Is It OK for Church Leaders to Live in Luxury?

Not that long ago, I was talking to another Christian about a certain well known church leader.

I won’t mention the name of the leader here, for two reasons. First, naming him won’t be necessary for me to make my points in this article. And second, just in case the information I have about him is not completely accurate, I don’t want to misrepresent him.

I am pretty sure that what I have heard about him is correct, but even if it isn’t, there are other church leaders who are in the same sort of situation anyway, and my aim in this article is to make points about church leaders generally.

The situation of this leader

The leader in question is someone who rightly opposes the so-called Prosperity Gospel, which says that a Christian who is living in a way that is pleasing to God should expect to be financially well off. Nevertheless, he has written many popular Christian books that have earned him a great deal of money. And with some of this money he has apparently bought three luxury homes.

The issue

When I was discussing this with the other Christian, we took different views on whether this leader had done the right thing in buying these three homes.

I forget the precise words that each of us used, but the other guy argued in the following sort of way:

The Bible makes it clear that it is the love of money that is sinful, not being wealthy in itself, and there is no evidence that this church leader loves money.

Besides, he clearly works very hard, and he deserves a big financial reward for doing that. There is also every reason to think that he gives away a lot of what he earns.

Therefore, he has done nothing wrong in buying three luxury homes.

I am not persuaded by this argument. I think this leader has made a big mistake in buying three luxury homes, and in what follows I will explain why.

Points of agreement

Before I give my explanation, I want to note some points of agreement with the man I was talking to.

First, it is true that the Bible condemns the love of money rather than money itself.

Second, I don’t know if this leader is guilty of the love of money, but in the absence of clear evidence for this, I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he isn’t.

Third, there is no doubt that this leader works very hard, and that he deserves a financial reward for this, as 1 Timothy 5:18 says.

And fourth, I am sure that he gives away a lot of the money he earns.

Nevertheless, I don’t think these things justify buying three luxury homes.

Basically, I think this leader is missing a golden opportunity to steer his flock away from the love of money by setting an example of being content with few things. Let me explain why I think this.

The love of money is a serious and very common sin

To begin with, we need to be clear that the love of money is a sin.

In 1 Timothy 6:10, for example, the apostle Paul says:

‘For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.’

This should leave us in no doubt about the seriousness of this sin.

Similarly, in Matthew 6:24 Jesus teaches:

‘You cannot serve both God and wealth.’

Given that our whole aim in life as Christians is to serve God with an undivided heart, these words underscore how harmful it is to love money.

As far as the frequency of this sin is concerned, I think it is obvious that in society generally it is an extremely common thing to find. In fact, I would say that all over the world it is very rare to find a non-Christian who doesn’t love money.

We can just tell, can’t we, by the way so many people speak about possessions, that they are lovers of money?

Love of money inside the church

Importantly, wherever there is a sin that is widespread in a country, it is always the case that this sin will significantly affect churches in that country. I don’t think there is ever an exception to this.

So, because the love of money is so common throughout the world, this means that the love of money is a big issue for the church in every country. Many Christians love money, and many others are fighting the strong temptation to love money.

If we were to make a list of important things that Christians in leadership positions need to do in their ministry, I would suggest that steering their flocks away from the love of money is in the top ten things, or maybe in the top twenty, for virtually every church leader in the world.

In other words, helping Christians in their churches to avoid the love of money is a key part of the job description of a Christian leader.

How do leaders steer Christians away from the love of money?

So how do leaders help their flocks to avoid the love of money?

Well, firstly, they need to teach on this subject. And the Bible is full of teaching on this.

But there is a second way in which church leaders should influence Christians in their churches for good, and that is by setting an example. And as far as loving money is concerned, the example they can set is one of being content with living a relatively simple lifestyle with relatively few luxuries.

In 1 Timothy 6:8 Paul says to Timothy:

‘If we have food and clothing, we will be content with these things.’

This is a wonderful attitude to have, and it is certainly one that church leaders should aspire to.

Giving up what we deserve for the greater good

But there is another important point to bring in here, which is the principle of giving up things we deserve for the greater good.

In 1 Corinthians 9:3-23 Paul talks at length about how as an apostle he deserves to earn a living from the gospel, but how he has not taken advantage of this because it will help his evangelistic work not to. He says something similar in 2 Corinthians 11:7-10.

It is too simplistic, then, to say that if a church leader works hard, he should automatically take advantage of what he earns.

Summing up

Getting back to the leader I mentioned who owns three luxury homes, I find it very difficult to believe that he has got this right.

Given how common the love of money is, even among Christians, in his church of over a thousand people there are bound to be many who are either guilty of loving money or are battling temptations to commit this sin. And in that context, I just can’t see that he should have three luxury homes, especially when most of those in his church won’t even have one.

