What Paul Might Say Today

Critiques in the Practical Theology

of 21st Century Western Christendom

Desmond Paul Allen, Ph.D., M.Div.

2 What Paul Might Say Today?

What Paul Might Say Today

Critiques in the Practical Theology of 21st Century Western
Christendom

Desmond Allen, PhD, MDiv

Second Print 2014

Edited by Marlene R. Frey

© 2012 LaRue Publications

ISBN-13: 978-1477660218

ISBN-10: 1477660216

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012909763

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise beyond that permitted by
Chapter 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without
the prior written permission of Desmond Allen.

Opelika, AL USA
 Table of Contents 3

Table of Contents
PREFACE 7
APOLOGIA 9
THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS WORK 10
THE CHURCH, THEN AND NOW 15
THE CHURCH, ONE BODY 15
A CHURCH, A FAMILY 17
POLYMORPHIC FACETS OF TROUBLE 18
Leadership in the 21st Century Church 18
The leadership of the Early Church 20
Training leaders the old way 21
The church, the building 23
Church government 26
Materialism 28
Pharisaic legalism 29
Traditions 30
Mysticism 32
RETURN TO OUR ROOTS 33
THE CHURCH AND SOCIO-POLITICAL ACTIVISM 37
INTRODUCTION 37
THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN THIS PRESENT AGE 38
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN THIS PRESENT WORLD 40
THE FALSE COMMISSION 41
THE DIVISIVE MISSION OF THE CHURCH 45
THE LAW CONVICTS 46
CIVIL RIGHTS 47
SOCIO-POLITICAL REFORM HAS NEVER BEEN GOD’S GOAL 49
ULTIMATELY HUMAN GOVERNMENT MUST FAIL 50
THREE DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL REENGINEERING 52
EFFECTIVE WITNESS 55
CONCLUSION 56
LOVE AND MARRIAGE 61
INTRODUCTION 61
4 What Paul Might Say Today?

A UNIQUE BOND 62
THE WOUNDED 63
THE WORDS OF LOVE 64
THE ACTS OF LOVE 67
SPEAKING KINDLY 68
CONCLUSION 69
SCIENCE, FAITH AND LOGIC 71
FAITH MISREPRESENTED 72
SERIES OF LOGICAL FALLACIES 75
BIBLICAL FAITH DEFINED 76
FAITH EMPLOYED DAILY 76
FAITH IN A CREATOR 77
SCIENCE CONSISTENTLY RELIES ON FAITH 79
WHAT IS REALITY? 81
REALITY IS BEYOND THE MERE PHYSICAL 83
CONCLUSION 85
HEALTH AND WEALTH GOSPEL 89
INTRODUCTION 89
THE MANIPULATION OF SCRIPTURE 90
AN EXHIBITION OF SATAN’S SUBTLETY 93
OUR FATHER WILL PROVIDE 94
DO NOT BE DECEIVED 95
WEALTH ITSELF IS NOT THE ISSUE 96
A FINAL ADMONITION 97
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 99
VERSUS WORLD RELIGIONS 99
INTRODUCTION 99
OFFENSIVE NATURE OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 101
THE WORLD LOVES ITS OWN 104
Hinduism 104
Buddhism 105
Zoroastrianism 105
Confucianism 106
Taoism 106
Shinto 107
Sikhism 107
Bahá'í 108
Islam 108
HEARING THEY WILL NOT HEAR 109
CONCLUSION 110
MODERN LAODICEA 111
 Table of Contents 5
INTRODUCTION 111
ILLUMINATION 112
HIS CHARACTER & HIS PROMISES 113
TO THE CHURCH IN EPHESUS 113
Ephesus, the historic city 114
The prophetic portrait of the church in Ephesus 117
TO THE CHURCH IN SMYRNA 118
Smyrna, the historic city 118
The prophetic portrait of the church in Smyrna 122
TO THE CHURCH IN PERGAMUM 122
Pergamum, the historic city 123
The prophetic portrait of the church in Pergamum 126
TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA 128
Thyatira, the historic city 129
The prophetic portrait of the church in Thyatira 130
TO THE CHURCH IN SARDIS 133
Sardis, the historic city 134
The prophetic portrait of the church in Sardis 135
TO THE CHURCH IN PHILADELPHIA 137
Philadelphia, the historic City 138
The prophetic portrait of the church in Philadelphia 139
TO THE CHURCH IN LAODICEA 143
Laodicea, the historic city 143
The prophetic portrait of the church in Laodicea 145
Conclusion 148
REALITY, WHAT IS IT? 149
ABSTRACT 150
INTRODUCTION 152
THE AMAZING UNIVERSE 153
THE SUBATOMIC WORLD 155
ZERO-POINT ENERGY FIELD 157
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF QUANTUM PHYSICS 160
THE BIG QUESTION 162
CHILDISH QUESTIONS 163
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION 167
BLIND FAITH 170
LOGIC VERSUS PASSION 173
OPENING THE DOOR TO NEW TRUTHS 178
FURTHER IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS REALITY 183
THE QUESTION ON EVERYONE’S MIND 185
CONCLUSION 188
BIBLIOGRAPHY 191
 Preface 7

Preface
I love both the Church and the church. Of course, I speak of
the universal body of believers and the local assembly. It is my
love and concern for this—the body of Christ—that prompts me
to write these critiques. Although born again of the Spirit of God,
we are, nevertheless, yet sinners, struggling daily with our
Adamic nature, which we possess till death do us part. As we
grow in the Lord this struggle gets easier; temptation becomes
less severe; our character becomes more Christ like. But always,
day by day, the competition is present at some level; occasionally,
we allow our old nature to get the upper hand and we suffer.
Because we are all in the same condition, and because we
meet regularly in local assemblies for instruction and fellowship
it is only natural that both our victories and our failures affect
those about us. Individual and congregational failures were
present in the 1st Century churches as well. Considerable portions
of the New Testament apostolic letters address specific erroneous
or sinful issues within a given assembly. Things are no different
today. Until our Lord returns, there will be problems within our
personal lives and within our local assemblies. Therefore, a
primary function of local church leadership is to tackle these
problems head-on: to refute false teachings and offensive
behavior, and to confront the perpetrators.
A number of erroneous ideals and practices have become
very prominent in Western Christendom. Sadly, relatively few
Church leaders are addressing them; even more disappointing,
many prominent Church leaders are purveyors of certain
erroneous ideals and practices. This work is a series of critiques
addressing these issues that have caused me great concern for
many years.
8 What Paul Might Say Today?

Although I approach this from an evangelical perspective,

these critiques reach across denominational barriers to address the
breadth of Western Christendom. As such, what I take issue with
is not the Systematic or Theology Proper of Orthodox
Christianity, but our application. How we manage our daily lives,
how we go about implementing our beliefs, the practical aspect of
our faith; thus, our Practical Theology.
Several passages speak of the struggles the Church would
encounter in the last days. Selfish leaders and teachers of
erroneous doctrines, as well as legalism, hypocrisy and an air of
self-sufficient egotism would abound. Thus, warnings were
issued for those living in the last days lest they be fooled by the
charisma of these false teachers and the persuasion of their
apparent godliness.
Being in the last days, as I believe we are, these warnings
were written to us. Therefore, I offer these critiques to heighten
our awareness of the erroneous teachings and practices which
have become so commonplace within Western Christendom.
Cloaked as righteousness, these deceptive and destructive false
teachings have slowly crept into our midst. Diverting our
attention, they hinder our mission of evangelism and theological
instruction.
Exposing these erroneous teachings will offend some readers.
Others will not understand the need for such disparaging remarks.
But many will immediately realize the importance. While the
entirety of Western Christendom is not likely to change because
of these critiques; perhaps the practical theology of a few
individuals might.

Desmond Allen, Ph.D., M.Div.

Opelika, Alabama
 Apologia 9

Apologia
I implore the reader to understand in the following pages that
I do not mean to sound as though Western Christianity has
apostatized and left the faith, nor that I am an opponent of the
Church. On the contrary, I am a devout believer in our Lord and
savior, Jesus Christ, and in his Church, the elect—everyone in
this current dispensation who places their trust in him. Indeed,
the impetus for these critiques is my concern for the Church,
especially the local church. At the same time, I realize the austere
censure in certain chapters might give some readers pause. Good,
pause is necessary if we desire to make a clear, objective analysis
of what it is, exactly, we are doing.
The issues I address are not points of Systematic or Theology
Proper—the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the
sacrificial death and glorious resurrection of Jesus, salvation by
grace through faith, etc.;—but matters of practical theology. As
the late, great, theologian and preacher, Dr. J. Vernon McGee
used to say, “Where the rubber meets the road.”
We have the proper theology, but when we unsheathe it to
wield it about in battle, we often have trouble keeping it
untarnished by our grimy little fingers. As sinners, it is our
nature. Corruption is part of who we are. Although freed from
its power, and even empowered by the Holy Spirit to overcome it,
our sinful nature is with us till death do us part. As we yield to
our Lord we grow more Christ like, but the Adamic nature never
departs this body of corruption, with which we must struggle
daily.
Because sin and error is present in our lives, it is also present
in the local church. Therefore, a decided vigilance is necessary to
detect it, and a determined faithfulness is necessary to expose and
purge it. This is a primary task of church leadership. Those
10 What Paul Might Say Today?

leaders who shy from this assignment have withdrawn from their
obligation to the church and from their employment for the Lord.
It was no different for local churches in the 1st Century.
Indeed, certain New Testament letters were written specifically to
address erroneous practices or ideologies that had arisen within a
particular assembly. This work is merely a critical inspection of
similar problematic issues present today. It is an inspection of
our sword’s condition, addressing the smudges left by the
misdirected goals and traditions of Western Christianity, smudges
that diminish the brilliance of the sword by drawing attention to
themselves. To remove them will take a grassroots movement,
not unlike the great reformation itself. Yet, on the other hand, as
we shall see, we know the Church in the last days would be as
such. Therefore, I do not expect these erroneous teachings and
practices to cease; however, perhaps some battlefield soldiers will
be inspired to polish their little section of the sword.

The Background for This Work

It was 1988. I was nearly finished with a doctorate of
ministry degree at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. I was
the pastor of a modest church in the Northwest, and I had just
finished preaching through the book of First Timothy wherein the
Apostle Paul outlined proper ecclesiology. The apostolic pattern
of church life had been drawing me in for some time, and now,
once again, it was staring me in the face. I could not escape. I
grew increasingly concerned and frustrated over the generally
accepted agenda and leadership models of modern western
churches. The more I researched, the more I came to realize just
how far astray we had drifted from the apostolic prototype.
I remembered another astute observation of the late Dr. J.
Vernon McGee. When asked why he had left his denomination,
in his decidedly slow southern drawl, he said something like,
“Well, I didn’t leave my denomination; I believe the same thing I
did seventy-five years ago. Why . . . They up and left me!” Of
course, Dr. McGee’s situation was different from mine. His
concern was with issues of Theology Proper; mine was with
issues of practical theology. His denomination had changed its
 Apologia 11

views; mine practiced the same thing it did when I started. But
the more I learned of the early Church, the more concerned I
became for our modern practices.
It disturbed me that the leadership I was expected to provide
was steeped in programs, meetings, and traditions that had little to
do with ministry and equipping the saints. Projects, such as the
circulation of local or national political petitions, endless
meetings with the deacon board in which we discussed such
things as . . . . Let’s see, we discussed. . . . Actually, I can’t
remember what we discussed; but I remember it seemed very
important, and I had to be there for several hours every other
week. Then there were the regular sessions with the board of
trustees to discuss who could use the church property.
Sometimes we would weigh the merits of yet another expansion
project. Oh yes, and then the monthly business meetings with the
whole congregation, at which time members (some of them yet
babes in Christ, others perhaps in need of church discipline)
would cast votes, each carrying the same weight as those of the
pastors, deacons, and trustees.
In all, my role seemed far removed from the leadership
exemplified in the New Testament. Most disturbing was the fact
that by Western standards this was not an undesirable or a
negligent church. In fact, it was considered a model church
within its association. Other churches in the region looked to it
for leadership. It was the typical middle class, evangelical,
western church. It had all the programs: an active youth group, a
women’s Bible study class, a midweek prayer meeting, a choir,
deacons and trustees, business meetings, a women’s missionary
society, AWANA, Sunday school for all ages, a nursery, a
generous missions budget, even a gymnasium. The parishioners
were committed to sound Christian doctrine and to the church.
But something was wrong. Something was wrong with this
normality.
Despite the activities and the parishioner’s commitment,
something seemed out of focus with the dynamic faith epitomized
in the New Testament and practiced by the early Church. I began
to feel distant from, and even adverse to, the motif and activities
that have become so commonplace to most of us. Many of my
12 What Paul Might Say Today?

Christian brothers and sisters will read this treatise and have no
clue as to what I am discussing. I envy their bliss and sometimes
long for those days of innocence. Or, as the famed Bob Seger
song says, “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.”
The following years were frustrating, even emotionally
traumatic. At first, I seemed unable to articulate or even clarify
my concerns. It was like having someone’s name right on the tip
of your tongue but being unable to say it. You know what it is,
but your mind will not picture it. It will not cooperate. For the
moment, all communication is put on hold as your mind and
tongue struggle to establish the verbalization link. In time, I did
clarify and articulate my concerns, which are largely addressed in
this work. But I still cannot explain and articulate the pain this
causes in my heart. Although I agree with the core theological
beliefs, I simply cannot abide the temporal and material concerns
that so dominate our traditional, western, evangelical assemblies.
Through the years, I have encountered many others harboring
similar concerns. They comprise a segment of the Christian
population generally overlooked by the local church. Or, more
precisely, a segment of the Christian population that actively
avoids the traditional, local church setting. I have consoled and
counseled many fellow believers, encouraging them to stay the
course in their Christian walk, even if compelled to avoid the
traditional setting. You might say I have served as a chaplain at
large to former pastors, deacons, Sunday school teachers and
church members in general—numerous folks who were raised in
(or had devoted much of their lives to), the traditional local
church only to abandon it. But they have not abandoned their
faith. Although some meet regularly in homes with small groups,
most are completely cut off, in despair, seldom communing with
other believers. Yet all of them have one thing in common. They
are disillusioned by the material pursuits, petty squabbles,
legalism, or the short sighted socio-political dogma that has such
a choke-hold on the local church.
After many years my good friend, a fellow pastor deeply
rooted in the system of which I have concern, strongly
admonished me. “You have a responsibility; you have made an
analysis, now take some action.” He was right. It was time to do
 Apologia 13

something more far-reaching about these concerns, which had

burdened me for many years. This work is just that. It is an
attempt, feeble as it may be, to articulate and address the practical
ideologies of 21st Century Western Christendom that have run
amuck.
I know of no name for this ideology. It has a polymorphic
appearance with many faces blending to form a common center.
This center I shall call Western Evangelical Orthodoxy. It is
materialistic—revolving around buildings and ordered with a
businessman’s mind set. In ways, it is somewhat Pharisaical with
its demanding traditions and blanket condemnations. In other
ways it seems almost mystical, with a compulsion for unrealistic
prayers, iconic symbols, and orchestrated jubilation. Always, it is
dogmatic—crusading for a cause, even if the cause is far from
evangelism and its dogma born of exuberance rather than sound
theology.
Over the last two decades, I have discussed these matters
with various fellow believers; not just the aforementioned
outcasts, but with those rooted in the system. The most common
critical response is, “But the Church is imperfect, made up of
people who are growing spiritually. You cannot find a perfect
church!” Such a response fails even to understand what I am
pursuing. I am well aware of the membership’s imperfections.
Indeed, I am as imperfect as the next. My concerns have nothing
to do with the faults of individual church members per se, but
with the prevailing institutional objectives—fostered by many
highly visible leaders—and the practical ideologies these
objectives generate throughout Western Evangelical Orthodoxy.
Transcending denominational lines, these ideologies are deeply
rooted in our western culture.
The second most critical response is, “But things are
changing. Churches all over the country are having small group
Bible studies. Pastors are gathering for prayer. Men are coming
together to confront their responsibilities as fathers and spiritual
leaders, etc.” This I do not doubt. I applaud such progress, but
these are not the changes for which I strive. Changes of this
nature are in the air from generation to generation. Eventually
they are absorbed back into the mainstream. Eventually they will
14 What Paul Might Say Today?

structure themselves just as the rest of the Western Church has

structured itself.
These occasional, periodic movements are not unlike driving
the frontage road instead of the highway. Both roads are going
the same direction and lead to the same place; only one has more
traffic and gets there faster. The infrastructure of the Western
Church and the dogma that drives it remain untouched. Still, the
best potential leaders must leave the local church to be trained for
service elsewhere. Still, millions are wasted on lavish cathedrals.
Still, lay leadership positions are filled by the popular and
affluent. Still, the Church sees itself as a socio-political
watchdog. Still, the twofold mission of the Church is thwarted.
Scripture tells us the last days, before Christ’s return, would
see perilous times, false teachers, false doctrines and erroneous
practices would flourish. We are in the last days; thus, we must
take heed lest we be deceived. As such, the following critiques
are set forth to bring attention to these insidious false teachings
and erroneous practices that seek to divert the Church in these last
days of spiritual peril.
 The Church, Then and Now 15

The Church, Then and Now

In this chapter, many of my fellow believers might be

tempted to take offense. Please don’t. Rather, read this analysis
with an open mind, knowing that it is written in love, with the
purist intentions. The picture it portrays is painted with a broad
brush, depicting the overall impression of the landscape versus
the details. As such, certain aspect of this picture might not be
true of your particular congregation. For this be grateful. For
those who might have skipped the Apologia for this work (see
page 9), I encourage you to read it before proceeding, lest you
misunderstand from whence I speak.

