certainly we admonish the erring worker as a brother, but the key words remain – 'have no company with him'.
The solemn warning of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3.17 that no one must harm churches, should caution us all: 'If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.'
May I say to pastors, elders and deacons – we have a choice. We either show unreserved kindness, protection and solidarity toward the offender, or we show it to the Gospel and our congregations. We either commend one or the other. Which will we embrace? No pastor or church officer can be truly loyal to the Word and protective to the flock of God without the practice of biblical secondary separation, applied with all the sensitive discretion of charity.
Is there a Duty of Inter-Church Unity?

Some pastors are hesitant about secondary separation because they have been persuaded that they have a pressing biblical obligation to express evangelical unity between churches. They have understood the prayer of Christ, 'that they all may be one', to refer to the desirability of a formal earthly association. But in the New Testament the Lord does not require humanly organised earthly unity. There is no sign of such a thing in the pattern-church of the New Testament.
The unity for which Christ prayed was a spiritual phenomenon, and his prayer was fully answered from the moment he prayed it. Christ prayed that his people would be united in himself, he being the hub of the wheel, and his people the spokes, which though they may never meet, would be united in likeness to Christ, in fundamental doctrine, in their way of thinking, in their longing for holiness, in their service for their Lord, in their love for him, and in their waiting for his return.
He prayed that his own bloodbought people, though unknown to each other, some in far-flung, poor Himalayan villages, others in hostile North Korea, or Somalia, or in the free world, would share a common dependence upon him, and have the same testimony to the world.
We express this spiritual ­unity whenever we can in many non-­associational ways. If opportunity arises we are delighted to meet each other, or to send relief to those in distress, whether Calvinists or Arminians, Baptists or Presbyterians. Unity is not a matter of belonging to an earthly society, the only such unit in the New Testament being the local or particular congregation.
Spurgeon once said that every congregation is a Gospel ship, free to sail alongside any other likeminded Gospel ship to give needed assistance, but not required to festoon the oceans with connecting ropes joining them all together.
We have no biblical instruction to form an earthly organisation. Whenever such things have been attempted, they have done good for a time, but have then become corrupted, and a channel for infecting churches with all kinds of error. This is the story of the mainline historic denominations.
We see it unfolding today in UK groups of sound churches where the leaderships now actively promote extreme contemporary worship and ways, gradually transforming the character of the member churches.
Inter-church fellowships seem to attract to their leaderships, in time, a fatal sprinkling of people who seek influence to further their own agenda for the churches. The divine genius of the Bible does not actually call for such associations, and there is therefore no obligation on churches to seek affiliation to them. The Word does not require them, the Gospel does not need them, and love, fellowship and helpfulness toward others may be expressed far better without them.
Texts for Biblical Separation

The obligatory, insistent, imperative nature of the commands shown below, tells us how great a wrong it is to reject them, and why the principle of 2 Thessalonians 3.6 and 14 must take its course toward those who do.

2 Corinthians 6.14-18
Galatians 1.8-9
Ephesians 5.11
Romans 16.17
2 John 6-11
2 Thessalonians 3.6 and 14
Titus 3.10
1 Timothy 1.18-20, 5.22, 6.3-5
2 Timothy 2.16-21
2 Timothy 3.5
2 Chronicles 19.2
Revelation 18.4

References to separation from worldliness and harmful practices:–
James 4.4
1 John 2.15
Galatians 1.4
John 17.13-16
Romans 12.2
Ephesians 5.8