I think he is missing a golden opportunity to set a fantastic example by living in a relatively modest way. I am not saying that he should avoid all luxuries all the time. I think that would be going too far. But to have three luxury homes is to my mind very poor leadership.

If I were a church leader who earned a lot of money, I think I would set a little rule for myself that my standard of living would not be above the average of the people in my church. I am not saying that every leader should do precisely this, but this is what I would aim to do.

 

See also:

Is It Always God’s Will for Christians to Avoid Poverty?

The Prosperity Gospel Is a False Gospel

Imitation as a Principle of Christan Living

Charismatic Churches and Their Attitude to Hardship

Does Colossians 1:15-16 Really Mean That Jesus Is Not Divine?

There is a passage in Paul’s letter to the Colossians that is often used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and others as a proof text for their view that Jesus is not divine.

The passage is Col 1:15-16, and it reads as follows:

‘15 He [the Son of God] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.’ (ESV)

The argument used

The argument used by those who claim that Jesus is not divine goes in the following way:

Verse 15 describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God. This implies that he is not himself God.

Furthermore, v. 15 describes him as ‘the firstborn of all creation’. This is sometimes translated into English as ‘the firstborn over all creation’, but this is a mistranslation of the Greek original.

‘The firstborn of all creation’ implies that Jesus is the part of creation that was created first, or that he is the most important part of creation, or both these things. But it doesn’t mean that he is a creator.

Besides, in v. 18 of the same chapter, Jesus is described as ‘the firstborn from the dead’, and this means that he is part of the group of people who have died. So it makes sense to think that the similar phrase ‘the firstborn of all creation’ in v. 15 should be interpreted in a similar way, i.e., that he is part of the creation.

At first sight this might seem to be an impressive argument. However, when we dig a little deeper, we find that it doesn’t hold water.

Jesus as the image of the invisible God

To begin with, what should we make of the fact that Jesus is described in v. 15 as the image of the invisible God? Does this mean that he isn’t God himself?

The text doesn’t have to be interpreted in this way at all. The word ‘image’ can mean different things in different contexts. In this context, with its reference to the invisible God, it is not at all unnatural to understand the image to be a way of visibly seeing that which is invisible.

In other words, it is not a forced interpretation of these words to say that when we look at Jesus we see the invisible God. And interpreted in this way, there would be no suggestion that Jesus is not divine.

The upshot is that these words hardly count as proof that Jesus is not divine.

Jesus as the firstborn of all creation

But what about the description of Jesus as ‘the firstborn of all creation’? Does this phrase have to mean that he is not divine?

Before I answer this question, there are a couple of preliminary points to get out of the way.

Firstly, I have already noted that in v. 15 ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is sometimes translated as ‘the firstborn over all creation’. On this I agree completely with Jehovah’s Witnesses and others that we should translate with ‘of’ rather than ‘over’. In the Greek text the construction is a simple genitive that translates naturally into English as ‘of all creation’. There is no preposition meaning ‘over’.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses are also correct that in v. 18 ‘the firstborn from the dead’ means that Jesus is part of the group of people who have died.

However, there is a fatal flaw with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of ‘the firstborn of all creation’. It is simply impossible in the context to take these words to mean that Jesus is created, for a very specific reason.

Crucially, we must note the first clause of v. 16: ‘For by him all things were created’, which immediately follows the reference to ‘the firstborn of all creation’ in v. 15. This first clause of v. 16 shows that the reason why Jesus can be called the firstborn of all creation is because he created all things. In other words, he is the firstborn of all creation because he created stuff!

So, whatever exactly ‘the firstborn of all creation’ means, it cannot possibly be about him being created, because v. 16 gives his activity as creator as the reason why he is the firstborn of all creation.

But what about the fact that ‘the firstborn from the dead’ in v. 18 means that Jesus is part of the group of people who have died? If ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is not about Jesus being part of creation, it looks very awkward, doesn’t it, to have two very similar phrases being used in different ways so close to each other in the text?

Not really. Sometimes in the Bible, as in modern English language generally, we find the same or similar words or phrases in close proximity to each other being used in different ways. It’s not a rare thing to come across.

All things were created by Jesus

There is one final thing about this passage that is difficult for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation. Note how v. 16 says twice that ‘all things were created’ by or through Jesus.

Most naturally, this sounds as if literally everything that has ever been created was created by Jesus. And in this case, he would have to be divine, since as creator of every created thing he couldn’t have been created himself.

It is less natural to take these words to mean that Jesus created everything that has been created apart from himself, who God created. If we were to interpret in this way, we would need to understand ‘apart from himself’ as an unexpressed exception to ‘all things’: ‘For by him all things were created (apart from himself, who was created by God) . . .’ But this is not the most natural way of taking these words.

Summing up

Despite the claims of some, then, Colossians 1:15-16 in no way counts as a proof text that Jesus is not divine.