The church, one body

Beyond the general charge to evangelize, the Church—both
universal and local—is to function as a single body. Jesus is the
head, the mind if you will. Church members are the organs, the
limbs, the cells. This, the Apostle’s metaphor, is most
appropriate. The human body is a wonderful thing; so complex
yet so efficient, specifically designed to pleasure and serve the
thoughts and desires of its mind. It walks, runs, talks, sits, laughs,
cries and eats as directed. Instinctively, its blood and fluids
nourish, cleanse and protect itself; so that involuntary as well as
voluntary acts of fulfillment and self preservation occur.
This is the ideal structure and purpose of the local church.
Each member is to have a healthy relationship with both the head
(Christ) and the fellow members of the body (the church). Both
the individual believers and the church are to respond to the
desires of Christ the Lord. When the mind in the human body is
16 What Paul Might Say Today?

joyful, facial muscles become tense as the mouth and eyes betray
the emotion. To quench a thirst the mind sends a message to the
muscles in the arm and hand, they respond by lifting the tea cup.
When the foot needs cleaning the hands perform the duty. When
the body needs energy, the metabolic system begins working
overtime to produce it. Similarly, the Lord expresses actions
through one or many members of the church toward other
members.
Of course, this analogy presupposes a health body. For if the
body is sick, depending on the illness, certain members will not
function correctly. If the femur is broken, the body cannot walk.
If a flu virus has invaded, the joints are sore, and there is a
temperature and nausea. When nauseated the stomach will spew
its content rather than digest them. Soon dehydration sets in,
causing further weakness and a buildup of acids within the body.
So too, sin and sickness within the church, hinder its proper
function.
When the human body is sick, we tend to it, medicate it, let it
rest and mend and do whatever is necessary to return it to health;
for many illnesses, if left unattended, will continue to fester and
worsen. They may even grow into life threatening diseases.
Anyone who has been terribly ill knows that health is perhaps the
greatest asset one can have. Health is far more important than are
all our material goods, our money, our entertainment. Of what
pleasure are any of these if we do not have the health to enjoy
them? Yet, simply having good health is a joy in and of itself.
Too often we take good health for granted. We forget to thank
the Lord for this blessing, but when sick we straight away call
upon Him and entreat others to do the same on our behalf.
Like the human body, the local church also experiences
sickness from time to time. Someone in the membership has
caused offense, is involved in a sinful practice, is harboring ill
feelings toward another in the church, etc. Because we are yet
sinners at various degrees of spiritual maturity, still learning to
grow in Christ, any number of issues can and do arise. Yet
seldom do other members, or even church leaders, tend to these
conditions as they would their physical bodies. This then allows
the illness to grow, to fester, until something very bad happens:
 The Church, Then and Now 17
membership fades, the church splits; there is a scandal in the
leadership; whatever it is, it is never good. Such illnesses were
the impetus for some of Paul’s Pastoral Epistles. Always, he
instructed the church to address these issues, for if not dealt with
swiftly they could become debilitating, even deadly. Today, the
average local church is in great need of local physicians, members
and leaders willing to address conditions festering within the
body.

A church, a family
Another analogy for the church is that of a family. But here
the terms, illustration, metaphors, and even example, are not
strong enough. For the church is indeed a family—a spiritual
family of brothers and sisters in Christ, held together by healthy
familial ties such as loving, caring, nurturing, teaching, rebuking,
encouraging, etc. all the attentive bonds that make a healthy
family work.
A close-knit family is not a fraternity or a business. The
church is nothing like either enterprise. Yet, we organize it like
both. What self-respecting church business meeting is not run
according to Robert's Rules of Order? So marshaled are many
church business meetings, an outsider might think he were
attending a shareholders’ conference in which investors are
voting to protect their stock. The nature of business is to make a
profit in a competitive world. The church is to glorify God and
make converts. Big business seeks investments in lucrative
opportunities. The church seeks to convert souls to Christ and to
instruct them in the faith. The purposes of the church can be well
served without Robert’s handbook and the useless meetings it
generates. It is our desire to control the temporal things (the
money, the buildings, the choir robes, the parking lot) that
compels such meetings.
Nor is the church like a fraternity. A fraternity’s singular
purpose is to foster elite, an imagined crème de la crème. This is
not the church. The local church is a haven for the socially
downcast as well as for society’s elite. Here, the two meet as one,
equal in nature and equal in future glory. The social roles
(typically defined by one’s personal wealth) so often played
18 What Paul Might Say Today?

within the local church, are nothing short of abominable. It is a

sickness in need of a physician’s attention.

Polymorphic facets of trouble

Indeed, the typical local church of 21st Century Western
Christendom has many troubling facets—sickness on many
levels, composing a ubiquitous, polymorphic ideology largely
comprised of worrisome issues in practical theology. In no
particular order of importance (for they are all in need of
attention), let me identify some of the more troubling facets.

Leadership in the 21st Century Church

The appointment and training of leaders was different in the
early church from what it is today. From among those willing to
commit, certain qualified men were chosen and nurtured for
leadership. It was not a popularity contest, nor was a leader
selected simply because of his social status. Each congregation
had a core of qualified elders trained in biblical theology and
ministry. We generally have one. We call him the pastor. Rather
than growing this leader from within the church we examine the
resumes of outsiders for hire. After a few years we often weary
of him, or he of us, and the search begins anew.
A primary function of early church leadership was to guard
against heresy and to equip the saints. Church leaders not only
exposed and denounced false teachings they also made it their
priority to teach sound doctrine to the flock. Modern church
leadership generally does not do this. Leaders will refute false
teachings in Theology Proper (One God, the Trinity, etc.), but
they typically neglect those false teachings of practical theology
that have invaded their congregations. And actually spending
time with the parishioners, to teach them doctrine and theology, is
something few church leaders even think of, much less
accomplish. They are too overwhelmed with sermon preparation,
administrative duties, program preparations, expansion strategies,
and building plans.
To illustrate this point I cite a survey I conducted while doing
doctoral work in seminary. I had been concerned for sometime
 The Church, Then and Now 19
about the various leadership roles in our modern western
evangelical churches. The title of my doctoral project was “The
Pastoral Neglect to Provide Leading Laymen with a Basic
Foundation in Theology.” To further research this topic I
surveyed pastors, and the leading laymen of their choice within
numerous churches from a certain conservative and evangelical
association throughout the states of Washington and Oregon.
I expected to find relatively few pastors providing theological
and ministerial training to their lay leadership. Likewise, I
expected to find a fair percentage of the lay leaders to be less than
qualified for their task. However, the results were more
staggering than I could have ever imagined. I had peeked behind
the facade of neckties, choirs, sermons, beautiful buildings, and
spirals reaching to the sky. I felt as though I had ripped the mask
off a deeply rooted and shameful ugliness. I had revealed an
aspect of Western Evangelical Orthodoxy that is generally
shrouded in pretense. I had uncovered an area about which most
of us would rather plead ignorance or make excuses. Not willing
to confront it face to face, analytically, and honestly, we choose
to simply neglect it, and dutifully don our weekly Sunday vesture
to mask the embarrassment.
What had I discovered? I found that although 97% of the
leading layman regularly prepared and taught Bible classes, and
78% believed they were qualified to provide spiritual counsel,
only 3% of their pastors provided them with hermeneutical
training. Less than 20% provided some form of theological
training, and only 7% of the pastors provided some kind of
training in spiritual counseling.
Although they admitted to having very little training for these
tasks, most of the lay leaders believed they were qualified for
them. However, as I suspected, their ignorance betrayed itself at
the end of the questionnaire. I asked them to answer three simple,
but pertinent, theological questions. I didn’t attempt to stump
them by choosing particularly difficult topics. Rather, I chose
subjects that have a special concern to anyone who teaches
biblical classes or gives spiritual counsel. Put simply, I chose
subjects that anyone doing what they did should know cold.
First, “Why does God allow evil?” Second, “Define total
20 What Paul Might Say Today?

depravity.” And third, “In what way is man created in the image
of God?”
I did not expect lengthy theological treatises or even biblical
references. I merely wanted to see if these teachers had a general
understanding of things they were teaching. The results were
astounding. Only 24% were able to answer the question as to the
image of God. A mere 16% correctly answered why God allows
evil, and no one, not one, could define the meaning of total
depravity. Overall, these leading laymen, these spiritual advisors
and pillars in their churches, had only 13.5% correct answers, and
no one answered all three questions correctly.
Although not comprehensive or conclusive, this small
research project had shed light on a great and shameful display of
ignorance within the leadership of our local church bodies.
Sadly, our churches are largely filled with lay leaders who have
little or no training for the task set before them. We might say
they are the modern Nicodemus. How is it, they are teachers of
the church and do not know these things?
In this case, they did not know these things because their
pastors had not taught them. Yet, this is the responsibility of the
trained leadership, to nurture and train would-be leaders in the
faith that they, too, can effectively fight the enemy. This means
theological training as well as training in ministry, character, and
spirit.

The leadership of the Early Church

I was ordained by a Baptist church, attended a well known
Baptist Seminary, served as the pastor of two churches with
Baptist type church government (congregational rule), and I am
convinced that neither this congregational form nor the Papal
form of Church government was the apostolic model. The entire
model of early church leadership is far removed from either of
these extremes, as it is, also, from the various other modern forms
of governance staggered somewhere in between.
The church is to be as a family in every respect, even in its
leadership. In a family, parents make the decision and direct
family activities; it is not the collective vote of the siblings. But
these parents are not aloof either; not untouchable icons on a
 The Church, Then and Now 21
pedestal. They are active participants in the family: teaching,
leading by instruction and example, helping the children to make
correct choices and sound decisions, training them to mature, to
become adults that they too might raise a family of their own.
In the apostolic model, there was a select group of men who
lead the church (we will call them elders). Actually, there were
three terms used in the Greek New Testament to identify them:
pastor, bishop, and presbyters or elder (ποίμην, ͗επίσκοπος, and
πρεσβ́υτερος). The titles were used interchangeably, borrowed
from the idioms of their day, each denoting a certain aspect of
leadership. Pastor speaks to the role of a tender shepherd.
Bishop signifies a business like function, Elder denotes a wise
counselor. These leaders were a self-perpetuating, self-
nominating, and self-disciplining body, which instructed and
protected the flock. It was not an easy thing to become an elder.
To qualify for the appointment one had to be a man of proven
character and spirituality, a man above reproach both within and
without the local church body. It was not a position to be taken
lightly (1 Tim. 3).

Training leaders the old way

If modern church leadership emulated the practices of early
church leadership there would be no need for seminaries.
Everything essential for ministry and leadership can be, and
should be, taught within the local body. However, as another
portion of my doctoral survey revealed, current leaders who are
trained in ministry and theology (the pastors) are too busy with
program preparation, organization, sermon preparation, and plant
management to train (or more precisely, even attempt to train)
their lay leaders effectively in basic biblical theology and
ministry. Consequently, the majority of responding pastors
viewed their teaching responsibility as a low item in the order of
necessary weekly tasks.
This was not so in the early church. Future leaders learned
theology and ministry from within the context of the local church,
from their elders. When the local church trains and reproduces
leaders from within its ranks, giving them the necessary skills to
effectively exegete, teach, and preach the Word of God, to
22 What Paul Might Say Today?

effectively minister to the membership, the church is

strengthened. There is no need for the most promising young
men to relocate for training, and then, only to serve elsewhere.
With this model they remain in their present ministries. They and
the church reap the benefit of their studies as they put into
practice that which they have learned. The student is able to
retain his present means of livelihood and the great expense of
seminary is avoided.
“Who will teach them?” you might ask.
“That is simple,” I answer. “The pastors; after all, according
to Paul that is their job.”
“But are they qualified?” should be your scripted response.
“If not,” I contend, “they should not be pastors.”
If a pastor’s only skill is to provide emotionally charged
sermons, then he should be in sales, not in the ministry. An elder,
a pastor, is to be a scholar of the Word who teaches and trains
others. This is a mandate. Theology is not something found in
musty libraries. It is not a dead subject for theologians and
scholars to research and debate. Theology is life. Every
Christian lives his particular theology, whether it is scripturally
correct or incorrect.
Training for ministry is two fold. It necessitates information
processing (academics) and experiential learning (practical
ministry). One does not thrive without the other. Without the
scholastics, we may fall prey to false teaching. Without the
practical ministry, we are impotent to serve. The two are best
learned together within the context of the local church.
Therefore, Paul charged Timothy to “entrust these things to
faithful men, who will be competent to teach others as well” (2
Tim. 2:2). This is not the responsibility of some far off-seminary.
It is the responsibility of the local church, its leadership, its
pastors.
This was a pastor’s role for the first few centuries. Although
this role was abandoned long ago, the duty has not been negated.
The biblical mandate has not expired. It is still the task of the
elders, the pastors, to teach biblical theology and exemplify
practical theology to prospective leaders, to instruct the flock in
such matters, and to protect them from heresy.
 The Church, Then and Now 23
The church, the building
The local church is a family in every respect. It is the
physical manifestation of the spiritual family joined by the union
of the Holy Spirit. A great misnomer affixed in the minds of
modern Western Evangelical Orthodoxy is (at least
subconsciously, for our verbiage betrays us) to equate the
building, the edifice, the temple, with the local church. But the
local church exists totally apart from the edifice with its steeple,
pews, pulpit, stained glass, and cross.
So embedded has the edifice become in our western culture
that most people (Christians and non-believers alike), think of it
as something holy, even calling the main meeting room, the
sanctuary. As if it is a place where God Himself dwells, a place
to be revered and endued with some mystical honor. This
sanctuary is perceived as the place where it is one’s duty to
sacrifice time and money. This is an especially popular concept
in our culture. It lends itself to our fast and busy lifestyles; where
one can simply give a few dollars, spend an hour singing a few
songs, say a few prayers, sit through a sermon, and, having done
these duties, disappear for the rest of the week. The holy deeds
are done with no need to waste the time necessary to become
personally and emotionally involved in the lives of other
“worshipers.”
Consequently, it is of no surprise that this holy building is at
the center of much trouble in many local assemblies. Fortunes
can be spent to beautify it, to expand it, to control it, and to make
it acoustically pleasing to the “spirit of worship.” Yet every year
any number of local churches become embroiled in bitter
arguments over the use of their particular sanctuary and its
peripheral structures. This often leads to a bitter split. Each
faction has invested their time and money into this holy site.
Maybe their fathers did as well, and nothing is going to stop them
from standing up for their rights and their investment. “Let the
membership dissolve if it must, but don’t lay a hand on my
church.”
But Christianity is not Judaism. We do not have temporal
sanctuaries and sacrifices. Our sanctuary is in our hearts and our
24 What Paul Might Say Today?

sacrifice is love. These perceived material sanctuaries only

complicate and distract us from spiritual growth.
These holy structures were not a problem the early churches
had to face. Churches met in private homes, often in the homes
of the leadership. In times of persecution they were known even
to meet in the catacombs. Wherever they met the symbol of a
“fish” was often etched nearby to signify their presence. The
appropriateness of this symbol was twofold. Not only had Jesus
called his disciples to be fishers of men, but the Greek term for
fish, ͗ιχθυς, served as an acrostic for the phrase Ιησους Χριστος
Θεου Υίος Σωτηρ, Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior.
Christians met with a particular church body because of its
love for them, and because of the character, spirituality,
leadership, and teaching ability of its elders. Their meetings were
centered on fellowship and instruction, not a physical structure.
There was no investment in an edifice and therefore, no holy
sanctuary to protect. Their only investment was in the souls of
men and women.
The early Church got along just fine without formal
structures for the first four centuries or so until the conversion of
the Emperor Constantine. After his conversion, Imperial
persecution ceased and suddenly, Christianity was in favor. In
time, the holy temples of pagan worship became the holy temples
of Christendom, and these holy sanctuaries have been the source
of trouble ever since. If it sounds as though I am suggesting that
we do away with local church structures, good, I am . . . sort of.
However, I am not so naïve as to expect or desire believers
(even those who sympathize with my views), to up and leave their
congregations to start a church in their home. I would never
encourage splitting a church over the building; this would be
tantamount to one of the very issues I am raising. One of the
reasons for ridding ourselves of these structures is to stop the
bickering and division that are often generated over them.
It is not so much getting rid of these structures as it is coming
to grips with the reality that the structure is not the church. If
only we were able to dissociate the two. However, I doubt that
can ever really happen, so long as the current model stays in
vogue. It is too ingrained into our psyche and the psyche of the
 The Church, Then and Now 25
entire western culture. But those who are planting new churches
could do so without the aspiration to build such structures. Those
who have found themselves without a church home because they
could no longer tolerate the misplaced affection for the edifice
and the celebrated performances which they endured week after
week, seated next to friendly strangers in pretty clothes. These
folks could return to the early Church model.
So while I realize established congregations are not going to
sell their prized structures and opt to meet in their homes, at the
same time, I truly believe local church bodies would be far better
served if they met in small groups, in private homes, to
fellowship and to study the faith, that is, to learn theology. As the
group grows it cordially divides; the new group being directed by
leaders that have been trained in theology and ministry, discipled
for this position by the current leadership. Each month the many
small groups could congregate at some larger designated site to
join for testimony, baptism, ordination, and evangelistic services.
The site need not be an elaborate edifice. It could even change
from time to time: under an oak tree in someone’s field in the
summer; maybe in someone’s barn in the winter; a school
gymnasium; the community center; anywhere large enough to
hold them.
Such a model would accomplish several important things.
Close familial bonds would form. Theologically informed
believers would increase. Disputes over the material buildings
would vanish. The fallacious concepts of the holy sanctuary, and
the church being the white building with a steeple, would cease.
The extra money, once used to feed the infrastructure of comfort
could be used for missionary endeavors. Instead of appeasing
their conscience by giving $50 or $200 to several missionaries
they barely even know, the church could give full support to
missionaries trained and sent out from within its own body.
Imagine the dynamic between the missionaries and the
congregation, the interest, the personal involvement, the desire to
be a part of the work.
The material structures of the Western Church are largely an
embarrassment to the Gospel. Yet, sadly, we are compelled to
keep building them, as if they, themselves, are church growth.
26 What Paul Might Say Today?

Church government
Congregationalism is a widespread form of local church
government employed by Baptists and others. Most Pentecostal,
independent and community churches also order themselves in
this way. The congregational form of government is a democracy
generally sporting a pastor or two and several figureheads called
deacons and trustees. Major issues are determined by
congregational vote, every member having one, so that, the vote
of a new believer (who has yet even to learn many basic biblical
truths), counts the same as that of a deacon, a trustee or a pastor.
The majority of a given congregation has little interest in
making decisions for the church and, therefore, seldom attends
one of the monthly business meetings where such issues are
discussed. A typical scene, played time and again at a typical
monthly business meeting of a typical local church with a typical
congregational form of government, might be as such: It is
Wednesday evening, 8:30 PM. The prayer meeting is over and
business is about to begin. Forty-five of the church’s two
hundred and fifty members are present for the business meeting.
It takes a two-thirds majority to pass a motion that has been
seconded. Three of the voters are new babes in Christ. They
should no more be voting than a ten year old should vote for a
president. Five of the voters, if the truth were known, should be
under church discipline—some perhaps excommunicated. They
are rabble rousers, troublemakers, bent on pursuing a personal
agenda. Another twenty-one voters are meek and mild souls
without opinions on most of the issues to be discussed. They are
easily swayed one way or the other. The rest of the voters are the
deacons, the trustees, the pastor, and their families. Throw in a
copy of Robert's Rules of Order and without doubt God’s will is a
done deal.
The very concept of a democratic form of government is
incongruous to the concept of leadership and governance. To my
knowledge, there has never been a successful democratic society
on earth. For a family or a society to function correctly there
must be leadership; ergo, there must be someone in charge.
Leadership implies, even necessitates, authority. There has to be
someone making decisions. There has to be somebody setting the
 The Church, Then and Now 27
course and taking responsibility. At some point, someone must
call a spade a spade.
Decision making determined by the vote of the populace is
weak, too easily corrupted as the ignorant and indifferent are
manipulated by the crafty. The very concept of a democratic
system is born of rebellion to, and mistrust in, authority. For this
reason, in a democracy there is no authority, so “no one” is in
charge. The argument (at least in a church setting) that people
need to vote in order to keep the leadership in check is comical.
The leadership is supposed to be the spiritually and theologically
mature of the two. Leaders are supposed to be keeping the
congregation in check, not the other way around. Yet, in the
congregational form of government, the leadership is so
mistrusted that the pastor generally doesn’t even have a vote on
the deacon board. Here, he sits in as an ex-officio (that’s a nice
way of saying outsider) to lend technical advice.
In truth, the sole purpose for the congregational form of
government in the local church is to protect the investment—to
protect the holy temple into which these folks have put their time,
money, sweat, and tears. They built it and they are going to have
their say about it. If there were no physical buildings to protect
and control, there would be no congregational form of
government in the local church. Because the building is the
focus, neither the Lord, nor the congregation is.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Papal Rule. A
form of church government against which the congregational
form was born in rebellion. This too, is a situation centered on
possessions, many of them. However, in this form of government
the people have no say at all. All power is given to one man. But
man is a sinner and absolute power in the hands of any one man is
doomed to failure. As history records, eventually it leads to
tyranny. Neither of these two extremes, congregationalism or
papal rule, was the apostolic model. They both fail miserably.
By far the apostolic model for church government is the best.
I need not take much time to explain it. Paul did that perfectly in
his letters to Timothy and Titus. It consists of a group of godly
men who are qualified, gifted, and of irreproachable character.
They are properly trained in theology and ministry. They are
28 What Paul Might Say Today?

self-perpetuating and self-disciplining. Their purpose is to teach,

train, and protect the flock.
Paul’s model for church life was clearly the practice of the
early local churches. It was followed for centuries until at last the
holy edifice arrived. From that day forward began a downhill
slide in church leadership. Soon the whole focus and purpose of
leadership would change. From that day forward idolatry became
a necessary part of church life: for some, a statue, an artifact, a
painting or picture; for all, Catholic and Reformers alike, a
mystical holy sanctuary.
I say humbug! Away with it! Let’s encourage new
congregations to set aside our twisted traditions born in rebellion
and mistrust, to abandon the material temples that serve primarily
to distract, and to get back to the original, focused on doing it the
way we were told to do it in the first place; the way the Apostles
intended, the way the early church did it before corruption took
hold.

Materialism
The opulence of Western Christendom is breathtaking. And I
do not mean that in a good way. We have grown fat. This is not
a call to a monastic style of poverty, but a call to balance and
perspective. Many Christians in America are more concerned
with prosperity than discipleship. This is materialism. It
permeates our society and has infiltrated the Church. Indeed, it
all but consumes it.
In our culture, a man’s self-worth is conditioned upon his
material success in life. Many leaders in the Christian
community promote this image of wealth and material success.
Television evangelists look and sound like Wall Street
businessmen. Not long ago I saw one of the more prominent
televangelists giving financial investment advice to his listeners.
He fielded one question after another. One might have thought he
was a representative of a powerful investment firm on Wall
Street, rather than a leader of the Church.
I think of a conversation I once had with a young seminarian.
I asked him if he was interested in mission work after seminary.
His response was completely honest and without shame, without
 The Church, Then and Now 29
conviction. “No, my wife and I are both too materialistic. We
like fine clothes and expensive cars. I wouldn’t make enough
money at that.”
With leaders like this how can the conscience of Western
Christianity be anything but seared with regard to its blatant
materialism? And this materialism is not confined to the
believers’ personal lives. It is fostered and perfected within the
local church itself. Millions are spent to erect lavish, gaudy
buildings of worship. These temples far surpass any claim of
mere comfort. Yet we have Christian brothers and sisters in other
countries who don’t even know from where their next meal is
going to come. We overlook them, placating our conscience now
and then by sending them a few dollars when someone drums up
a special relief fund. But try as we might, the lavish lifestyle of
Western Christendom cannot be justified. We will have to
answer to God for it.

Pharisaic legalism
Too often, what is taught on paper and what is practiced are
two different things. On paper it is believed that everyone who
receives Jesus Christ as their Savior is a Christian. In practice,
only those who conform to a particular, favored dogma are
considered truly spiritual; all others are phony, or at best
spiritually immature. Various circles have their own special bent
on things. For some it is baptism into their church. For others it
is some mystical babble. For others, it is a certain day to worship.
For others still, it is a tithe of their income. And yet for others, it
is being a social nuisance, forever protesting and making a public
outcry about some perceived injustice to someone. On paper,
believers are believed to be free in Christ. In practice, those who
participate in activities, of which we do not personally approve,
are considered spiritually inferior. This is legalism. It is
suffocating the Church.
Legalism attacks the integrity of Scripture. Legalistic
dogmas, claimed to be scriptural by church leaders, cause many
who have faith in the integrity of the church to doubt the integrity
of Scripture. Church leaders say a certain activity is wrong, yet
the conscience of the individual does not agree. Thus, the
30 What Paul Might Say Today?

individual concludes that the Bible must be mistaken or, perhaps,

should not be interpreted literally, as the church leaders have
supposedly done.
For example, I recall a middle-aged woman many years ago
who challenged me on the authority of Scripture and the process
of literal interpretation. She was raised in a Christian home, had
been taught this doctrine and had always accepted it as fact. But
lately she had begun to question it. Her fiancée, although a
Christian, sometimes had a beer and enjoyed square dancing. She
had participated in these activities with him and felt no guilt.
However, her church, claiming biblical support, condemned such
activities as evil. She was confused. She believed her church
when it said the Bible teaches these specific activities were
wrong. Therefore, she had concluded that the Bible itself must be
wrong. Now I realize that she could have sought the answer for
herself by searching the Scripture, but this is not the point. The
point is that her church, and many others just like it, was teaching
a personal dogma as Gospel truth, thereby discrediting the
Gospel. It is exactly what the Pharisees were doing at the time of
Christ.
This Pharisaic legalism misrepresents the faith. It is more
than rigidity. It is the overt outward display of presumed
holiness. It is strangling the Church. It is a pseudo-spirituality of
spiritual infants. It looks pious, but as Paul said, it only satisfies
the flesh (Col. 2:23). While it may impress others, it does not
impress God. Man is forever trying to make his faith ornate and
visible. Jesus chastised the Pharisees for praying on the street
corners, yet modern day Christians proudly pray over their meals
in restaurants, eager to display their piety to everyone about them.
Some construct idols. Some build temples. Some order codes of
conduct. Others are forever marching and protesting a cause. It
is all false. True faith is made ornate and visible through love—
love for God and love for one another. Man-made rules and
regulations please no one but the one making them.

Traditions
Rigid tradition is another issue. We have programs for
everything. But some programs, which once had a purpose, today
 The Church, Then and Now 31
only serve to frustrate the committed. They frustrate because they
do not meet the needs. Yet everyone is expected to participate in
them. This is traditionalism. It is restricting the Church.
Perhaps the most dazzling tradition, that seems to edify but
actually hinders the objective, is what we call the worship service.
Unwittingly, those who mean well have taught us to think of
worship as a jubilant time of praise and song. But in Scripture,
worship is viewed as something more involved than simple
jubilation. It is portrayed as that point at which an
inconsequential man contemplates who he really is and who God
is. There is but one response to this realization. He falls flat on
his face, overwhelmed, in humble submission to the awesome,
powerful, glorious God. It is a time of silence before the King.
This is worship. After this experience his heart wants, perhaps
even needs, to sing praises. This is good, expected, edifying. It is
the aftermath, or maybe conclusion, to worship. Nevertheless,
songs and praises themselves are not the sum of worship. It is a
great misnomer and major theological error to presume so.
By calling our songs and praises worship, we have
effectively overlooked the most essential aspect of worship, the
instinctive humble prostration before the Mighty God. So
eclipsed is this concept that we no longer even have a term for it.
And since we don’t have a term for it, we don’t speak of it, and
thus we don’t do it. As a result, our singing and our praises are
weak. It is for this reason that we must hire an enthusiastic song
leader to manufacture the “spirit of worship” for us. Every time I
hear the phrase “worship service,” I cringe in dismay.
Coupled with this worship service is the Sunday morning
variety hour: a sideshow and sermonette. In some churches the
sermon is little more than an energetic, theatrical performance; in
others, it is a dry monologue, seemingly designed to put people to
sleep. Neither is very edifying. Valuable time, which should be
used for training and teaching and fellowship, is often wasted on
egotistical theatrics or insipid monologues which generally have
to do with any number of contrived issues springing from
passages too often taken out of context.
The Wednesday night prayer meeting is another example of
tradition. For generations, a midweek meeting in the sanctuary
has been a mainstay for the local church. But the truth is that
32 What Paul Might Say Today?

people don’t want to come to it. Aside from the new converts,
most see it as some kind of duty and sacrifice. I believe it is not
the meeting itself they oppose, but the content. In general, it is
yet another one man show for the congregation to sit and watch.
Why not have small groups meet within their respective
neighborhoods. Give them the opportunity to fellowship and
commune with each other. Why not indeed? It would be
sacrilegious. We cannot close the sanctuary. That would be a
step toward liberalism. So regardless of the fact that relatively
few people attend, the sanctuary doors remain open and small in-
home prayer groups are discouraged, or at best they are not
encouraged. They are not part of the program.
Over the centuries, the Western Church has accumulated
multiple useless traditions: the weekly fashion show in which
members are dressed to the nines, the frequent passing of the
offering plate, choir robes, ministerial robes, standing to pray,
sitting, standing again to sing, sitting again, standing again to
mingle and shake hands for two minutes, sitting again, routine
Sunday and Wednesday evening gatherings to endure yet another
sermon. One’s conformity to these customs is viewed as
adherence to the faith. But they are only traditions, made by man
and practiced merely to satiate. Primarily, they serve to frustrate
and confuse.

Mysticism
We are all aware of the mysticism of Roman Catholicism.
But Western Evangelical Orthodoxy has a certain flair of
mysticism about it as well. A prime example is what we call
prayer. I do suspect that our typical group prayer practices are far
different from Scripture’s intent.
In Scripture, we are admonished to “ask and it will be given,
seek and you will find.” The promise is that prayer is answered.
But seldom, if ever, are such frivolous group prayer requests
granted. This should indicate that something is amiss.
Something is out of order. Is the Bible mistaken? Is Jesus
deceiving us? Of course not! If Jesus’ promise is true (which I
believe it is), then perhaps something is wrong with our prayers.
 The Church, Then and Now 33
Could it be that we have misunderstood what prayer is?
Fostered a distorted view of prayer? Listen to the requests at a
typical Wednesday night prayer meeting. The leader stands to
field one petition after another, which might be something along
these lines: legislation for prayer in school, Johnny’s co-worker’s
wife’s uncle’s bladder, the election of our desired politician, even
a ‘let us win’ from the Christian athlete, ad infinitum. Someone
volunteers to pray, and then another and another. Our culture is
so hung up on such meaningless placation that we have little
concept of what prayer really is. Yet we feel mystically
compelled to participate. To call such activity, prayer, is akin to
calling song, worship. It, too, is a great misnomer that causes
many to neglect the real thing.
How did we ever come to practice group prayer in this
manner? We learned it from tradition. It has been passed down
from one generation to the next as some mystical necessity. But
it needs to be reevaluated. Perhaps reviewing scriptural examples
would be of benefit. Certainly, a study of biblical prayers reveals
something quite different in content than our current practice.
Even the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. I
suggest that we need to make the same request.

Return to our roots

I believe the answer to our present dilemma is to return to the
way it used to be. Many things are necessarily different now than
in the days of the Apostolic Age. We are a different culture with
vastly different customs and lifestyles. But some things need not
to change, should not have changed. To these things we must
return.
To begin with, I suggest we return to the apostolic model of
church government. We should choose and train a multiple of
qualified men for leadership roles within the church. These men
need to teach doctrine and promote familial life and fellowship
within the church body. Then they need to teach and train others
to take their places.
I suggest we be de-programmed; entertain a new, or rather,
the original understanding of what the church is. Let me
elaborate. The ultimate purpose of the local church is
34 What Paul Might Say Today?

synonymous with God’s ultimate purpose for creation: His glory.

The Church, both universal and local, brings glory to God by
teaching truth and building relationships (Eph. 4:11-16). We
organize these events through various activities and programs, but
it is God’s Word around which we rally, and dynamic, truth
oriented relationships for which we assemble, not the programs or
the building.
While we cannot divorce the ultimate purpose of the Church
from its present activities and programs, neither can we confuse
them. When the programs are misunderstood to be the purpose of
the church, we are out of focus. Programs exist to facilitate the
needs of the group. The group does not exist to facilitate the
programs. Programs must come and go. They must remain in
flux. Their purpose is simply to provide structure for the teaching
of truth and the building of relationships.
Universally, all believers are united spiritually through their
relationship with the Holy Spirit. However, interpersonal
relationships in the local assembly bind believers together
corporeally, as co-workers and fellow servants of the Lord.
When the gifts of the Spirit are exercised, the local church is
edified. Truth is taught and interpersonal relationships grow.
Needs are met. People are satisfied. Spiritual growth takes place.
Paul is referring to this when he says,
Speaking the truth in love . . . the whole body fitly joined
together and compacted by that which every joint supplies,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every
part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself
in love (Eph. 4:15-16).
I also suggest we limit our dogma to that which is biblical.
Scripture specifies several sins with which most folks have
enough trouble. Let’s not create new lists to our own liking.
Man made regulations reflect individual preferences. Your
preferences are not mine, and they are certainly not the worlds.
Let us refrain from forcing righteousness upon a society that
cannot receive it. Refrain from looking down our noses at those
who do not comply with our personal standards.
It is true that Paul instructed us to evaluate one another’s
spiritual progress. We are to reprove the offender, restore the
 The Church, Then and Now 35
repentant, and encourage the discouraged. But these critical
appraisals are to be based upon scriptural, not personal, criteria.
And they are confined to believers. We have no business
correcting the unbeliever. To him we are to present the Gospel of
salvation, not a personal critique of his troubled life.
Give the Holy Spirit room to work. He speaks to every
man’s conscience. Let each believer establish his own personal
preferences with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. His perspective is
pure; ours is clouded, discolored by personal bias. Let’s not
presume the job that is reserved for Him. He does not need your
help or mine. He is perfectly capable. John sums it up like this,
“If our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God
. . . those who obey His commands live in Him, and He in them”
(1 Jn. 3:21-24).
If we feel compelled to speak against something that disturbs
us, let’s not claim biblical support if none exists. Let’s be honest.
Let’s not promote holiness—or rather, our own biased view of
holiness—through deception.
Furthermore, let us look beyond our own selfish desires and
remember the Psalmist’s admonishment that material wealth does
not redeem (Ps. 49:5-11). Nor does it give us personal identity.
Nor, in the end, as Solomon conceded, does it satisfy (Ecc. 2:11).
We need to look beyond new cars, boats, luxurious homes and
IRA’s, even beyond our opulent holy temples. We must set our
sights on that which is permanent, that which is spiritual, that
which will yield eternal benefit.
Am I dreaming? Am I speaking of ideals impossible to
attain? I hope not. As mentioned in the apology for this work,
the removal of these smudges on the sword will take a grassroots
movement not unlike the great reformation. Yet on the other
hand, it was prophesied that the Church in the last days would be
as such in these last days. Therefore, I do not expect these
erroneous practices to cease; however, those individuals who are
aware and concerned for them might be encouraged to polish
their little section of the sword.
Finally, for those to whom what I have addressed in this
chapter is a mystery, is unfamiliar territory, you are blessed, and
may you remain so.
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 37

The Church and Socio-Political Activism

Introduction
A malignant false theology is running rampant within
Western Christendom. It is not so much a systematic as it is a
practical theology, which, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, has
crept in amongst us, mingling freely within the apostate flocks as
well as flocks that otherwise are theologically sound. Sadly, this
false theology is promoted by many Christian leaders. Because it
is their job to guard the flock from such errors, this is perhaps the
most distressing of all blemishes in modern Western
Christendom.
Without doubt there are many readers of this work who are
bold, proud practitioners of this ideology. No doubt their
participation is done with good intentions, and is perceived to be
a Christian duty, a vehicle by which the Church diligently
promotes righteousness.
But this popular movement is contrary to the teachings and
practices of Jesus, the Apostles, the Old Testament and the New.
Ostensibly it advances righteousness, but in truth it promotes a lie
of Satan and effectively neglects a fundamental doctrine of
Scripture—the doctrine of total depravity which is explicitly
taught in many passages.
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of
men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek
God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become
filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Ps. 14:2-
3).
What then is this erroneous practice of which I speak? It is
nothing less than institutionalized socio-political activism on the
38 What Paul Might Say Today?

part of the Church. This widespread, ever-increasing agenda

within Western Christendom is the product of passion and
distorted truths. Far from being an innocuous or simply futile
activity, it is counterproductive to our Lord’s commission—
abrogating, even sabotaging the mission of evangelism. May this
short treatise serve as a strong warning to those who are leading
their flocks astray.
Without discussing specific socio-political ideals, and before
expounding upon the discord this activism strikes with the reality
of total depravity, let us consider the objectives set forth for both
the Church and the world’s governments. Each was instituted by
God. Each has a different purpose.