In fact, the words in this passage most naturally point towards his deity rather than away from it. And in the light of the rest of biblical revelation, we should have no hesitation in saying that Jesus is indeed divine.

 

See also:

Is It Right to Say That God Died on the Cross?

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

The Problem with Drawing Conclusions from a Few Bible Proof Texts

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Is It Right to Say that God Died on the Cross?

The old Christian hymn by Charles Wesley, ‘And Can it Be?’ includes the line:

‘Amazing love! how can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!’

So what are we to make of these words? Is it correct to say that God died on the cross, or should Christians avoid speaking in this way?

In answer to this question, I would say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross, but that there is a sense in which we can say that God died on the cross.

God is immortal

The first thing we need to be clear about is that God is immortal. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:16 explicitly uses the word ‘immortal’ to describe God.

To be immortal is to be undying and incapable of dying. So God cannot die and therefore obviously has never died.

This is why I say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross.

The God-Man Jesus Christ

But things are not quite so simple.

To begin with, we need to understand that the Bible teaches that three things are true about Jesus Christ all at once. First, He is truly God. Second, He is truly man. And third, He is one person.

All three of these points are crucial, and over the centuries many heresies have arisen among people who have accepted only two of the points but rejected the third. Christians need to stand firm, however, on insisting that all three are true.

So the one person, Jesus, is a combination of God and man. He is the God-Man. His divinity and humanity are not confused or mingled. They are distinct. But He is still only one person. This is standard Christian theology.

Two opposite things are sometimes both true of Jesus

There is something about Jesus, however, that at first sight looks very strange, but which it is important to understand.

Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus, and anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. And this sometimes leads to opposite things both being true of Him.

A good example to illustrate this is the issue of how much Jesus knows. In His divinity Jesus knows everything there is to know, i.e., He is omniscient. But in His humanity He doesn’t know everything, i.e., He is not omniscient.

We actually have a striking example of Jesus’ lack of knowledge in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 13:32, referring to the time when He will return to earth, Jesus says:

‘Now concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.’

In this verse ‘the Son’ is a reference to Jesus Himself, so the verse is clear that there is something Jesus doesn’t know. And this lack of knowledge is true of His humanity. But because He is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement.

However, in His divinity, Jesus knows everything. And, again, because He is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement.

Therefore, ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement, and ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement. In one sense He is not omniscient, but in another sense He is.

Jesus died on the cross

The same sort of thing applies to Jesus’ death on the cross. In His divinity He clearly did not die on the cross, because God is immortal, as I have noted. But in His humanity He certainly did die on the cross.

And, once again, because anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus, ‘Jesus died on the cross’ is a correct statement.

The person who is Jesus Christ is the person who is God the Son

So it is true that Jesus died on the cross, but it was in His humanity that He died, not in His divinity.

But if He didn’t die in His divinity, that means it is wrong to say that God died on the cross, isn’t it?

Not really, and here is the point. I have said that Jesus Christ is one person. However, crucially, this person is the person of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

At the incarnation, the person who is God the Son joined Himself to a human nature to become the God-Man Jesus Christ. But the person, God the Son, stayed the same. The person who is Jesus is none other than the person who is God the Son.

Therefore, because Jesus died on the cross, and because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can legitimately say that God the Son died on the cross.

And finally, we can shorten saying that God the Son died on the cross to saying that God died on the cross.

So, even though it was only in His humanity that He died on the cross, we can legitimately say that God died on the cross.

Summing up

In the most fundamental sense, then, God did not die on the cross. God is immortal and cannot die.

But in another sense, it is right to say that God died on the cross, as follows:

(1) In His humanity, Jesus died on the cross.

(2) Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity is true of Jesus, so we can say that Jesus died on the cross.

(3) Because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can say that God the Son died on the cross.

(4) Saying that God the Son died on the cross can be shortened to saying that God died on the cross.

So I would say that we can sing the words of Charles Wesley’s hymn with a clear conscience.

 

See also:

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

The Justice and Mercy of God

Is America Really the Greatest Country on Earth?

I keep hearing American Christians confidently and proudly declaring that the United States is the greatest country on earth.

I find this troubling, not just because I believe it is incorrect, but because I think that many of those who say this have set up their country as an idol. And idolatry is a grave sin.

I am not American

Before I go any further, I should say that I am not an American myself. I think some Americans will therefore probably be offended by me giving my opinion here.

Nevertheless, I believe I am justified in doing so. If some American Christians are guilty of idolatry in this area, as I suspect they are, then if I can help to counteract this, I will be doing them good. I am only trying to make constructive criticism that builds people up. I am not trying to push anyone down.

Besides, it is my sincere belief that my own country, the United Kingdom, is even worse than the U.S. So I am in no way writing from some imagined position of superiority. And if American Christians want to write criticizing the U.K., then as long as the criticism is fair – which it isn’t difficult to believe it would be – then I would be the first to say “Amen.”

When the late British queen was still alive, I actually wrote an article encouraging British Christians not to idolize her, so I have a track record of criticizing my own country in this sort of way anyway. I haven’t written an article specifically directed towards British Christians who think that the U.K. today is a great country, for the simple reason that I have hardly ever heard any British Christian say that.

What counts as a great country in God’s sight?

When considering this topic, we first need to think through what we mean by the greatness of a country.

As Christians we obviously want to have the perspective that God would have on this issue, what Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 2:16 as “the mind of Christ.” So we are really asking what God sees as greatness in a country.

A good place to start is Luke 16:15, where Jesus says in no uncertain terms:

“For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.”

The things that the world admires and is impressed by are usually things that are totally unimpressive to God. And this surely applies when considering whether countries are great or not.

So, for example, the U.S. is the wealthiest country on earth. But we know from Scripture that wealth doesn’t impress God at all.

For instance, in Revelation 3:14-22 we read how the risen Jesus sharply rebukes the church in Laodicea. Materially this church was well off. But Jesus describes it as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (v. 17) because of its sins. And if God ignores wealth when forming a judgment on how impressive a church is, it makes sense to think that He would do the same when forming a judgment on how impressive a country is.

So the wealth of the U.S. certainly doesn’t mean that it is the greatest country on earth. Nor does its power. Here 1 Corinthians 1:27 is relevant, where Paul says that “God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” It is true that these words are about individual people, but the words tell us about God’s perspective, and it makes sense to think that they would apply to countries too. God is unimpressed by power.

Instead of thinking along the lines of wealth, power, opportunity or anything like that, I would suggest that the issue of how great a country is boils down to one simple thing. Surely in God’s sight the greatest country on earth is the one that pleases Him the most. Surely it is the country where the laws are most pleasing to Him and where the people act most in line with His will. The whole Bible from cover to cover would lead us to think this, wouldn’t it?

Is America the most pleasing country to God?

So our question about whether America is the greatest country on earth is really about whether America pleases God more than all other countries on earth.

I don’t pretend to have special access to God’s mind on this point. But even so, I find it impossible to believe that the U.S. is the country that pleases Him the most. Some of the evils that are tolerated and practiced in America are truly horrifying.

Let’s start with abortion. This is a monstrous evil that has claimed the lives of millions of unborn babies over the last half century or so in the U.S. It is true that Roe v. Wade has finally been overturned, but this is unlikely to reduce overall abortion rates more than a little for the country as a whole. And widespread abortion is not something that has been forced on an unwilling population by the American government. It is what most U.S. citizens want.

Of course, there are countries where abortion laws are even more relaxed than in the U.S. and where even more of this kind of evil occurs. But there are also more than a few countries where abortion is much more tightly controlled. In some parts of the world, the value of unborn children is set much higher than in America.

I would suggest that this issue on its own clearly disqualifies the U.S. from being the greatest country on earth.

But let’s think about another issue too, so-called “gay marriage.” Arrogant Western countries, including the U.S., have dared to try to alter God’s created order for marriage by claiming that it is possible for two men or two women to get married. Like abortion, this is not something that has been foisted on the people against their will by the government. It is what most American citizens want, and it is a massive insult to God.

It is important to understand that there are many countries where people wouldn’t dream of trying to change marriage in this way. In many parts of the world, the vast majority of the population rightly sees “gay marriage” as unnatural and an affront to God.

I really don’t think I need to provide any more evidence to make my case. How can American Christians possibly claim that their country is the greatest on earth? Do they think God overlooks the unborn babies being cut to pieces every day? Do they think He overlooks being insulted when the husband-wife relationship that mirrors the holy relationship between Christ and the church is discarded in order to promote perversion? Do they think the fact that many other countries displease Him far less in these areas is a trivial matter?

Regardless of how great America may or may not have been in the past, at the present time it is surely not the greatest country on earth.

God is not mocked

In Galatians 6:7 Paul tells his readers:

“God is not mocked.”

Of course this isn’t to be taken literally, as if people don’t actually mock God. God is mocked all the time, whether explicitly or whether implicitly in things like abortion and “gay marriage.”

What these words mean is that no one mocks God and gets away with it without repentance. Either they will repent and find forgiveness for their mockery, or they will be punished for it.

I would encourage American Christians who think that their country is the greatest on earth to ponder these words.

For my own part as a British Christian, I would never even contemplate saying that the U.K. is the greatest country on earth or anything remotely close to that. It is an evil place that is piling up its sins against almighty God, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it is down near the bottom of the list in His sight.

Which are the greatest countries?