The Role of the Church in This Present Age

Once we allow ourselves to step back from any emotional
attachment to our current socio-political state of affairs (be they
national or global), we are free to analyze the issues objectively.
As the fog of pathos saturating the atmosphere about us begins to
lift, our vision becomes clearer allowing us to look back to the
time of Christ, to recall and understand the significance of the
assignment he gave his disciples.
All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to me.
You, then, are to go and make disciples of all the nations
and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to observe all that I
have commanded you and, remember, I am with you
always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20,
Phillips).
Five significant concepts immediately stand out in this passage:
(1) Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth; (2) disciples are to
make converts worldwide; (3) disciples are to teach theology to
the converts; (4) Jesus will be with the disciples; and (5) the age
will come to an end.
In times past, God dealt with mankind in various manners
such as direct verbal contact, prophets, covenants, etc. In the
future, God will deal with mankind in other ways: angels will
proclaim His glory to the four corners of the earth, evangelists
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 39
with the seal of God upon them will proclaim Jesus to the world,
two prophets of old will walk among the people performing
miracles, and finally, Jesus himself will reign as King of Kings.
But today, in this age, God’s primary dealings with mankind are
His dealings with the Church—the calling and sanctifying of the
elect.
This is not to say that God is utterly disinterested in
nonbelievers and the state of their world affairs. It is to say that
His purpose in this current age is the gathering of the elect—the
converts (both Jew and Gentile) who complete the Church, the
bride of Christ. As such, as clearly stated in the Great
Commission, the occupation of Jesus’ disciples is a twofold
mission: to make converts worldwide and to minister to those
who convert. By this God is glorified and His objective for this
present age is fulfilled.
Both themes, evangelism and the instruction of the saints, are
repeated several times in the New Testament. The task of
evangelism is accomplished by proclamation and testimony, as
Peter said, “Proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you
out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). With the
proclamation aspect we have no trouble. Having the knack for
spotting those opportunities that allow us to express and debate
our particular point of view on any number of issues seems to be
a Western trait. Indeed, this book is a prime example. But
proclaiming Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, is one
thing; being a living testimony is another. Thus, we are to make
converts by our actions as well. To do this Jesus explained, “You
are the light of the world. . . . Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which
is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16).
Once converts are made, we are to teach them sound, biblical
theology. Paul spoke to this, explaining that various gifted
leaders have been provided to instruct the elect. God has given
apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, and teachers:
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in
the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of
the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more
40 What Paul Might Say Today?

children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every

wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph. 4:12-
14).
Paul’s charge goes far beyond the mere delivery of a naïve
motivational Sunday morning sermon, as energetic and full of
enthusiasm as it may be. An hour of I’m so happy songs, and a
peppy speaker telling us God loves us and wants us to succeed in
life, that He has given us the power to overcome; now go out
there and be happy! is not what Paul had in mind.
He instructed Timothy to teach sound doctrine, sound
theology, to give his listeners the knowledge necessary to fight
the spiritual battles they will encounter. He reminded Timothy
that in the last days some shall depart from the faith, teaching
false doctrines and lies and making various legalistic demands on
the people. For this the brethren must be prepared:
Nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, . . .
These things command and teach. . . . Till I come, give
attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Meditate
upon these things; give yourself wholly to them; that your
profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto yourself, and
unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this you
shall both save yourself, and them that hear thee. (1 Tim.
4:6-16).
Herein then is the mission of the Church: to make converts
worldwide and to teach them sound theology. Adherence to these
duties has eternal consequence. The Church, the body of elect, is
assembled; and the eternal rewards for every believer are defined
by their personal efforts to execute this mission to the capacity,
and with the gifts, they have been given.

The Role of Government in this Present World

There are four things to understand about the world’s
governments. God has ordained them. They are serving His
purpose. He has their destiny in store. And finally, although He
has ultimate authority over them, He has currently granted control
to Satan (Gen. 11; Ps. 2; Eph 1.9-11; Lk. 4:5-7).
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 41
It is worth paying special attention to this fourth item.
Although Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and earth,
he is not exercising this power at this time. Currently the world is
Satan’s domain; he is even called the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4).
As we recall, he offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus. Not
being omniscient, Satan did not know for certain if Jesus—veiled
in his humanity—was indeed the Messiah. Therefore, knowing
man’s lust for money and power, immediately after Jesus’
baptism Satan put him to the test with the old ploy of selling
one’s soul to the devil. Of course Jesus refused:
Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed
Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And the devil said to Him, All this authority I will give you,
and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I
give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if you will worship
before me, all will be yours (LK. 4:5-7).
Years earlier Satan had tried to kill the baby Jesus. The word was
out that the Messiah had been born; again, not being omniscient,
Satan did not know who this babe was, so he inspired King Herod
to search for him. Unable to find the child, he eventually
murdered all the babies and toddlers in Bethlehem, up to two
years old in his attempt to murder the Messiah who, one day,
would strip him of his kingdom (Matt. 1:7-16).
The point of referencing the birth and temptation of Christ is
twofold: (1) to show that presently Satan has been handed
authority over the kingdoms of the world and (2) to show that
although Jesus has the ultimate authority over the world, he is not
exercising it at this time. Upon His return, He will most
definitely exercise His power; for then He will reign as King of
the earth. But at present, this does not suit his objective.

The False Commission

Many have perverted or simply disregarded what we
generally refer to as the Great Commission, having replaced it
with a mission more to their particular liking—a temporal
mission of social reengineering, seeking immediate, tangible
rewards. Various Christian organizations, theologians, and
multitudes of pastors (the very persons set in place to protect the
42 What Paul Might Say Today?

flock from such false teachings) propagate these ostensibly

righteous missions; but these missions are very different from
those which the Lord commanded.
No doubt the reader is familiar with some, or, perhaps all of
the many forms in which certain errant leaders have endeavored
to place ambitious goals of social reformation on the Church. But
many readers will be surprised to learn that these seemingly
righteous goals do not align with God’s purpose for the Church or
with the commission with which He charged it. That being said,
it is not the purpose of the Church to convert the world, to
establish the Kingdom of God on earth, to institute godly
governments within Satan’s domain, to embark on world-
improvement programs or to implement social reformation.
None of these reformation objectives is the mission of the
Church. Furthermore, each cuts absolutely contrarily to the
authentic, two-fold mission of the Church. Yet, for many
Christians, these misplaced ambitions have become the focal
point of their faith. The result is a misguided Christian
community, pursuing various unattainable, temporal, pseudo-
missions, which effectively displace the real mission—the Great
Commission—and subtly work against it.
Each of these reformation objectives is but a clever ploy of
our enemy. In the game of chess we refer to this tactic as
deflection: a maneuver, employing either sacrifice or attack,
designed to draw the opponent’s piece away from attacking or
defending an important square. Here, our enemy tempts us to
chase these bogus, temporal objectives that we might be drawn
away from the critical, eternal point of concern: the Great
Commission, evangelism and theological instruction for each
believer.
Try as we might, no one, no movement, no religion, no
government will, or can, achieve any of these socio-political
objectives. The world will be converted, the kingdom of God
will be established on earth, righteousness will reign, social
conditions will be rectified, and the world will improve; but all of
these will take place upon Christ’s return.
Upon Christ’s return in power and glory he will strip Satan of
his current domain and claim it for himself. In the meantime, any
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 43
effort to reform the world, Satan’s domain, is an unrealistic and
unattainable goal. The rulers of the world, for the most part,
follow a different god. To them the Gospel, as well as the power
to overcome evil (which salvation brings to the believer), is
hidden. As Paul said:
If our Gospel is veiled, the veil must be in the minds of
those who are spiritually dying. The spirit of this world has
blinded the minds of those who do not believe, and prevents
the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, the image of God,
from shining on them (2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Phillips).
Among these various missions of societal reformation, for
the last few decades American Christianity has largely been
consumed with seeking to establish a godly administration in
Washington, one that promises to legislate morality. Whole
movements have been launched in this regard. The ideals are
preached from pulpits, discussed in Sunday schools, posted on
websites, circulated in trade papers, and written about in books.
Many churches and seminaries seem to put more energy into
achieving this goal than into evangelism and discipleship; indeed,
many have come to view this as evangelism and discipleship.
But, on several levels, it is a great mistake for the Church, as
an institution, to be actively and overtly involved in socio-
political reform. Aside from displacing the Great Commission it
makes for strange bedfellows. Politicians are as fickle as
teenagers struggling with peer pressure. It is not wise for the
Church to be yoked with them in any fashion (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
Too many Christians in America confuse the personal
freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights with their spiritual
freedom obtained at rebirth. The two are not equivalent. They
should not, they must not, be held with equal esteem. The first is
a temporal issue of little consequence in the overall scheme of
things; the second has enormous eternal import. A pursuit of the
first does not fulfill the expectations or obligations of the second.
When the advancement of socio-political issues become the
focus, the Church is necessarily yoked with others of like mind in
such issues, and some will be more insidious, more dangerous
than politicians. Inevitably, in this quest for socio-political
reformation, the Church will be yoked with heretics. It will stand
side by side with pseudo-Christians, teachers of false theologies
44 What Paul Might Say Today?

that deny the very power of the faith: the deity and resurrection of
our Lord.
If establishing a godly government was our mission we
would have received instructions for the same. Jesus would have
addressed it. At least one of the Apostles would have addressed
it. But Jesus did not. The Apostles did not. The fact of the
matter is that under the Roman government people suffered far
worse conditions than we scarcely image. The world in which
Jesus and the Apostles lived was a brutal environment.
In this hierarchical society, slaves, void of any rights, were at
the bottom. Slightly above them were freed slaves, and then
freeborn citizens. Even the freeborn citizens were divided by
class so that each had certain rights. The father, as head of the
household, held complete control over his household, from slaves
to relatives. It was called patria potestas, “father’s power.” He
could force their marriage or divorce, claim their property as his
own, or even sell his children into slavery. As patria potestas he
had the power to punish (by death if he so desired) any member
of his household.
Jesus, eleven of the twelve Apostles, and thousands of
believers were murdered by Rome: burned, beaten, crucified,
stoned, made sport of and flayed alive. Yet neither Jesus, the
Apostles, nor the early Church Fathers ever spoke out against
Rome or encouraged socio-political reformation. Jesus certainly
spoke out against the injustices in Israel, the people of the
covenant, and the Apostles chastised the Christians for their
iniquities; but none spoke against Rome or encouraged their
followers to do so. Their lack of voice was not due to cowardice,
or even to a lack of concern. Their silence was motivated by their
sense of duty.
It was Jesus’ duty to take his cross upon himself that he
might provide a propitiation for our sin. It was the Apostles’
duty, and still is, that of the Church, to proclaim Jesus and teach
theology to the believers. These duties have eternal
consequences. Establishing an earthly government is a temporal
achievement with temporal rewards, and it is not our mission.
The government, any government, no matter how godly it may
seem, will wither with future generations; for man is a sinner by
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 45
nature and the unconverted heart will always follow its nature. It
is powerless to choose any other course.

The Divisive Mission of the Church

While a primary role of human government is one of
conciliation and compromise, in which opposing mindsets and
worldviews find mutual ground upon which they can stand
together, the mission of the Church is divisive, in direct
opposition to this conciliatory, compromising feature of
government. Of this divisiveness Jesus said,
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the
earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I
have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of
his own household (Matt. 10:34-35 NIV).
Of course, Jesus was not advocating war or internal familial
battles; the family is a prized institution to be honored and
cherished. Yet, at the same time, he knew the Gospel would
create schism so divisive that even family members would be
ostracized.
Being a follower of Jesus requires an admission of personal
guilt and the need for a personal savior. The world loathes this
scenario. It is offensive to them, to their pride, to their sense of
self worth. It is for this reason the world hates Christianity and
Judaism. The biblical doctrine of total depravity sheds light on
man’s sinful nature. The world has no problem with Hindus,
Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, or followers of any other
world religion because none of them convicts man of his sinful
nature, which, if true, predicts the need for a qualified redeemer.
This is insulting to those who fancy themselves self-sufficient.
Thus Jesus said:
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as
doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the
local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my
account you will be brought before governors and kings
as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they
46 What Paul Might Say Today?

arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say

it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will
not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you (Matt. 10:16-20 NIV).
It is impossible to model the world, or even a society, after
the Judeo-Christian ethic. It cannot be legislated, nor coaxed with
pleas to the conscience, for the heart of man is dark, born in sin
and in sin it lives until, and if, reborn of the Spirit of God. There
is a universal ethic, a universal conscience acceptable to the
world, but it is very narrow. Such things as murder, theft, rape,
unusual cruelty, etc., are generally intolerable, but even these can
be justified when convenient. The unbeliever’s conscience, as
tender as it might be, can generally justify an offense to its own
convictions when expedient, because its moral compass is
ephemeral—an existential moving target that adapts to the
situation. Because it rejects the Creator it abides no ultimate
standard; therefore, everything is relative.

The Law Convicts

The law cannot, nor was it ever meant to, reform anyone.
Man cannot be reformed, and attempting to reform him is an
exercise in futility. The purpose of the law is to convict not to
contain or reform. The law is simply meant to make the sinner
aware of his sin; it is not meant to make the sinner righteous. In
this it is impotent. Paul explained it as such: “the law is not made
for a righteous person, but for the lawless” (1 Tim. 1:9). “I had
not known sin, but by the law” (Rom. 7:7). Having inherited the
nature of sin from Adam, man is unable to obey the law. It is
only the new birth, and the Holy Spirit living within, that gives
the believer the necessary power to follow the law.
What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4).
Yet, even with this power dwelling within, the believer, still
shackled to the Adamic nature, struggles to do that which he
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 47
knows is right and is motivated to do. Therefore, attempting to
make the spiritually dead live up to that with which even the
spiritually alive struggle, is futile.
A society in spiritual darkness being ruled by a society of
moralists does not promote evangelism. When it is attempted it
has disastrous results. C. S. Lewis observed this with the wit we
might expect:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better
to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without
end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.1
Those who suffer under such tyranny comply only under duress.
Always, they are looking for opportunity to rebel. They will
never, in good faith, convert to the totalitarianism which they
despise.
Well meaning, but mistaken charismatic leaders are escorting
us up John Bunyan’s cliffs of Mt. Zion, and we follow with great
intensity. Evangelist warned Christian not to be tempted by the
mountain’s appeal;2 but, he too, had to see for himself. In the
end he was sorry for his misguided zeal. So too will we. As long
as the Church continues up the path of socio-political reformation
it shall continue to work against God’s eternal design, and it shall
continue to impede its evangelical effectiveness. Of this I am
certain.

Civil Rights
Now this is not to argue that believers, as citizens of a free
state, should not be socially and politically involved. Indeed, a
case can be made that we, as individuals, ought to perform our

1
C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Paperback -
346 pp.; Eerdmans, 1994), p. 292.
2
A reference to John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress (Paperback; Fleming H
Revell Co., 1999).
48 What Paul Might Say Today?

civic duties as much as possible. In the context of being good

citizens, we should let our lights shine by the nature of our deeds
and godly behavior. We have evidence of such civic participation
in the Apostle Paul. Although imprisoned and eventually
martyred by Rome for his faith, neither as a Christian nor as an
Apostle of the Church did he ever speak against Rome’s violation
of him and his faith. However, in that he was a free Roman
citizen, he did exercise his right to be heard by Caesar. And
while he used this as an occasion to proclaim the Gospel, he did it
without seeking imperial reformation.
There is a great difference between the Church, in an official
capacity, supporting certain politicians or socio-political issues,
and the individual, as a good citizen, doing the same. The
individual, as a good citizen, has a civic license for such activity.
The Church, as God’s institution given a specific spiritual task,
does not. Regardless of the liberties any government might
bestow upon the Church, the Church’s spiritual mission
supersedes its intervention in temporal, divisive objectives
because such interventions frustrate the spiritual mission.
Temporal issues necessarily create division. Often, even
believers are on both sides of an issue. For the Church, or
theologians, or pastors as representatives of the Church, to take
sides in political controversy is contrary to the mission. It is
playing into the opponent’s deflection tactic.
We might recall this is what the Pharisees attempted to get
Jesus to do in regard to taxes. Their reasoning was such that if
they could get him to say the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, the
people of Israel would be upset with him; and if they could get
him to say Israel should not pay the taxes to Rome, the Roman
government would be after him. Of course, his answer
confounded their entire scheme, for he refused to take the bait:
“render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to
God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).
The Church has a mission to proclaim the Gospel, not to
reform temporal, socio-political establishments. The individual
believer has this same mission, but as a free citizen he/she also
has a civic duty to the socio-political establishment—even an
invitation and a legislative right to participate. But this individual
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 49
participation must be within the scope of the Great Commission
as well as that of civic responsibilities. The Great Commission
does not expect or desire the Church, as an institution, to legislate
civic reformation, nor does society expect or desire this
reformation.

Socio-political Reform has Never Been God’s Goal

These pseudo-missions of socio-political reformation (upon
which much of Western Christendom has embarked) have never
been God’s goal in any age. When the Church, as an institution
of God, seeks to establish godly governments, to bring social
reform, to make non-believers conform to Christian ethics, it is
working contrary to every dealing God has ever had with man
through the ages. Reformation of the human condition has never
been God’s objective.
Upon confronting Adam and Eve with their sin, God did not
offer a rehabilitation program. He did not suggest they reform
their ways. He promised a Redeemer. God eventually
surrendered the antediluvian world to its lusts, condemning the
people to their own desires. He did not tell Noah to establish a
better government that might enforce justice and ethical issues.
God told Noah to build a boat that would save him from the
coming destruction. Within five hundred years the postdiluvian
world had also rebelled against God. He condemned it as well,
not with immediate destruction, but with disinterest. Thus, God
made a covenant with one man, Abraham. God did not tell
Abraham to establish a better government among the Gentiles but
demanded separation from them. Later, Moses was given laws to
govern God’s chosen people, but there was no instruction to
impose these laws upon the Gentiles. And, as pointed out earlier,
although Rome was an evil Empire, neither Jesus nor the
Apostles ever sought to reform it.
We must not fool ourselves; socio-political evils are nothing
new. These troubles were just as prevalent two millennia ago
when our Lord walked the earth. As far as our modern Western
world is concerned, things were even worse than they are for us
today. Yet neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever spoke out against
Rome, never encouraged social reform or political rebellion.
50 What Paul Might Say Today?

Later, the early Church fathers did nothing to reform it. None of
them attempted to institute socio-political reform simply because
it was not, and still is not, the mission of the Church. If it were,
two things would certainly have happened. First, Jesus would
have demonstrated it. He would have done a little social reform
Himself. Secondly, He would have given a commandment to this
regard. You would think at least one of the apostles would have
mentioned something so important. But He did not. They did
not. After all, what would be the point? As Peter so succinctly
reminded, “The dog is returned to its own vomit again; and the
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire” (1 Pet. 2:2).
Of course, Jesus did speak out against Israel—God’s chosen
people with whom He had a contract, one which they had all but
forgotten. Having institutionalized an outward form of
righteousness with their endless laws of godliness, few in Israel
any longer held God dear to their hearts. Jesus’ rebuke of Israel
was a point of house cleaning. He rebuked them for their
apostasy and their injustices, but He said nothing to those outside
the family, nothing to Rome or the Gentiles at large. Rather, he
said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.” (Matt. 15:24). Likewise, later, when certain local
churches strayed from the path an apostle rebuked them, but
never did an apostle rebuke Rome, or seek to establish a better
government.

Ultimately Human Government Must Fail

The doctrine of total depravity predicts that human
governments must fail. All have sinned and fallen short;
therefore, in that human government is an extension of the human
condition, all human governments must fail:
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of
men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek
God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become
filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psalm 14:
2-3).
Even Israel’s attempt at self-government failed as predicted.
When Israel rejected Samuel (their God-appointed judge),
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 51
insisting upon a king similar to those of surrounding nations, God
consoled Samuel,
It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me
as their king. . . . but warn them solemnly and let them
know what the king who will reign over them will claim as
his rights (1 Sam. 8:7-9).
He will take your sons and your daughters and the best of all you
have, and when you call to the Lord for relief you will not be
heard. But of course, they did not heed the warning.
The results were very disappointing. What followed was
century after century of self-serving kings with relatively few
godly ones. Even when a righteous king sought the Lord, the
people would soon rebel, and, once another king was on the
throne, they would return to their evil ways. Eventually their
kings were stripped of power and Israel came under Gentile rule.
Then Israel began to construct its set of endless extra-biblical,
religious laws which promoted an outward form of godliness.
They became puffed up and full of self-righteousness, developing
the pharisaical mindset Christ found and reprimanded.
So it is that even God’s chosen people aptly illustrate the
doctrine of total depravity. In spite of a strong priesthood, the
prophets of God, and anointed kings, Israel’s attempt at self
governance failed miserably. The antediluvian civilization had
done the same. Though great patriarchs walked among them—
those who had walked with Adam and Eve, who had walked with
God—in the end, God would bring but eight people from the
ancient civilization through the flood and into the new world. In
prophetic events yet to come, even with Christ physically
reigning as King of the earth, multitudes will rebel (Rev. 20:8).
Thus, it is quite clear to all, but the willingly ignorant, that man’s
self rule is doomed to failure.
This being understood let me take it a little further. The very
idea of a godly or Christian nation is absurd. It is a subtle ploy of
the enemy to distract us from our real mission. You can have an
Islamic nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, an atheistic
nation, or a nation of any other religion, for world religions
merely require varying degrees of outward conformity and self-
righteousness as one seeks to achieve a certain sense of
heightened pseudo-spirituality. But you cannot have a Christian
52 What Paul Might Say Today?

nation. Christianity is not like the world’s religions. It is more

than an outward conformity of distraught self-righteousness. The
requisite righteousness of Christianity is not something achieved
by one’s own power, but by God’s. It is a power bestowed on
each believer upon spiritual rebirth. This cannot be legislated,
and the mere outward conformity to the Christian ethic does not a
Christian make. But it does make a nice hypocrite.
There has never been a Christian nation, nor has there ever
been a command to establish one. Nations and kingdoms come
and go like the grass. They are temporal and physical; our
kingdom is eternal and spiritual. Our kingdom is not of this
world. Any attempt, no matter how righteous it may appear, to
establish a holy nation or kingdom on earth is a disturbance,
effectively replacing, abrogating, even sabotaging the true
mission of the Church.

Three Detrimental Consequences of Social Reengineering

As evidenced by the chosen people of God (the children of
Abraham), the doctrine to establish a righteous human
government flies in the face of the biblical doctrine of total
depravity. Although we may experience apparent positive
changes for a few years or decades, ultimately, nothing good
comes of imposing socio-political reform.
Beyond being diametrically opposed to the great
commission, there are three detrimental consequences to the
fallacious practice of social reengineering which the Church seeks
to impose Christian ethics upon non-believers. Individuals might,
to a considerable degree, will themselves to obey. But short of
being reborn of the Spirit of God, their sinful nature is still in
charge. It is for this reason Paul cried out, “O wretched man that
I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death” (Rom.
7:24). Of course, he concludes that Christ Jesus is the answer.
No good thing can come of imposing godliness on the
ungodly. Although some superficially conform to these imposed
ethics, this conformity is likely to culminate in disdain and revolt,
for their hearts are still ruled by “the law of sin and death” (Rom.
8:2) toward which the law of righteousness is weak and unable to
deliver (v.3), and thus, any outward conformity to righteousness
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 53
is contrary to their nature. Those who live in the flesh set their
minds on things of the flesh; they are at enmity with God and not
subject to the law of God. They cannot please God (vv. 5-8) and
they cannot please themselves; eventually they rebel in some
form and to some degree against any righteousness that has been
imposed upon them, for “no servant can serve two masters; for
either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be
loyal to the one and despise the other” (Luke 16:13-14).
The second possible unseemly outcome of imposing
Christian ethics on the unbeliever is an assumed self-
righteousness. Vainly overlooking their sin, focused only on
what good they might have accomplished or are accomplishing,
they puff themselves up, convinced they have no need of a savior:
“What need does a good man have of a savior? Surely the good
outweighs the bad and eternity is secure by these deeds alone.”
Again, false conclusion is a rejection of the doctrine of total
depravity, which clearly states, “We are all like an unclean thing,
and all our righteousness are like filthy rags; we all fade as a
leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isa.
65:6). For, “there is none righteous, no not one” (Rom. 3:10).
Because of this truth, any supposed reform achieved by imposed
ethics is not only temporal, but condemning. When judgment day
comes these individuals will be held accountable for yet another
failure—the self-righteousness they assumed while proudly
conforming to the imposed ethic.
The third detrimental issue with Church-imposed social
reengineering is that it makes folks turn a deaf ear to the Gospel.
The Church’s views on certain temporal issues are sure to offend
many citizens, simply because their nature will not and cannot
abide the virtues the Church will promote.
The first rule of effective evangelism is to establish common
ground. Find an issue upon which we, and the one with whom
we are attempting to share the Gospel, can agree. From here we
lead into the presentation of Christ and salvation. Thus, Paul said
“I am all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”
1 Cor 2:99). He is finding common ground from which he might
share the Gospel. Imagine the outcome at the Areopagus (Acts
17) if Paul had introduced his theology by first condemning the
beliefs and hedonistic practices of the various religions with their
54 What Paul Might Say Today?

altars dedicated to their many pagan deities. Rather, he meekly

observed their altar “To The Unknown God”; to which he said, let
me tell you about Him.
As stewards of evangelism, our objective is to escort souls to
an introduction with the one who bestows life and righteousness.
It is not our role to hurl stones of righteous indignation. We are
mere fellow sinners fortunate enough to be elected unto
redemption, the reality of which should humble us to the point of
tears. How can we look upon those in darkness with anything but
sympathy? We do not have the right to reprimand them or their
actions. For they are us; we are them. The only distinction: we
have experienced the grace of God.
After warning his listeners to judge not lest they be judged,
Jesus warned against the hypocrisy of looking at the speck in
their brother’s eye but not considering the plank in their own. He
then instructed them, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor
cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their
feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (Matt. 7:1-6). In the issue
of Church instigated socio-political reformation, all three
warnings are applicable. We shall be judged with the judgment
we employ; we ourselves are struggling sinners; and why bother
imposing righteousness on those who do not want it, cannot
receive it and have rejected it? Of course, with this last issue of
“casting pearls before swine,” Jesus was primarily speaking of
continuing to proclaim the Gospel to those that have rejected it,
but this principle also extends to godliness itself. Continuing to
cast godliness in the face of the ungodly is a futile endeavor.
There is a better option.
Having received this grace, we are now the salt of the earth,
expected to bring forth and enhance the pathos and savor of life.
We are not to be bitter herbs that turn a stomach into knots. We
are the light of the world extending hope to those in darkness.
We are not the judge giving the sentence to darkness. Leave the
sentencing to God. He is just. He is qualified.
When the Church becomes involved in the passionately
heated battles of socio-political reform, we effectively negate
many opportunities to establish common ground with the very
society we hope to reach. We cannot establish common ground
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 55
with someone who will not listen to anything we have to say.
And be assured, once passions are inflamed over one of these
mere temporal issues, deaf ears are turned to all who oppose their
passion. I learned long ago that there is a standing rule in all
debates over ideals: passion is never convinced by logic. Once
you oppose and enrage passion, you have effectively lost all
credibility. You cannot infuriate a person over one issue and then
expect to persuade him in another.
It is one thing to offend with the Gospel: indeed proclaiming
the Gospel and having it offend the hearer is the expectation. But
unnecessarily offending those to whom we wish to proclaim the
Gospel by arguing about temporal issues that are ultimately
doomed to failure regardless of the sitting government is contrary
to our mission. Furthermore, even if we were to convince them to
abide by our ethic, eventually they would either rebel or become
self-righteous, neither of which is our objective.

Effective Witness
Proclaim the Gospel and give a living testimony; these are
the means by which we give effective witness for our Lord. It is
this aspect of “living testimony” in which western evangelical
orthodoxy often falls short. Too often our testimony is eclipsed
by misdirected ideology. Our traditions, our legalism, and our
pharisaical dogma over minor temporal socio-political issues
overshadow our testimony, making it virtually of no effect. A
message is seldom heeded when the messenger is held in
contempt or mistrust. We seem not to grasp the reality that
proclamation without effective testimony is little more than
empty words.
This living testimony is best exhibited by love. Jesus said,
“By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have
love one for another” (Jn. 13:35). People are in pain, spiritually
and emotionally. They need to be loved. We need to be loved.
We need God’s love. We need God’s love demonstrated through
others. And just as important, we need to demonstrate God’s love
to others. The population to which we proclaim the Gospel is in
spiritual darkness, living in Satan’s domain. They need to know
God. They need to be enlightened by the Spirit of God. The
56 What Paul Might Say Today?

Church is the vehicle that provides them knowledge of the Savior.

This is the mission of the Church.
The Apostle pleaded to the Galatians, who themselves were
misdirected in certain issues, “as we . . . have opportunity, let us
do good to all men . . .” (Gal. 6:10). This is the tender and loving
spirit that Jesus demonstrated to the harlot at the well, to the
repugnant lepers, and to the greedy tax collector. It is a spirit far
different from that which incites and rallies protesters to
picketing, sit-ins, public condemnation rallies, class or race
baiting, and righteous terrorism. The mission of the Church is
evangelism carried out in love. It is not social reformation
inspired by bitter dogmatism.
We cannot animate a dead body, no matter how long we do
CPR, or how many infusions of epinephrine, atropine and
bicarbonate we provide. Dead is dead. The world is dead in
spirit, severed from the only means of righteousness, the head,
Jesus Christ. No attempt by the Church to revive those who are
dead in spirit is evangelism.

Conclusion
While it may seem righteous, even necessary, for the Church
to cry out over socio-political issues, in truth, such actions hinder
the true mission of the Church. Ironically, in principle this
attempt to establish a false national holiness is doing the very
thing that Moses refused to do. That is, to substitute the eternal
for the temporal. In faith, his refusal to exercise his privileges as
an Egyptian citizen and aristocrat pitted him against his own
people.
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God,
than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming
the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in
Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the
reward (Heb. 11:235-26).
While it may not be sin for the Church, overtly, to use its
clout to manipulate socio-political issues, it is certainly an
exercise of faithlessness. In faithlessness, we are bent upon
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 57
controlling temporal issues, disregarding the effect upon the
eternal mission set before us.
It is not the mission of the Church to pursue socio-political
reform, nor will it ever be. It is simply not, nor ever has been
God’s objective on earth. The righteous kingdom will be
established in time, upon Christ’s return. Then all will walk by
God’s law. Until then, we are to proclaim the Good News, the
news that a Savior was born who paid the price for our sin with
His death; the news that He has risen from the grave and offers
forgiveness to all who seek him.
As appealing as it may be, the Church must deny the
temptation to orchestrate socio-political activism and godly
nation-building. The Church must recognize this temptation for
what it is—a subtle diversion set in motion by our enemy. Sadly,
the consequences of such activities go far beyond what one might
expect of a more subtle diversion, for when the Church pursues
these diversions, losing sight of its mission, it is effectively losing
the battle. Even when seemingly victorious, bringing society
about to an outward conformity to our ethic, we have lost. A few,
or even many, skirmishes might be won; a summit might be
taken, the flag raised and righteousness established as the rule of
law in the land, but we have lost because we have fought the
wrong battle, taken the wrong summit, advanced the wrong
kingdom. Our mission is to establish a kingdom in the hearts of
men, not under their feet.
Not only is it the wrong battle, but it is counterproductive to
the real battle. Our efforts merely spawn strong negative ideals
and emotions among the very souls we hope to reach, thereby
setting in motion the resultant aftermath. A non-believing
society’s heartless conformity to unwanted morals generates one
of three possible scenarios: rebellion, self-righteousness, inflamed
passions.
Meddling in the emotionally charged affairs of the spiritually
dead, withering, temporal world accomplishes nothing good.
However, by inciting the hearts of those we hope to evangelize,
we aggravate our evangelical mission. For once we have
offended the myopic passions of their beloved, fleeting causes we
have little to no hope of ever reaching them with the Gospel. At
this point, we have lost all credibility in their eyes. Our message
58 What Paul Might Say Today?

of eternal salvation merely falls on deaf ears, ears that are

fervently plugged with the stained and decaying rags of the ever-
present temporal issues. Regardless of any seemingly honorable
societal structure we might achieve, men’s hearts are evil, in need
of spiritual rebirth, not temporal conformity.
Furthermore, no matter how ordered or encompassing all
governments, all socio-political structures, are transitory. In the
end, they crumble, giving way to total depravity. Christians are
charged to go out among the world and evangelize, to establish
the kingdom of God in the hearts of men, not to cloister
themselves in singular communities, isolated from the world,
isolated from those in need of salvation. Nor are we commanded
to construct nations of such singular communities. There is no
biblical command or precedent to justify such an abrogation of
duty: that our children might have better lives; that we might be
better equipped to send forth missionaries; that we might contain
evil deeds; that we might honor God; that we might . . . , etc.;
they are all excesses of either the theologically ignorant or the
theologically deceived. Nothing good has ever, or can ever, come
from attempting to build a godly or Christian nation. Yes, it
sounds like a righteous cause, but it is not Christianity’s
objective. It is a subtle, self-gratifying diversion, a hindrance to
the true mission set before us.
Attempting to bring in the kingdom before its time is not that
dissimilar to Israel’s strong desire for the Messiah to come in
power and glory versus humility. So committed were they to this
objective that they vehemently rejected his clearly prophesied
sacrificial appearance. Let us not be those who seek to put the
cart before the horse, attempting to bring in the kingdom before
its time. Not only is it futile, it is contrary to our charge. The
world and its governments are in Satan’s control. Any attempt at
societal reformation disregards the doctrine of total depravity:
“They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:
there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Ps. 14:2-3). Thus,
reform of any kind is not an option. It is, however, the
commission of the Church to
Go and make disciples of all the nations and baptize them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
 The Church and Socio-Political Activism 59
Spirit. Teach them to observe all that I have commanded
you and, remember, I am with you always, even to the end
of the age (Matt. 28:18-20, Phillips).
We seem to have forgotten that God established governments
for a purpose, even evil governments. Certainly our actions show
no consideration of this. Have we no faith in Him? Are we so
foolish as to believe that He needs our help? Ultimately, God is
in control. Just as the Holy Spirit works upon your conscience,
and mine, so too He works upon the consciousness of those in
power. He works as a restraining force against evil (2 Thess.
2:6). If God so desired, He could shatter any and every
government like a broken mirror (Am. 9:8). The only power they
have is the power with which He has entrusted them (1 Ki. 16:1-
4); they are working according to His plan. When the Church
speaks ill and displays animosity toward the government, it is
essentially displaying displeasure with the way God is
orchestrating the course of the world.
There are many governments that have little or no Christian
constituents; our efforts of persuasion would be better spent
seeking to birth them some. This is the mission. It is a mission
with eternal consequence. Governments and societies are
transient. They come and go like the seasons. Overpower this
one and tomorrow you face another. It is a temporal and fleeting
battle, whereas souls are eternal. Let us leave the building and
toppling of governments to God. After all, He’s been doing it for
a while, and so far everything has gone according to plan. My
wife is a wonderful cook. I am not. So I suppose it is appropriate
that when I walk into the kitchen half way through the preparation
of a particular dish, and give a few suggestions, she runs me off
in an obvious display of irritation. Let us let God complete His
project as planned. He doesn’t need us straying into the kitchen
and shaking the spices. He has commissioned us to a different
project. Let us stick to the task at hand.

1 C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Paperback –

p. 346, Eerdmans, 1994), p. 292.
60 What Paul Might Say Today?