So if America isn’t the greatest country on earth, which one is? I am not at all confident about the answer to this question. But if I had to guess, I would say that the best countries today are probably some of those in sub-Saharan Africa that have a lot of Christians.

The worldview in these countries tends to be much more grounded than in the West. There is more of a humility before God, an understanding that human beings are creatures under His mighty hand, who have obligations to fit in with His created order.

To be fair, even the best countries are full of sinful people committing sins. So perhaps we should refer to the least bad countries rather than the greatest ones. But I would guess that some of these African ones are top of the list.

 

See also:

The Will of the People: A Big Idol among Christians Today

“Human Rights”: A Big Idol among Christians Today

Most People in Western Countries Completely Misunderstand What Human Beings Are

A Plea to British Christians Not to Idolise the Queen

Is Jeremiah 13:23 Racist against Black People?

Opponents of the Christian faith sometimes claim that Jeremiah 13:23 shows a racist attitude towards black people, and they see this as evidence that our faith is not true.

In fact, this verse is not racist at all, as I will try to explain in what follows.

The text and its correct interpretation

Here is the text of Jeremiah 13:23:

‘Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.’ (CSB)

‘Cushite’ in this verse refers to dark-skinned people who came from the land of Cush, the area immediately to the south of Egypt, where modern day Sudan is located. Many translations have ‘Ethiopian’ in this verse instead of ‘Cushite’, although modern-day Ethiopia is not really the same location as ancient Cush. For our purposes, however, the details of this are not important, because, regardless of its location, the inhabitants of Cush were known for their dark skin. They were what we would describe as black.

In this verse God is sharply criticising the Jewish people of Jeremiah’s day. He is saying that they are so in the habit of doing evil, that there is no more likelihood of them changing and doing good than there is of a Cushite changing his skin colour or a leopard getting rid of its spots.

Changing the skin colour of a human and changing the visible appearance of an animal are obviously good examples of something that is impossible, which helps to drive home how immersed in sin and evil the Jewish people of that day were.

I think the precise examples of a Cushite and a leopard were chosen because they would both have been unusual and attention-grabbing sights in Judah at that time.

Jews would have known about dark-skinned people from Cush, but it seems that they would have been few and far between in Judah, so if someone saw a Cushite, it would have been a sight that caught people’s attention.

As far as leopards are concerned, these animals clearly have a very distinctive appearance compared to most other animals. And I think they would also have been rare in Judah at that time, which would have made them stand out all the more when they were seen.

The striking appearance of dark human skin and leopard spots seems to have been why these examples were chosen.

Answering an objection

There are a couple of different ways in which this verse is said to be racist against black people.

Firstly, it is sometimes said that the way the verse sets a Cushite alongside an animal is demeaning to the Cushite, as if to some extent the Cushite is being brought down to the level of a mere animal.

This objection is completely wrong. There is no more suggestion in this verse that the Cushite is being brought down to the level of the leopard than there is that the leopard is being raised to the level of the Cushite. Neither is being brought to the level of the other at all.

Instead, what we have here is simply one example of a striking appearance that is taken from the world of human beings and another example that is taken from the animal kingdom. For Jews of the day, the Cushite’s skin colour was an unusual and striking sight among human beings, and the leopard’s appearance was an unusual and striking sight among animals. Humans and animals are not being confused here at all.

Answering a second objection

There is a second and more common reason why this verse is said to be racist against black people, which has to do with the reference to changing appearance.

The Jewish people in view in this verse are evil, and the verse is clearly implying that it would be good if they were able to change for the better (although this is impossible). Some therefore claim that the analogy of the Cushite requires that we understand the verse also to be implying that it would be good if the Cushite were able to change his skin colour. In other words, it is sometimes said that this verse looks at dark skin colour negatively.

This objection also completely misses the mark. Crucially, we need to take note of how in this verse the Cushite’s skin and the leopard’s spots are parallel to each other. The same point is being made about both.

So logically, if we were to say that the verse is implying that it would be good for the Cushite’s skin colour to change, we would also have to say that it is implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots.

But the verse cannot possibly be implying that it would be good for the leopard to lose its spots. Why? Because leopards look fantastic! And there is no doubt that it isn’t just in our day that people think this. Surely people throughout history, including in Jeremiah’s day, have thought the same. The way that the Romans, for example, took great trouble to bring leopards to Rome is just one of many pieces of evidence for this.

This verse, then, is in no way implying that it would be good for leopards to change their appearance. So it cannot be implying that it would be good for Cushites to change their appearance, because exactly the same point is being made about the leopard and the Cushite.

The comparison of evil people with a Cushite and a leopard is therefore limited to the point that there is inability to change. The comparison doesn’t include whether it would be good for change to occur. Of course, it would be good if these Jews were able to change, but this is simply not the point that is being made by referring to the Cushite or the leopard. The point that is being made is just that the Jews in Jeremiah’s day are as unable to turn away from their evil as a Cushite is to change his skin colour or a leopard is to get rid of its spots.