2 A reference to John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress (Paperback; Fleming H

Revell Co., 1999).
 Love and Marriage 61

Love and Marriage

Introduction
Marriage is a wonderful thing, Solomon (generally
considered the wisest of the wise) said, “He who finds a wife
finds a good thing, and obtains favor of the Lord” (Prov. 18:22).
But in recent years, marriage has suffered a violent assault within
our western culture. Christians have not been immune to this
assault. Today, Western culture virtually accepts divorce as a
right of passage, something through which almost everyone will
pass. Wedding vows are constructed to be subordinate to
prenuptial agreements with the understanding that love for one’s
spouse might wane, but love for one’s money shall remain till
death do us part.
This assault on marriage has intensified so that the very
sanctity of this holy union, as an institution between a man and a
woman, is under attack. States are passing laws to allow
marriages of man with man, and woman with woman. Next, I
suppose, we will see man with beast. Such is the heart of man. Is
this not reminiscent of the antediluvian society, which, we are
told, would reemerge before Christ’s return?
More than the world’s abuse of this sacred union, of great
concern to me is the casual perspective so many within Western
Christendom have assumed toward marriage, divorce, and
remarriage. The world’s perspective that marriage can be donned
and discarded like soiled vesture, replaced simply by pulling
another garment from the hanger, has slowly crept into the
Church. Over the last several decades, the divorce rate among
Christians has reached a number similar to that of the world,
ranging from 33 to 42%. Some have calculated that perhaps half
62 What Paul Might Say Today?

of all American marriages end in divorce: 33% to 50% of first

marriages, 60% to 67% of second marriages, and 73% to 74% of
third marriages. Of course, all these statistics are debatable,
varying slightly depending upon the survey and the criteria used
for the survey. But the actual numbers are not that important, the
pattern is clear. There is a problem; this, no one who values
marriage can deny.

A unique bond
Marriage is the first institution established by the Lord. This
alone makes it special. But it is more than a tradition, more than
an institution, more than a legal contract, more than a civil
ceremony, more than a religious duty, more than a mere equal
partnership. Marriage is to be a living, loving union, a mystical
fusion in which each nourishes, cherishes, and esteems the other
as they would their own selves. This truly unique bond,
unmatched in all creation, is designed to transcend all other
earthly relationships: acquaintances, business associates, close
friendships and blood relatives—from aunts, uncles and cousins
to siblings, grandparents and parents.
This takes on special meaning when we consider the visceral
bond generated by the blood relationship which often provokes
deference even for those relatives whom we might not
particularly care for; as the colloquial observation says, “blood is
thicker than water.” When we consider the even more powerful
and visceral parent-child bond, this special meaning is taken to a
whole new level, for the marriage bond is to transcend even the
parent-child relationship. “Therefore shall a man leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Many parents and children alike fail to acknowledge this
leaving and cleaving aspect of marriage. They fail to reverence
the one flesh nature of this bond. As a result, parents meddle in a
child’s marriage, or, conversely, a child places parents above
his/her spouse. Either is a recipe for disaster. The couple is to
leave their parents, to unite and become one flesh.
 Love and Marriage 63
This one flesh aspect of marriage is hard to define,
impossible to fully articulate, harder even than attempting to
define love for one who has never experienced love. Simply
discussing or attempting to define this unique relationship does
not do it justice. Like love, but even more difficult to
comprehend, this being one flesh must be experienced to be truly
appreciated.

The wounded
Unfortunately, too many marriages never experience this
mystical union of being one flesh. Too many marriages never
achieve this unique relationship; their bond never matures, never
grows to its full potential. Without this bond marriage can be a
source of great sorrow. Too many marriages suffer a weak
relationship; with couples painfully remaining together (at least
legally) for the kids, for the church, for their reputation. Other
marriages simply dissolve in divorce as each partner, typically,
and casually, moves on to another. Then some, although
relatively few, who have achieved this special bond, manage to
fracture it, and let it fester until it also ends in divorce. Those in
this category experience a loss from which they can never fully
recover. This open wound makes it very unlikely that either will,
or can, rush into another truly meaningful relationship. For if
their failed marriage had indeed formed this genuine bond in
which they were as one flesh, dissolving it was truly like cutting
off their right arm.
The Lord spoke of this same wound with Israel, His
metaphorical, estranged wife. So the prophet might better
understand how the Lord felt about Israel, He instructed Hosea to
take an unfaithful wife that he might also experience the pain
(Hosea 3:1). Hundreds of years later, even as the crowds were
shouting His praise, Jesus expressed his feeling for Israel,
lamenting the soon destruction of this city that was about to kill
Him. Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, was near destruction and he
mourned for it:
When he came near, he saw the city and wept over it;
saying, I tell you, if you had known in this day, even you,
the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden
64 What Paul Might Say Today?

from your eyes. For . . . your enemies . . . shall not leave in

you one stone upon another, . . . (Luke 19:41-44)
No, the divorce of those who have truly developed this special
bond can never fully heal.
What then is the key to a successful, happy marriage, to
developing this special bond of one flesh? Merrill and I were
married as teenagers, nearly forty years ago, and, as you might
expect, we have often been asked this same question. You will
have to ask Merrill for her take on the issue to get the full story.
In that her part in this relationship has been far more difficult than
mine; her thoughts are certainly of great value. As for me, and
my analytical approach, I think I am also onto something.

The words of love

The Greek language has different words to express various
aspects of what we often simply call love. There are three
specific words of interest when speaking of love and marriage.
While these words have individual meanings, on some level each
seems to cross paths with another so that their usage is nearly
synonymous, but not quite.
The first term, although not used in the New Testament, is
nevertheless, very important to our topic, for it is the means by
which most relationships begin. It is the Greek ͗ερος (eros), from
which we get the English erotic. Eros speaks of physical
attraction, infatuation, even physical pleasure. It accounts for
love at first sight and that giddy feeling in the gut when you hold
hands with the one of your desire.
Proverbs provides an example of how the two of these Greek
words cross paths. Although the Greek Septuagint (LXX) uses a
different word for love (one we will discuss shortly), the scene
described crosses into eros.
Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her
breasts satisfy you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love (LXX Prov. 5:18-19).
This physical relationship, of course, is not the sole means to
achieve the mystical union of being one flesh, but it is an
 Love and Marriage 65
important aspect. However, to be meaningful, a relationship must
move on from eros. This is not to abandon it by any means, but
to grow and move into other forms of love. Nevertheless, this
passage reveals how important it is to keep the fire burning. The
initial infatuation, or even love at first sight, is fine, and although
its intensity may vary throughout the ups and downs of a growing
relationship, the flame must not be left to die out.
Another Greek term ἀγαπἀω (agapao) is commonly
translated love. Its scope of meaning is, to value, to esteem, to
feel or manifest concern, to be faithful toward, to delight in, to set
store upon, devotedness, affection, and benevolence. It is often
thought of as the sacrificial love and devotion that is not only
prevalent in marriage but in other relationships as well: a parent’s
sacrificial love for the children; a soldier’s love for country; a
friend’s devotion, etc. It was this term Jesus used when he said,
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if you have
love one to another” (Jn. 13:35). Agapao is the idea behind the
oft quoted 1 Corinthians 13.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but
have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging
cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I
have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have
not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,
but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long,
is kind, does not envy, does not parade itself, is not puffed
up, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not
provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but
rejoices in the truth, bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things. And now abide faith,
hope, love, . . . the greatest of these is love.
Eros and agapao, the burning desire and the devotional
aspects of love, are vital to any marriage, but there is another love
that must be encountered if a marriage is to work, if it is to reach
the mystical state of being one flesh. This love is expressed in the
Greek φιλἐω (phileo). It is often translated as friendship. It
speaks of affection, to like, to delight in, and to cherish
inordinately.
66 What Paul Might Say Today?

Phileo can be used to express a more personal, intimate love

than that of agapao. While, in the realm of one’s less intimate
relationship in society, agapao is the greatest love, as for personal
relationships, phileo transcends and necessarily encompasses
agapao. So that, it is possible to have agapao without having
phileo; that is, it is possible to be devoted and sacrificially
committed without harboring a deep personal affection. On the
other hand, phileo, by definition, includes all the aspects of
agapao. In this respect, phileo is a higher form of love.
This was exhibited when Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me
more than these?” He used agapas. Peter answered, “Yes Lord,
you know I love you.” Peter used philo. Then Jesus asked him a
second time, again using agapas, and Peter answered, again using
philo. When Jesus asked Peter the third time, “Do you love me?”
he used phileis. Of course Peter was grieved because it seemed
that Jesus was questioning his affectionate devotion, his philos.
Then Jesus foretold of Peter’s eventual martyrdom, essentially
telling him: Yes, you will demonstrate your affection, with your
sacrifice (John 21:15-17). If you recall, earlier Jesus had said, a
“man gives his life for a friend (philos) you are my friends
(philos) if you do what I say” (John 15:13-14)
Other passages use phileo as well, to express affection on a
more personal level so as to transcend agapee. Paul used this
term to admonish young women to love their husbands and to
love their children (Titus 2:4). The Septuagint used it to explain:
“He that covers transgression seeks love, but he that repeats a
matter separates friends” (Prov. 17:9), and again to say, “Hatred
stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions” (Prov. 10:12).
And Paul used it to express God’s love toward men, “the
kindness and love of God our Savior toward men appeared,”
which He did via agapee (Tit. 3:4). It is this term used of Jesus’
affection for Lazarus, “behold how he loved him” (John 11:36),
and for John, “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2).
This term was used to tell us how “the Father loves the son”
(John 5:20). Jesus used it to assure the disciples, “the Father
loves you because you love me” (John 16:27). Paul warned that
“if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema.
. . .” (1 Co 16:22). Phileo is also the root word for kiss.
 Love and Marriage 67
In the negative sense phileo is used to express a misplaced
self serving affection: the love of money, of self, of praying in the
open, of having the uppermost seats, a love of one’s life or family
more than Jesus, and a love of the world.
In the context of marriage, phileo necessarily encompasses
and transcends both agapee and eros. It is this term used by the
Septuagint in the aforementioned erotic passage in Proverbs:
Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of
your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her
breasts satisfy you at all times; and be ravished always with
her love” (Prov. 5:18-19).

The acts of love

Although they were once in love, too many married couples
wake up one day to realize they do not particularly like each
other, eros. Their once steamy relationship had likely started
with a strong, mutual physical attraction for each other. As they
spent more time together, they were soon making small
compromises and sacrifices for each other, agapao. This
sacrificial devotion grew once they were married. It necessarily
became even more widespread as the children entered their lives.
But each had their own set of friends, neither really caring for the
other’s friends. As time passed, they spent less and less time
together. They began spending weekends apart, each involved in
their own activities. Then they were taking separate vacations.
The initial flame, with which their relationship began, had long
since faded; so that now, each continually irritates the other.
Slowly, and sadly, they have come to realize they do not really
like each other anymore.
The likely truth is that they never did like each other. They
never took the necessary time to really get to know each other in
an intimate, phileo way. The mutual sacrifices and benevolence
was encouraging. Conjugal unions were good . . . for a few years;
but a cherished, soul to soul, intimate and deeply devoted
friendship was never developed. For, if this all encompassing
phileo had been present to the degree so that they were as one
flesh, they would not likely be entertaining their present thoughts
of disdain.
68 What Paul Might Say Today?

Unlike eros, phileo does not mystically appear at first sight.

Phileo, at any level is a relationship that takes time and energy.
At its heightened level of intimacy within marriage, its
development demands even greater effort. It must be nurtured,
cuddled, sought after. As Helen Rowland noted, “Marriage is like
twirling a baton, turning handsprings or eating with chopsticks. It
looks easy until you try it.”3
More than the love at first sight aspect of eros; more than the
impersonal devotion of agapao; this special phileo relationship
within a marriage can only be attained by perfect familiarity. Not
merely physical intimacy, but an interpersonal growth that
requires quality time together, learning of each other’s dreams,
and fears, and perfections, and imperfections, of life before each
other. As one little boy put it, when asked what a friend was:
“someone who knows everything there is to know about you but
likes you anyway.”

Speaking kindly
Seeking to understand what caused marriages to fail; several
years ago marital researchers studied couples over the course of
decades; retracing the windy path of those who had split up, all
the way back to their wedding day. What they discovered was
somewhat disturbing. None of the factors they expected seemed
to make any difference: not how in love the newlyweds were; not
how much affection they showed; not how much they fought or
what they fought about. What they did find was that both the
marriages that proved successful and those that failed looked
surprisingly similar in the early days. Then psychologists Cliff
Notarius of Catholic University and Howard Markman of the
University of Denver studied newlyweds over the first decade of
marriage and found a subtle but telling difference at the beginning
of the relationships.
Of those marriages that would ultimately succeed, 5% of the
comments made about each other were insults. Of the marriages
that would ultimately fail, it was 10%. As the decade passed the

3
Helen Rowland, Reader's Digest, June, 1994, p. 130.
 Love and Marriage 69
gap magnified until the failing couples spoke five times as many
cruel and negative comments at each other as did the happy
couples. They concluded that “Hostile put-downs act as cancerous
cells that, if unchecked, erode the relationship over time, . . . In
the end, relentless unremitting negativity takes control and the
couple can’t get through a week without major blow ups.”4
Such behavior is the exact opposite of love, of agapao, of
phileo. Love is long-suffering, it is not puffed up, does not behave
rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil,
does not rejoice in wrongdoing, endures all things (1 Cor. 13).
“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions” (Prov.
10:12).

Conclusion
This, then, I believe, is the key to the successful, happy
marriage. It centers upon creating a bond that is closer even than
that of blood. It can only be achieved by pursuing the special
intimate friendship of phileo at the marital level, which
incorporates and transcends both eros and agapee. The result is
an intimate friendship, a love and devotion so tight, so
intertwined that the two are as one. But this union must be
fostered. It has to be nurtured. It takes time and effort. Beyond
the love-at-first-sight nature of eros, beyond even the obligatory
sacrificial love of agapee, this phileo is a personal, deeply
emotional, gut wrenching attachment from the depths of your soul
that creates a bond so strong between the two they are one flesh.
Jeremy Taylor has said, “By friendship you mean the greatest
love, the greatest usefulness, the most open communication, the
noblest sufferings, the severest truth, the heartiest counsel, and
the greatest union of minds of which brave men and women are
capable.” And George Eliot observed,
Oh, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe
with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts, nor
measure words, but to pour them all out just as they are,
chaff and grain together knowing that a faithful hand will

4
Notarius, U.S. News & World Report, February 21, 1994, p. 67.
70 What Paul Might Say Today?

take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then,
with the breath of kindness blow the rest away.5
Merrill is my best friend. Through the years, we’ve had
several jobs in which we worked together. Many times I have
heard the question: “How can you work together? I couldn’t
stand to be with my husband/wife that much.” Always, when I
hear this, I cannot help but question (in my own mind) the depth
of that particular relationship. For there is literally no one in the
world I would rather work with, or be with, than my best friend,
my wife. I cannot spend too much time with her. Of course we
have our own interests and need our own personal time. We are
as one but we don’t cease being individuals. Still, we are
happiest even to spend our alone time together: she, sowing,
tending her gardening or making a special treat for the
grandchildren; me, composing a song, writing a paper, playing
the guitar or a game of chess against some unknown combatant
on the internet. And the idea of taking separate vacations, or
having a desire to simply get away from each other, is completely
foreign.
Aristotle once said, “Friendship is a single soul dwelling in
two bodies.”6 This might well be said of marriage.

5
George Eliot, quoted in Today in the Word, July, 1989, p. 28.
6
http://www. quotesnsayings.net/quotes/67969 (March 2012).
 Science, Faith and Logic 71

Science, Faith and Logic

I include this chapter among these critiques on modern
practical theology because so many Christians unwittingly accept
the popular (but maligned and erroneous) meaning of faith which
has been popularized by certain members of the scientific
community. Having accepted this fallacious definition of faith,
many Christians succumb to the cultural pressure to also accept,
as if fact, the hypotheses of the big bang and evolution. The
blatant misrepresentation of faith, coupled with the dearth of
theological training at the local church level, has left many
Christians floundering, confused as to how these hypotheses
might be reconciled with Creation. Here we shall see there is
nothing to reconcile because these hypotheses are just that:
untested, unfounded “what ifs,” void of any substantial evidence;
whereas, faith in the biblical account of creation has more than
enough evidence to substantiate its veracity.
Because of its many great advances, the scientific community
has gained considerable clout in recent decades. This coupled
with the fact that most people are not equipped to debate
scientists at their level of expertise, lead many to simply accept
whatever the scientific community tells them without challenge.
However, this is exactly wrong. Scientists are not omniscient,
nor are they error free. They are merely trained observers who
use big words to discuss their particular topics of interest. They
ask questions and seek answers. Sometimes they ask the wrong
questions and arrive at faulty conclusions. Sometimes their
passion gets the best of them, clouding their logic, and they arrive
at wrong conclusions. As a result, numerous scientists hold
differing opinions on various subjects. One presents a hypothesis
and another sets out to disprove it. Discord is always prevalent
within the scientific community.
72 What Paul Might Say Today?

Dishonesty is also something to which the scientific

community is not immune. The conscious and constant
misrepresentation of faith is a prime example. So too is the
continued misrepresentation of the hypotheses of the big bang
and evolution as if they were known facts. Even though hundreds
of qualified scientists present very convincing arguments in their
particular fields of study to show these hypotheses cannot be
accurate, nevertheless (because they present a rallying pole for
those who despise the idea of a Creator, to whom they must
submit), many scientists passionately cling to these fairy tales and
seek to convince others to do so as well.