Summing up

The idea that Jeremiah 13:23 is somehow racist against black people, then, is completely mistaken. In reality, this verse just mentions the skin colour of a Cushite as an example of something that cannot change, without anything negative about the Cushite or his skin colour being implied.

Moses married a black woman

While we are on this topic, it is well worth noting that Numbers 12:1-9 tells us that Moses married a black woman and that God approved of the marriage.

In Num 12:1 we read:

‘Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses because of the Cushite woman he married (for he had married a Cushite woman).’ (CSB)

In this verse the Hebrew adjective (koosheet) that is translated ‘Cushite’ is closely related to the Hebrew noun in Jer 13:23 (kooshee) that is translated as ‘Cushite’ in that verse. There is no good reason for thinking that these words have different meanings, which means that Num 12:1 is telling us that Moses married a Cushite woman, who would surely have been black.

We see from v. 1 that Miriam and Aaron criticised Moses for marrying this woman. And then in verses 5-8 God rebukes Miriam and Aaron for their attitude to Moses.

It is true that God’s rebuke seems to be at least mostly because Miriam and Aaron were assuming more importance than they should have, not specifically because they had criticised Moses’ marriage.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the passage is implying that Moses did nothing wrong by marrying the Cushite woman. Verse 1 tells us that the precise reason Moses came under criticism by Miriam and Aaron in the first place was because he married her. So when God then responds to this criticism and describes Moses as ‘faithful in all my house’ in v. 7, this has to mean that God had no objection to Moses’ marriage.

For yet another reason, then, the charge of racism against black people that is sometimes levelled against the Bible fails completely.

 

See also:

A Christian Perspective on Race and Racism

The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of Western Society

“Human Rights”: A Big Idol among Christians Today

The Will of the People: A Big Idol among Christians Today

Preconceived Ideas Versus the Bible

You and I, along with every other Christian on the planet, believe some things that are untrue. Sin has corrupted human beings in every area of life, and that includes our understanding. None of us is free from holding wrong ideas about things.

Often, wrong ideas are so firmly ingrained that Christians don’t even consider the possibility that they might be mistaken. There are various influences that can lead to us having deeply held wrong beliefs.

Culture

To begin with, many of the wrong ideas Christians hold come from the culture in which they were raised. Since we could first understand speech, we have been taught to think about things in certain ways, but what we often don’t realise is that some of this thinking is culturally conditioned rather than being universal.

Importantly, every culture around the world gets some things right and some things wrong. However, we tend to be especially blind to what is wrong in our own culture.

Church denominations

Another reason why many Christians hold wrong ideas is because they are idolising a certain Christian denomination.

There are huge numbers of Christians who believe that there is one true denomination that gets everything of significance right. And many therefore accept all that this denomination teaches without ever stopping to consider whether it might be wrong on anything.

I would suggest, however, that this is wishful thinking. No one denomination gets everything of significance right. Each of them is mistaken on things to some extent.

That is not to say that there are not better and worse denominations in God’s sight. Some are much better than others overall. But there is no true denomination that is always right.

Church leaders

Another common reason for Christians holding wrong ideas is because they idolise certain church leaders.

There should be no doubt that every Christian leader will teach some error no matter how hard he prays against this. Given how we all see things indistinctly at present (1 Cor 13:12), it is very unrealistic to think that any one individual gets every single thing of significance right.

Besides, it is surely a fact that no two Christian leaders agree on every significant point. This means that if there were a leader who is always right, there could only be one of them. And to think that of the thousands of Christian leaders in the world today, the one we personally happen to like the most is the one who always gets things right is hopelessly implausible.

One sign that helps to show whether someone might be idolising a church leader is their attitude when people disagree with the leader. Those guilty of this kind of idolatry often get very offended and angry with people for simply holding a different opinion on something. Their attitude seems to be: ‘Who are you to dare to disagree with such an eminent pastor?’

I have had experiences like this where I have simply disagreed with a certain well known church leader on some point or other. I haven’t been offensive or judgmental. I have just taken a different view on something. But a Christian who seems to idolise that leader has become very angry with me just for doing that.

Parents

The influence of parents is another reason why Christians hold wrong ideas about things.

Christians who had a happy upbringing that involved good Christian parenting sometimes go through their entire lives without questioning anything of importance that their parents taught them. Either they imagine that because their parents were such good parents, they couldn’t have been wrong in anything significant. Or they experience feelings of guilt about questioning their parents’ teaching, because they think (often largely subconsciously) that this would be disrespectful. They therefore immediately suppress all thoughts of questioning what they were taught.

However, it makes no sense for a believer to think that great Christian parents can’t have been wrong on any important issue. Such an idea ignores the obvious truth that there are bound to be other excellent Christian parents who would disagree with them in some respects. 