Faith Misrepresented
At the nurses’ station in a local hospital, I recently saw a
‘Thought for the Day’ poem hanging on a cabinet. In part, it
read, “Faith believes the unbelievable, receives the impossible.”
Of course I reacted, and proceeded to take a few minutes to set
the record straight. For this is exactly what faith is not.
Unfortunately, many people, from atheist to theists alike,
consistently misrepresent faith. For some this is a calculated
condemnation, for others it is simply innocence.
On the surface, this innocuous yet misguided insight seems
quite harmless, even benign; but statements like this encourage
the misperception that science is based on cold, hard facts while
faith is merely a biased, ambiguous conviction, void of evidence.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. Both aspects
of this argument are erroneous; for science routinely employs
faith and faith, by definition, is always based upon known
quantities.
This misrepresentation of both science and faith is further
propagated by the notion that the observable universe is our only
reality; whereas, intangible issues and metaphysical concepts are
nothing more than subjective uncertainty. The concept of a
Creator, being intangible, falls into this category. As such, a
survey at the National Academy of Sciences revealed that 69% of
the biologists and 79% of the physical scientists claimed to be
atheists. Most of the other scientists claimed agnosticism; there
 Science, Faith and Logic 73
were very few believers. Commenting on these figures Oxford
University scientist, Peter Atkins, argued,
You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs.
But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest
sense of the word because they are such alien categories of
knowledge.7
To substantiate this perceived distinction between science
and religious beliefs, many have attempted to redefine the
meaning of faith so that it has one meaning when referring to
science and quite a different meaning when applied to religion.
In an interview as part of the series “Believe it Or Not,” famed
biologist Richard Dawkins brazenly, yet feebly, argues this
redefined, pseudo, dual definition of faith. The fact that neither
biblical theology nor theologians use faith in the way he defines
it, is seemingly of no concern to anyone. When asked the
question: “Do scientists ever need faith?” Dawkins answered,
Not in the sense of faith as meaning belief in something
for which there is no evidence. There are various senses
of faith in which we do—scientists do participate.
There’s {sic} branches of science which I don't
understand; for example, physics. It could be said, I
suppose, that I have faith that physicists understand it
better than I do. And so when I say something that
physicists tell me, such as that there was nothing before
the big bang—they're not allowed to talk about the word
“before” in the context of the big bang—I sort of have
faith that physicists understand enough to be allowed to
say that, even though I don't understand why they're
allowed to say that. But it's not blind faith; it's not faith
in the absence of evidence. It's faith that's based upon
confidence in the scientific method, in the scientific peer
review process, the fact that I know that there are other
physicists who can test, verify, criticize the views of any

7
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998 Registered No. 785998 England
http://www. nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/ 394313a0_fs.html
(accessed March 20, 2012).
74 What Paul Might Say Today?

one physicist. So it's not the same as religious faith,

which is based upon no evidence at all.8
In yet another discussion, Dawkins makes the accusation that this
new kind of faith, which he has imagined as being without
evidence, “. . . is the principal vice of any religion.” 9
This, I must say, is the epitome of double-talk: of both
exercising a double standard and implementing the adage,
“having your cake and eating it too.” Unable to deny that science
employs faith, he proceeds to place varying degrees or senses on
faith, so that some faith is based on evidence and some is not.
Then, even as he claims religious beliefs are without evidence, he
makes reference to the big bang and the physicists who, although
they are not allowed to discuss the word “before” in the context
of the big bang (frankly because there is not evidence), he has
faith in their beliefs because . . . well, they are scientists.
So let’s get this straight. Dawkins claims that those who find
sufficient evidence for the reality of an unseen intelligent Creator
are exercising blind faith. After all the only evidence they have is
easily dismissed: a historical account as old as recorded history, a
highly ordered, mechanical, complex universe, which is further
complicated by all the metaphysical complexities of humanity
such as intelligence, reason, emotion and even consciousness
itself. Whereas, on the other hand, they have good reason for
their faith—those who believe the material universe exploded into
existence from nothing, by its own non-existent energy.
Although they are very aware that their good reason is void of
real evidence (so much so, they are encouraged not to discuss it);
still, they have the biased imagination and ambiguous conviction
of many scientists who believe the chaotic aftermath of this
explosion organized itself into this highly complex, structured,
mechanical system, from which organic life eventually sprang

8
Dawkins, Richard. Interviewed by Paul Hoffman, Part of the Series Believe it
or Not. Recorded on: October 21, 2009. http://bigthink.com/ideas/17052
(accessed March 22, 2012).
9
Dawkins, Richard. “Is Science a Religion?” Published in the Humanist,
January/February 1997. .http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/
dawkins.html (accessed March 22, 2012).
 Science, Faith and Logic 75
forth out of the inorganic material, which had appeared out of
nothing, by its own non-existent energy. Then, this organic life
somehow sustained itself on non-existent nutrients and finally
(after splitting into a myriad of life forms, the most complex and
animated life forms developed a new reality, a metaphysical
consciousness with a universal morality, a sense of reason, and all
the other problematic metaphysical, human complexities. I
wonder if Dawkins has ever heard of Ockham’s Razor?

Series of Logical Fallacies

Those who argue that science is based solely on the evidence
presented in the observable universe, whereas religion relies on
ambiguous uncertainly, commit at least four errors in logic—three
strategic misrepresentations and the fourth, a straw man.
(1) Claiming some faith is merely based on ambiguous
conviction, devoid of evidence.
(2) Claiming science does not employ faith, or at least not in
the sense that religion does.
(3) Claiming reality exists only in the observable universe.
(4) Then, using these false premises, they conjure up the
fallacious straw man argument of blind faith on which to
rest their erroneous case.
The blind faith conclusion is indeed valid if the premises
were true—that faith is nothing more than a subjective
uncertainty, evoked without evidence, and that reality exists only
in the observable material universe. Once blind faith is concluded
there is nothing left to discuss. It is the final nail in the coffin of
religion. The idea of God is relegated to but a romantic notion
that gives some folks a fuzzy feeling. However, these premises
are erroneous, as is the fallacious straw man argument they
support.
To thoroughly sort through these thoughts, we must ask the
right questions with clearly defined terms. That which is
essentially at issue is a series of three interrelated questions.
What is faith? Does science rely on faith? And, what is reality?
First, we discuss faith.
76 What Paul Might Say Today?

Biblical Faith Defined

As pointed out earlier, many scientists, and our culture at
large, consistently misrepresent the biblical position on faith. In
what debate is it justified for one side to redefine terms to better
fit their argument? True debate, indeed communication in
general, demands valid, clearly defined terms. In that biblical
faith is a topic with which many scientists take issue, it only
seems fitting to understand, accept, and base the discussion
around the biblical definition of faith rather than the new and
maligned version propagated by those who claim atheism.
Scripture sets forth many prime examples of faith and provides a
very clear definition: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things unseen” (Heb. 11:1)
There are four Greek terms that must be dealt with in this
passage:
(1) Faith, πίστις pistis: belief, trust, assurance, credence,
fidelity, reliance upon.
(2) Substance, ҅υπόστασις hupostasis: (concrete) essence,
reality; (figurative) assurance, confidence, substance.
(3) Hope, ̓ελπζομένων elpizo: expectation, confidence.
(4) Evidence, έλεγχος elengchos: conviction, proof.
So then, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
unseen” or, we might also translate it, “Trust is the assurance of
things expected, the proof of things unobserved.”

Faith Employed Daily

Many examples of faith as “the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things unseen” are routinely employed in our
daily lives, both in a physical and an intangible sense. In a
physical sense, if I enter a concert hall and sit down at the
beautiful Steinway grand piano and reach out to stroke the keys, I
expect to make music. This expected reality is not without cause.
I have played music on pianos hundreds of times and fully expect
that it will happen again. There may be no strings in the piano,
perhaps it is a hollow showpiece, but that is not my belief. It is a
beautiful, expensive Steinway on stage in a concert hall; I expect
it to respond accordingly.
 Science, Faith and Logic 77
Again in the physical sense, suppose when I leave my house
in the morning, it is locked, all the lights are off and no one is
there. But when I return at the end of the day, I find the door
unlocked the lights on, and still no one there. I will believe that
someone has been there. The unlocked door and the burning
lights are sufficient proof of this unseen event. Of course, I could
refuse to believe it. I could speculate that perhaps an earthquake
rattled the house, unlocked the door, and flipped the light
switches. Or perhaps the cat somehow jumped up to unlock the
door and flip the light switches. However, the obvious cause, the
simplest answer, the Ockham’s Razor, is that someone was in the
house.
In the intangible sense, I have complete trust in my wife’s
devotion to me. When I awaken tomorrow morning she will be
there. This is my expected reality, my hope, my faith, my
confidence. This reality is not based on some unfounded,
ambiguous conviction, but on history and the solid relationship
we have shared for many years.
Again in the intangible sense, I have faith in my wife’s moral
behavior. Presented with a situation in which she could steal
some valuable object without anyone ever knowing it, I am
confident without any doubt that she would not do it. This
unseen reality is not based on some ambiguous conviction but on
my intimate knowledge of her morals, her past actions, her
character.

Faith in a Creator
Scripture speaks of faith based on reason; nothing is ever
mentioned of some subjective, ambiguous conviction. If some
romantic fancy is the depth of one’s trust in God, this so called
faith will certainly fail when put to the test. Thus, it is not faith at
all. Faith is born of evidence. The passage, “Faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”
goes on to explain that, “through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are
seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:1, 3).
The Psalmist understood this reasoning, this evidence for belief in
a Creator, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the
78 What Paul Might Say Today?

firmament His handiwork” (Ps. 19:1). This beautiful, highly

ordered universe is deemed so strong an evidence for the
existence of an intelligent Creator that a solemn warning is given
to those who disregard it:
The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).
This reasoning, as we shall see shortly, is the same as that
employed by modern science. The idea of things that are
observed being caused by things that are unseen is so common to
science that the laws of physics are based upon this reality. Who
has ever seen the forces of gravity or electromagnetism? Who
has ever seen a radio wave? We can see their effects and measure
outcomes with various devices, but we cannot directly observe
them. Just as “the invisible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made,” so too, scientists often understand the visible by the
invisible. This, by definition, is faith. Faith is not some
ambiguous romantic ideal born of wishful thinking. By
definition, faith is based on evidence. By definition, there is
nothing blind about faith; at least not in the biblical or theological
definition.
Nowhere in Scripture is anyone ever asked or encouraged to
believe something for which there is no evidence. Therefore,
Peter admonished, “Be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Pet.
3:15). And sufficient reason there is. This highly ordered,
complex universe is more than sufficient evidence to trust in the
reality of an unseen, intelligent Creator.
If we direct the argument away from the physical we can
speak of other realities, the even more complex unseen
metaphysical realities of the human condition: consciousness,
love, deduction, and the very life force itself that brings
animation. It is for these reasons that throughout the whole of
recorded history, mankind, from children to some of our greatest
intellects, have, and still do, reach the conclusion that God exists.
 Science, Faith and Logic 79

Science Consistently Relies on Faith

There are no varying degrees or senses of faith. There is but
one understanding of faith, it is the same for science as it is for
religion. Faith, or trust, or belief (for they are synonyms) is
always based on evidence. Science employs it regularly. The
statement, “science does not need faith” is made either in
ignorance or self-deception. Science has faith in the laws of
physics, and for good reason; there is strong evidence. Many
theories or expected realities, at both the quantum and the galactic
levels, are based on “the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things unseen.” The existence of unseen realities is
no stranger to physics; there is ample proof of things that are seen
being caused by things that do not appear. As pointed out earlier,
we need look no further than electricity, the forces of gravity,
radio waves, or the unexplained nuclear forces at the quantum
level, none of which have ever been seen, but definitely exist.
In a physical sense, when archaeologists discover a fossil of
some unknown organic life form, by faith they know the fossil
was formed by some extinct being or organism, as the case may
be. While a high school nerd might have carefully crafted and
placed it there as a hoax, the obvious cause, the simplest answer,
the Ockham’s Razor, is that it was formed from an extinct life
form.
When astronomers observe a star wobbling in space through
their powerful telescope, they conclude there is an unseen
orbiting planet. This belief is not based on some unfounded,
ambiguous conviction, but on our understanding and faith in the
Doppler Effect and Newtonian physics. They cannot see the
planet, but they know, they expect, they believe, it is the
gravitational pull of a planet causing this wobble.
The Doppler Effect provides yet another example, called a
redshift. Wavelengths of light emitted from an object moving
away from the observer increase proportionally, thereby shifting
to the red end of the spectrum and creating what is called a
redshift. Applying this knowledge to certain celestial bodies lead
astrophysicists to believe the universe is expanding. At least this
is the expected reality.
80 What Paul Might Say Today?

A nebula is another example. Based on the knowledge of our

known world a nebula is believed to be a cloud of gas and dust in
outer space. Although no astrophysicist ever actually collected
specimens from a nebula, this is the expected reality.
By analyzing the photosphere and chromosphere of the solar
spectrum, scientists have concluded that the sun consists of some
67 elements. They believe this solar spectrum represents the
entire sun–except perhaps the solar core, where a certain degree
of mixing likely transpires between the layers of the sun’s
interior. At least this is the expected reality; but, of course, no
astrophysicist has ever actually collected and analyzed any
material from the sun, nor have they explored its core.
In the intangible sense, every scientist expects the earth to
continue on its axis throughout the night so that the sun appears
on the horizon in the morning. This reality is not based on some
unfounded, ambiguous conviction but on a faith proven by history
and the laws of physics. It has happened every day since time
began. We cannot see the forces that cause it, but we are sure
they exist and we have faith they will continue to work.
If I drop my pen, I expect it to fall to the floor. I believe this
because I have seen it happen with many objects time and again.
It is the law of gravity in action. But we do not understand
gravity . . . what it is, how it works. Nor do we know it will
continue to work; but we have faith that it will. Using Newton’s
statement that Force = mass x acceleration, we can calculate the
force a falling object generates; but we cannot see the force. We
must take it on faith that forces even exist, and we must make
assumptions as to what these forces are.
No one has ever seen electrons, yet every scientist believes
they exist. Or what scientist would ever tell you they do not
believe in magnetism? While we cannot see it, we know it exists.
We understand how to use it, to manipulate it, to measure it; but
ultimately, like gravity, we cannot touch it or directly observe it.
In reality, faith and science have a symbiotic relationship.
All these examples in science employ the same faith Scripture
speaks of: the assurance of things expected, the proof of things
unseen; things that are seen being caused by things that are
unseen. The argument that science does not need or utilize faith
 Science, Faith and Logic 81
is a deceptive, logical fallacy. It is a disingenuous, strategic,
misrepresentation of the meaning of faith. The premise that
science is based solely on the observations of the tangible,
material universe must not be accepted.
Nor can it be accepted that faith in the metaphysical world is
based merely on some subjective, unfounded, ambiguous
conviction. My very consciousness and intellect (meager as it
may be) that empowers me to make this argument, and yours,
which empowers you to read and understand it, are unseen
metaphysical realities. Oh yes, there is ample reason to believe in
the unseen. There is ample reason to have faith in a Creator of
the universe. For, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the
firmament shows His handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
This is the Ockham’s Razor to the origin of this highly
ordered, complex universe and to the even more impressive and
problematic metaphysical complexities of humanity. Add to this
the historical data of God’s personal interventions with humanity
on various levels and the evidence is overwhelming. On the other
hand, it hardly fits the Ockham’s Razor test to suppose this
wondrous universe (from the quantum to the galactic levels)
exploded into existence from nothing by its own non-existent
energy, after which this chaotic disarray of inorganic,
unintelligent, material organized itself into a highly structured
system. Then, organic life sprang forth from the inorganic
material and then somehow sustained itself on non-existent
nutrients. Then, this organic life evolved a metaphysical
consciousness, a sense of morality, a sense of self and reason.

What is Reality?
We are still faced with the question of reality. What is it? In
the aforementioned passage, Doctor Dawkins expressed personal
faith in his fellow scientists. He basically said he believed his
fellow scientists know their particular subject well enough for
him to trust them and the scientific method. Unfortunately for
Dawkins, science is forever changing, so that what is believed
true today may not be so tomorrow. Science has changed its
reality many times after proving itself wrong. Strangely enough,
science actually prides itself in these changes; at least, that is, in
82 What Paul Might Say Today?

its ability to adapt to them. The bottom line is that we really

cannot trust scientists always to be correct regardless of how
learned they are in their particular disciplines.
One hundred and fifty years ago science believed light
consisted of waves. Since light was a wave it required a medium
for its dissemination; they called the medium “ether.” Today
scientists question the wave nature of light and they no longer
believe ether exists.
For centuries, science operated on the principles of Classical
Physics, by which Newton discovered and unified the laws of
motion. Many discoveries in thermodynamics, chemistry, and
electromagnetism were based on this reality. Then Albert
Einstein conceived his theory of relativity. Scientific reality
suddenly changed. Quantum and modern physics was born.
Again new discoveries were made based on these new subatomic
realities. Time and space were redefined. The atom was split,
and electromagnetic energy was further investigated.
As a credentialed respiratory therapist for nearly forty years,
I can tell you first hand that based on the proven evidence of
anatomy and medical science thirty years ago, we knew patients
in need of mechanical ventilation should receive a volume of 15
cc x wt/kg, along with 4 sigh breaths per minute, equal to 22.5 cc
x wt/kg. As the years passed, we began to realize the pressures
generated by these volumes were more critical than the actual
volumes. We realized these high pressures were causing
irreparable damage to the lungs. Gradually this volume decreased
to 12 cc, then 10 cc, until today, we believe we should ventilate at
6 cc to 8 cc x wt/kg, with no sigh breaths at all. If lung injury is
present, we will go as low as 4 cc x wt/kg. However, even today
in many ICUs, if you find yourself on a mechanical ventilator you
might be ventilated at the old volumes, which were once held to
be truth but are now known to be untrue. What medical science
believes to be true, sometimes is not; and what is proven in
scientific, medical studies is sometimes not put into clinical
practice, just as what is discovered in other disciplines of the
scientific and research community (if it happens to contradict a
popular hypothesis), is generally not discussed in the classroom
or in popular scientific literature.
 Science, Faith and Logic 83

Reality is Beyond the Mere Physical

In quantum physics there is no solid matter; everything is
emptiness and energy, be it light or dark. Electromagnetic energy
flows throughout various systems, from subatomic particles and
atoms to molecules and cells, creating forces that internally hold
these various systems together, while simultaneously, externally,
bonding and yet separating each system from others of like kind,
thereby resulting in what we perceive as solid matter.
As knowledge of quantum mechanics grew, it became
apparent that nonlocality (in which particles of a given structure
could be influenced by something outside their system) might
transpire. Because this made it impossible to treat systems
spatially separated from one another as independent, Einstein
took issue with the concept, ridiculing it as “spooky action from a
distance.”10 However, in recent years scientists have
demonstrated that subatomic nonlocality exists. Once two or
more particles collide they are immediately linked, entangled.
The information each particle contains is smeared over the others,
so that, no matter how far apart they are, by measuring the
previously uncertain momentum of one, the second will
instantaneously gain a clearly defined momentum.11 This is the
“spooky action at a distance” that Einstein could not believe, for
it takes place without further physical contact, thereby making it,
by definition, metaphysical. This is a huge problem for many
modern scientists, because, for them, metaphysics does not exist.
Scientific knowledge is forever changing. There is still much
to learn of quantum physics, and science has yet to unify the
forces of quantum mechanics with those of classical physics. To
date, however, nothing in science has answered the question as to
the nature of reality. But as we look ever deeper into the
subatomic world of energy, information, and emptiness, it
prompts us to explore the issue of reality even further. For, when

10
Overbye, D. 2006. New tests of Einstein’s ‘spooky’ reality. International
Herald Tribune, January 10, 2006. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/
12/28/healthscience/sneinstein.php (accessed August 15, 2007).
11
Zeilinger, A. 2006. Spooky action and beyond. Interview by Die
Weltwoche, January 3, 2006. http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html
(accessed August 12, 2007).
84 What Paul Might Say Today?

at the quantum level, there is no actual solid matter and nonlocal

metaphysical events occur, yet, when bonded together, these same
systems construct something of a solid, materialized hologram
(that is, the observable universe); what is reality?
I submit that the biblical answer is not only very clear on this
subject, but very evident as well. Ultimate reality is something
other than the mere physical universe; for “things which are seen
were not made of things which do appear.” At the quantum level
there is an unseen energy that sustains all things. Scripture tells
us it is the Creator who is the source of all things, and it is He
who holds the universe together; “all things were created by him,
and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things
consist” (Col. 1:16-17). As evidenced by the complex nature of
creation, the Creator is intelligent. As evidenced by many
historical accounts of man’s interaction with the Creator, the
Creator is personable. We call this Creator, God. God is our
ultimate reality. God has revealed that He is Spirit. Therefore,
ultimate reality is Spirit.
Being Spirit, God is metaphysical; that is, other than
physical. As previously pointed out, the concept of such a reality
is not without precedent in our world. Gravity and
electromagnetism are without physical form. Human
consciousness is metaphysical, without physical form. Even the
physical things we observe and touch, ultimately, at the quantum
level, consist of emptiness, electromagnetism, and information.
Therefore, it is predictable that reality is indeed metaphysical.
Given enough time, science, in that it is the methodical quest for
knowledge, would have to arrive at this conclusion. This illusion
of physical matter, our universe, is but a temporal holographic
matrix, constructed and maintained in the mind of the Creator,
who Himself is Spirit.
On a personal level, the individual reality for each of us goes
beyond our physical body to reach the depths of our soul and
spirit. While someday the body will die and the universe pass
away, the soul and spirit live on. The soul and spirit transcend
this entire temporal holographic matrix which God created, set in
motion, and energizes, so man (whom He created in His own
image) might be redeemed from his chosen rebellion.
 Science, Faith and Logic 85
Unlike science, the biblical account of reality never changes.
There is one God. God is Spirit and the Creator of all that exists.
He spoke and the universe was so. He is the light, the source of
energy and all things are held together by Him. God created man
in His own mage, for His own pleasure, and made Himself known
to man immediately upon man’s creation. He has interacted with
man on many levels since then. Being made in the image of God,
man has freewill and thus freedom of choice. Man chose to
disobey God. Man suffers the consequences. God Himself
provided reconciliation for man through a qualified redeemer: one
without sin, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. By simply accepting
this gift through faith man is justified, sanctified, and saved from
the ultimate punishment, eternal death. This is a constant
message throughout Scripture which, unlike science, does not
change. Neither does God change; as He said, “I am the Alpha
and the Omega, says the Lord, which is and was and is to come”
(Rev. 1:8).