We must also be careful not to confuse love and respect for parents on the one hand, with accepting what they taught on the other. These are very different things. It is quite possible to love and respect parents deeply, yet also to disagree with some of what they taught us. 

Preconceived ideas when reading the Bible

The list above contains some examples of the reasons why Christians have wrong ideas about things, although there are certainly other reasons too. Again, it must be stressed that holding wrong views is something that affects every single one of us to a greater or lesser extent.

This means that when each of us sits down to read the Bible, we come to it with some wrong preconceived ideas. And because Scripture teaches what is true, this means that when we sit down to read it, we come to it with some beliefs that contradict what it teaches.

The right attitude of heart

One of the main purposes for God giving us the Bible is to correct our wrong preconceived ideas. But if this is to happen as it should, our hearts need to be in the right place as we read it.

First, we need to realise that there are bound to be things we believe that are wrong. We should understand that our minds are damaged by sin and prone to making mistakes.

Second, as far as we can, we need to abandon preconceived ideas.

Third, we need to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, opening ourselves up to His willingness to teach us from Scripture by His Spirit.

And finally, we need to listen to what the text says, really listen. We can start by asking what the passage we are reading would have meant to the original readers. And then we can ask what it means for us today.

If we have this sort of attitude of heart towards the Bible, we will be in a great place to grow as Christians.

Many Christians don’t do this

The reason I am writing this article is because over and over and over again I encounter Christians whose approach to reading the Bible is not remotely like this. There are many who have some or other preconceived idea that contradicts Scripture, and they hold this idea with an iron grip.

Instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to shape their thinking as they read and to steer them away from their wrong views, they either ignore what the text is saying, or they start trying to force it to say something it doesn’t.

Please don’t interpret me to mean that I often encounter Christians who disagree with me on the meaning of some biblical passages, and that I am just annoyed about this. That’s not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about Christians who are clearly not trying to listen to the text because they have preconceived ideas set in stone in their minds.

One way to tell that someone has this sort of attitude is that when they are challenged on their views, they just ignore biblical passages that don’t fit with their preconceived ideas.

Let me go into a bit more detail on what I mean. Suppose that there is a biblical passage we will call passage A, and that a Christian takes a certain interpretation of this passage. Suppose too that someone else points out that this interpretation of passage A seems strongly to contradict another passage we will call passage B. If the Christian wants to interpret passage A correctly, he will also have to explain why B says what it says, because God has inspired both passages. However, if he sticks to his original interpretation of passage A while just ignoring passage B, that is a sign that he is not really interested in getting at the truth and that he is probably more interested in holding to his preconceived ideas.

I see this sort of thing all the time, and I am sure it grieves God deeply.

Summing up

Holding on to preconceived ideas as we read the Bible, then, is exactly what not to do.

Instead, when we read Scripture, we need to do our best to give up preconceived ideas along with any idols that are the root causes of these ideas. And we need to open ourselves up to the biblical text and listen as intently as we can to what it is actually saying, trusting that the Holy Spirit will do His work and teach us what is true.

I don’t think it can be overstated how important this approach is. If we do this, and if we are regularly confessing and repenting of our sins, I don’t see how we could do anything but grow as Christians.

 

See also:

Fighting Temptations to Believe What We Want to Believe

It Is Never Right to Tamper with the Bible to Make It “More Helpful”

The Problem with Drawing Conclusions from a Few Bible Proof Texts

Christians Need to Put Everything to the Test

Is It Wrong for Christians to Attend a ‘Gay Wedding’?

Not so long ago a big controversy arose in evangelical circles, when the Scottish church leader Alistair Begg said that it wasn’t wrong for Christians to attend the ‘gay wedding’ of a relative or friend.

Begg was not claiming that God actually recognises such events as real weddings. Nor was he claiming that homosexual practice is not sinful. Rather, he reasoned that Christians need to love everyone, including unrepentant sinners, and that attending the ‘gay wedding’ of a relative or friend was a way of doing this.

A ‘gay wedding’ is a terrible thing

Before going any further, we need to take a moment to think through what God makes of so-called ‘gay weddings’.

When Paul is outlining the depth of human sinfulness in the early chapters of Romans, homosexual practice is one of the few things he gives more than a passing mention to (Rom 1:26-27). Similarly, 1 Corinthians tells us that those who engage in homosexual practice will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10), which means that they will end up in hell, not heaven, unless they repent and are saved. And in the book of Revelation we read of the sexually immoral, who should be understood to include practising homosexuals, being thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 21:8).

In God’s sight, then, homosexual practice is certainly an awful thing. But a so-called ‘gay wedding’ is an even higher level of evil. Not only do those who support such events condone immoral and unnatural behaviour, but they also dare to start trying to alter God’s pattern of marriage. In effect, they are attempting to tear up God’s blueprints for the marriage relationship and to make better ones to replace them. This is an extremely arrogant thing to do.

Actions often imply things

With the depravity of so-called ‘gay weddings’ in mind, we are now ready to ask if it is OK for Christians to attend them.

To begin with, we should be clear that it is absolutely right for us to seek to love relatives or friends who have a ‘gay wedding’. It is all too common to find Christians acting coldly and unlovingly towards people who are unrepentant of various sins, but this is wrong.

Nevertheless, real love manifests itself in different ways depending on the circumstances. And when people are doing something, like having a ‘gay wedding’, that is displeasing to God and also working strongly towards their own harm, if we do or say things that will help to reinforce the bad decision they have made, that is actually an unloving thing to do.

We need to understand that a ‘gay wedding’ has been organised as a celebration. But it is unthinkable that a Christian could go to one and celebrate what is going on. God is being insulted, and the right response for Christians is to mourn what is happening.

However, our actions often imply things about what we believe, and if we go to a ‘gay wedding’, everyone who sees us there will think that we are celebrating unless we make it clear that we aren’t.

If we don’t make this clear, then we will be playing a part in reinforcing the beliefs of those present that something worth celebrating is taking place. And that means that we would in effect be promoting evil.

Of course, if we were to go and make a visible protest against what is happening, there would obviously be no promotion of evil. However, I think at least usually that would be a very bad idea. Those involved would very probably just be annoyed rather than influenced for good.

The issue of honesty

There is also the issue of honesty to consider. At a ‘gay wedding’ there would surely be speeches commending the couple and expressing support for their decision to have a homosexual union. But how could we honestly clap after a speech of this sort? And when someone raises a glass to toast the couple, again with implied support for what they are doing, how could we raise our own glass with a clear conscience?

Without making a visible protest, which would very probably be a mistake as I have said, it seems impossible to be honest and also go to a celebration if we are mourning. And if two men or two women are planning to have a ‘gay wedding’, we should be mourning deeply.

Joining a neo-Nazi group

Let’s think for a moment about an event that is similar to a ‘gay wedding’.

Suppose you have a relative or friend who is formally joining a neo-Nazi group, a genuine neo-Nazi group that goes as far as wanting the murder of Jews.

Suppose too that a celebration has been organised by this group to mark the occasion. People are going to be wearing suits and dresses, there is going to be champagne and speeches, etc.

Would you really go along to this event, when someone you love is being initiated into a group that supports murder? Would you clap after the speeches that praise the murder of Jews? Would you raise your glass to toast the new neo-Nazi member?

I think the vast majority of Christians wouldn’t do this. More than that, I think they would be horrified at the thought of doing so. They would rightly see that neo-Nazi ideology is a terrible thing and that a celebration admitting a new member to this evil group is something that they just couldn’t be part of.

But in terms of the evil involved, is there really much of a difference between this and a ‘gay wedding’? I suppose we could argue that because neo-Nazis support murder, it is worse than a ‘gay wedding’. But even so, this difference is just a matter of degree, and I think a ‘gay wedding’ would come a close second anyway. It is a massive insult to God.

A poor understanding of how evil a ‘gay wedding’ is

I suspect that the real reason many Christians would choose to go to a ‘gay wedding’ is because they simply don’t understand how evil it is. I think many modern Christians have been unconsciously influenced by the values of mainstream Western culture in this respect.

I would suggest too that the reason why many Christians don’t recognise the evil involved is because they have a human-centred, and not God-centred, worldview. A ‘gay wedding’ doesn’t seem to hurt anyone, so they think it can’t be that bad.

However, the whole starting point for this kind of thinking is wrong. We shouldn’t start by asking whether something hurts other people but whether it hurts God. God is at the centre of the universe. Human beings are not.

Summing up

We should have no hesitation in saying, then, that it is a mistake for Christians to attend a so-called ‘gay wedding’. If we were to go without making it clear that we are deeply opposed to what is going on, our actions could only serve to reinforce the people involved in their bad choices. In any case, it seems very dishonest to give an appearance of supporting a celebration when we oppose it. And it just makes no sense for someone to go to a celebration of something they are in fact mourning.

If we refuse to go to a ‘gay wedding’, there is certainly a place for explaining to others why we can’t be a part of the celebration. And there is also a place for us to affirm our love for the men or women involved. Alistair Begg is quite right about the need to love family members or friends who are doing this.

But if we are putting God first and if we want to do what is right for the people involved, we should steer clear of any celebration connected to this evil act.

 

See also:

What Attitude Should Christians Have to Homosexuality?

What Did Jesus Make of Homosexual Practice?

Answering the Accusations of the LGBT Movement

Most People in Western Countries Completely Misunderstand What Human Beings Are