Conclusion
Scientists pride themselves on being rational. In most
respects they are; especially when it comes to the hands-on
experiments employed as they seek to disprove a theorem. But at
the philosophical level, seeking to answer the most asked
question of humanity, seeking to understand the origins of the
universe, most scientists are as irrational as one can be. It is a
visceral irrationality, assumed by default to satiate their pride and
emotional opposition to the reality of an intelligent Creator to
whom they must answer. Here, they let their emotion get in the
way. Here, they refuse to apply Ockham’s Razor to the problem.
Scripture tells us we would encounter this mindset in the last
days before Christ returned to earth. Like the antediluvians, the
culture will be such that men and women will not glorify or thank
God. They will become vain in their imaginations and their
foolish hearts will be darkened. Professing themselves to be wise
they will become fools. They will change the truth of God into a
lie, and reverence and serve the creature more than the Creator.
They will not retain the knowledge of God in their minds.
86 What Paul Might Say Today?

For this reason, God will give them over to their shameful
lusts. Just as they will not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, so too God will give them over to a depraved
mind. They will be filled with evil, sexual immorality, greed and
depravity. They will be full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and
malice. They will be gossips, slanderers, and haters of God,
violent, arrogant and boastful. They will be inventors of evil
things and disobedient to parents; they will have no
understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they will
know God’s righteous decree—that those who do such things
deserve death—they will not only continue to do these things but
will take pleasure in others who practice them as well (Rom. 1).
This is not a commentary on scientists, but on the cultural
mindset that breeds so many aggressive God haters. Offended by
the Gospel, they gather together to commiserate and comfort one
another under the banner of atheism. But in the end, their support
for each other’s disbelief will account for nothing, because
That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of
Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Rom.
1:19-20).
Man is free to deny his Creator’s existence and free to deny
his obligation to his Creator; but in the end he will pay the price.
Let it be known that it is the duty of all to fear God and keep His
commandments. He commands all men everywhere to repent, to
receive the forgiveness of sin through a personal faith in the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men.
As for faith, it holds the same meaning for science as it does
for religion; both are based on the evidence. It is unreasonable
and unscientific to believe the universe magically appeared from
nothing on its own accord, by its own non-existent energy; and
that non-existent organic life organized itself to spring forth from
inorganic material; that this simple, vulnerable life form then
sustained itself on non-existent nutrients. Then, somehow, this
life became animated and moved on to a whole new reality, a
complex metaphysical reality of consciousness, a set of common
 Science, Faith and Logic 87
morals and a need to love and be loved. If we want to discuss a
belief in something without evidence, this is where we should
start. If there is such a thing as blind faith, this is it.
Believers must not shrink from the brash, misguided
scientists who misrepresent faith. We must not let our opponents
redefine and malign the meaning of faith. Their arguments are
filled with logical errors of ad hominem attacks, strategic
misrepresentations, and straw man arguments. Although it is
without any real support and easily refuted, do not let them take
the discussion to the contrived, convoluted hypothesis of
evolution, which feebly attempts to answer but one small step in
the process from their imagined big bang to the reality of human
consciousness. Their hypothetical origin of the species is merely
a red herring, a logical fallacy specifically employed to avoid the
only real issue, the origin of the universe. The big bang
hypothesis is woefully lacking, and they know it. That is why, as
Dawkins pointed out in the earlier quotation, physicists are “not
allowed to talk about the word ‘before’ in the context of the big
bang.” Before we discuss the supposed evolution of the species,
let us determine the origin of the universe and the origin of life
itself.
We have a duty to be ready always to give an answer to
every man that asks us a reason for our hope (1 Peter 3:15). This
does not mean we have to master every scientific argument in the
many scientific disciplines. But neither should we fear them for
all truth comes from and leads back to God. We need simply to
define and articulate our personal faith and the evidence for it:
that is, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament
His handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
 Health and Wealth Gospel 89

Health and Wealth Gospel

Introduction
There is an insidious, subversive, false theology running
rampant within the Western Evangelical Orthodoxy. It is not so
much a systematic theology as it is a practical theology. Its
origins can be traced back to the healing revival meetings of the
Charismatic movement in the middle 1900s. Back then,
mainstream evangelicals dismissed the teaching for the falsehood
that it is. Today this erroneous doctrine is broadcast night and
day by slick-looking, energetic, smooth talking televangelists on
Christian television and radio networks. Consequently, it has
found its way into the pews of many evangelical churches. Even
in those churches in which it is not taught from the pulpit, there
are very likely practicing parishioners covertly following and
supporting at least one of these polished con artists—these
thespians plying the roll of purveyors of truth.
The poisonous false doctrine of which I speak is the
pervasive Prosperity Theology, the Health and Wealth Gospel or,
as it is often called, Name-it-and-Claim-it-Theology; it is the idea
that living godly will yield financial rewards. Godliness, at least
in this arena, is exhibited by giving generous contributions to the
ministry; giving with a positive “I shall prosper” attitude, while
visualizing positive outcomes: perhaps a BMW and a Lexus
filling the two-car garage, and plenty of steaks on the grill. Such
material rewards are deemed God’s blessing because Christians
are to have dominion and prosper. But it does not stop here.
When these godly individuals congregate, God provides them an
opulent building with imported stained glass, expensive pews and
a preacher in an $800 Armani suit.
90 What Paul Might Say Today?

But this seemingly pious ideology is a decidedly anti-

Christian theology, contrary to the teachings and experiences of
both Jesus and his apostles. Metaphorically, believers often
speak of receiving the meat of the Word from a Bible lesson or a
particularly applicable sermon. Using this imagery, what makes
this false teaching so insidious is that it is generally served with
the Gospel, so that this sweet dessert is placed alongside the meat
of salvation and good works, thereby making it appear as if they
were all prepared by the same chef, or at least in the same
kitchen. But they were not. As pleasing as this dish might be to
the eyes and the palate, this sweet, intoxicating dessert is pure
poison, and once it hits the bloodstream, recovery is most
difficult.

The Manipulation of Scripture

This erroneous teaching stems from the poor exegesis of a
few passages taken completely out of context. Malachi 3:10 is a
prime example. The book of Malachi begins with God’s
assurance to Israel that He loves and cares for them. The Lord’s
wrath, which Israel had been experiencing due to their
disobedience, had caused them to doubt His love. His anger had
been kindled because the priesthood had been despising His
name, offering imperfect sacrifices, making judgments with
partiality, and violating the covenant with Levi, thereby causing
many to stumble. The people had been withholding tithes and, in
their faithlessness, divorcing their wives to marry idolatrous
women. For this, they received punishment rather than blessing.
When at last, they charged the Lord with being unjust, He
promised to send a messenger to prepare the way before
Him. But His presence will require judgment and change. In
their sin they had lost trust in the Lord; they doubted that He
would provide for their needs even if they were to keep His
commandments. So He challenged them to put Him to the
test. If they did so, the nations about them would understand that
they have been blessed. Thus,
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be
meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the
 Health and Wealth Gospel 91
LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of
heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be
room enough to receive it (Mal. 3:10).
To somehow derive from this specific reprimand and challenge to
Israel the idea or conclusion that God will heap financial and
material rewards on Christians who give heartily and envision a
blessing is to twist the text in the manner of our enemy. At best,
it is a prime display of ignorance, the epitome of a poorly
executed exegesis leading to false doctrine. Certainly, it
highlights the need for properly trained teachers—teachers who
understand biblical theology and logical, historical, sound,
hermeneutical and exegetical practices.
A couple of other passages aptly maligned to fit the purposes
of these false teachers are Matthew 25:14-30, the parable of the
talents, and John 10:10, in which Jesus explains that he has come
to give life and to give it more abundantly. While the false
teachers take the Malachi passage out of context and give
application to those to whom it does not belong, they attempt to
apply these passages from the Gospels to something to which
they do not reference: namely the material world. Each of these
passages speaks to spiritual life: one, the multiplication of eternal
rewards upon the correct use of spiritual gifts; the other, the
absolute, eternal fulfillment and contentment attained in the new
birth. Again, the misapplication of these simple passages
underscores the need for a sound theological education.
“My God shall supply all your need according to His riches
in glory by Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19), is yet another favorite
passage among these treasure seekers. Here the issue is, what
exactly is “all your need”? Do we need the BMW and
Lexus? Must we have the grilled steaks? Just because the
passage explains the means by which our Lord will supply our
need, that is “His riches in glory” does not translate into our being
lavished with riches in our temporal, non-glorious environment.
As for needs and the desire for financial rewards, I believe
the Apostle Paul’s words speak for themselves: “godliness with
contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the
world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and
clothing, we will be content with that” (1 Tim. 6:6-8 NIV).
92 What Paul Might Say Today?

Jesus also addressed this concept of God’s supplying our

needs. In the same context, he warned against the desire for
wealth and material possessions, for those with a heart toward
such things cannot have a heart toward God. As we read our
Lord’s sermon, let’s pay special attention to what he identifies as
our needs. Somehow he overlooked the finer things of life: a
golden chariot with a stable of fine horses, fancy, colorful togas, a
spacious home with an atrium, courtyard, and garden. Instead,
He pointed out that all these finer things possessed by King
Solomon were no match for the beauty and fulfilled needs of even
a wild flower. Like Paul, Jesus’ words speak for themselves.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,
where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break
in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where
thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure
is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are
healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your
eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of
darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how
great is that darkness!
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. You cannot serve both God and
money (Mat. 6:24).
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what
you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will
wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than
clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or
reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father
feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your
life? (Matt. 6:19-27 NIV).
Yet another favored passage for these teachers of wealth is 3
John 2, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou may prosper
and be in health, even as thy soul prosper.” This does not even
deserve a rebuttal. One can grow weary of such misapplication of
 Health and Wealth Gospel 93
Scripture. It is an embarrassment to the faith that those calling
themselves Bible teachers would contort Holy Scriptures in such
a manner, thereby giving credence to the naysayers who discount
the Bible as something that says anything you want it to say. I
say woe unto you thespians of theology, you manipulative
preachers who entice the naïve to give you their hard earned
money for the promise of more.
The reader might wonder how it is that I, the author of this
treatise, can speak so condemningly of the teachers of this
seemingly innocuous Prosperity Theology, calling them con
artists, thespians and energetic smooth talkers. If you have this
concern, I direct you to Paul’s words to Timothy concerning an
issue not dissimilar to this: that of wealth, and godliness, and
financial gain. Speaking to slaves and masters, fellow believers
in Christ, he admonished them to treat each other with respect and
to have each other’s welfare in mind. Very harsh words are given
to those who have come to think that godliness is a means to
financial gain.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the
sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly
teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They
have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels
about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil
suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt
mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that
godliness is a means to financial gain (1 Tim 6:3-5).

An Exhibition of Satan’s Subtlety

While this seductive theology ostensibly promotes godliness,
in reality, it advances a lie of Satan. These misapplications and
distortions of Scripture are crafted with the same subtlety as
Satan’s plea to Eve, “Yea, hath God said . . . ?” Yea, hath not
God said He will fill your storehouses? Lavish you with riches?
Build you a city with streets of gold? Give you all the desires of
your heart? Yea, hath not God told you this?
Did not Jesus warn that we cannot serve God and money
(Matt. 6:24), that the deceitfulness of riches chokes the Word
(Matt. 13:22), and that it is very hard for those who trust in riches
94 What Paul Might Say Today?

to enter the kingdom (Mk. 10:23)? And did not Paul warn against
those who would pursue these lies and distortions?
Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap
and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge
people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a
root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money,
have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with
many grief’s (1 Tim. 6:9-10 NIV).

Our Father will Provide

Unlike Israel (which had lost faith in God’s willingness to
provide) in the time of Malachi, we must trust in our Father’s
ability and desire to provide for us. Continuing his sermon, Jesus
exhorted:
And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers
of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you
that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like
one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the
field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the
fire, will He not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What
shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans
run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows
that you need them. But seek first His kingdom and His
righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as
well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for
tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough
trouble of its own (Matt. 6:28-34 NIV).
This unfounded inappropriate expectation of financial gain,
hidden under the guise of righteousness, positive thinking and an
ill-motivated generosity toward the ministry (reminiscent of
Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5) is nothing short of false teaching
and erroneous behavior. Not only is such a desire for earthly
wealth warned against time and again, it runs completely contrary
to what we should truly expect as believers living in the last days.
Rather than being showered with financial gain, Paul’s counsel to
 Health and Wealth Gospel 95
Timothy was that those who would “live a godly life in Christ
Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12 NIV).

Do not be deceived
It is worth reading a passage of 2 Timothy 3, with a view
toward these false teachers of Prosperity Theology. Is it not they
of whom Paul is speaking? Certainly a good case could be made
for it. The similarities are striking. We are in the last days. In
many respects, these profit seekers seem to fit the bill. On the
surface they appear to be godly but the true power of godliness,
that is, sanctification, they deny. They weasel their way into
homes and lead astray the gullible who, in their ignorance, are
always looking for their ship to come in, always looking for the
answer to comfort and happiness. While the righteous suffer
persecution these deceivers advance their evil ploy, stubbornly
denying the truth.
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last
days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,
boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous,
without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its
power. Have nothing to do with such people.
They are the kind who worm their way into homes and
gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down
with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always
learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these
teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved
minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
But they will not get very far because, as in the case of
those men, their folly will be clear to everyone (2 Tim. 3:1-
9 NIV).
In his first letter to Timothy, having described and warned of
those who viewed godliness as a means to gain, Paul strongly
warned him to get as far away from such teaching and practice as
96 What Paul Might Say Today?

possible. Go in the exact opposite direction, and rather, pursue

true godliness.
But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and
gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of
the eternal life to which you were called when you made
your good confession in the presence of many witnesses (1
Tim. 6:11-12 NIV).
The same charge holds true today. True believers must dissociate
themselves from these imposters. We must not let our names be
associated with them. We must not give them credence.

Wealth itself is not the issue

In closing this, the first letter, Paul makes it clear that riches
themselves are not at issue. Nor is it that he expects everyone to
be without wealth. He has simply said that the pursuit of riches,
as a goal of life, is an issue. Viewing godliness as a means to
riches is an issue.
Those who have been blessed with wealth have several
responsibilities. This wealth must not go to their heads. They
must remain humble. They must not assume their riches are a
sure thing, something in which they can safely place their future.
God alone is their hope. The good works and generosity of the
rich must abound without expectation. By this, their future
rewards, their real treasures, and life abundant, are assured.
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be
arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so
uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides
us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do
good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and
willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for
themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that
they may take hold of the life that is truly life (1 Tim. 6:17-
18 NIV).
 Health and Wealth Gospel 97

A final admonition
So urgent is this warning, against viewing godliness as a
means to riches, that Paul repeats himself, giving Timothy yet
another admonition to distance himself from these false teachings,
these vendors of insight to understanding.
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn
away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is
falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in
so doing have departed from the faith (1 Tim. 6:20-21 NIV).
How many times have I been asked through the years, by
fellow believers, if I watch, like, support, a certain slick-looking,
fast talking, money seeking, radio or televangelist? My answer is
always the same. No! Even as a young man and new believer
more than forty years ago I could not abide them. In retrospect, I
do not know if this was because of intuition, a God-given
discernment, or of the sound teaching I received under the late
and beloved, Pastor Wilmer Bruner (though he never addressed
these charlatans my name). Perhaps it was a combination of all.
Whatever the reason, these slick talkers held no appeal for me.
They did, however, elicit a visceral reaction that caused me to
turn away even at the mention of their name. This has not
changed to this day.
Woe unto you, deceivers, thespians, teachers of false
doctrine, teachers of Prosperity Theology!
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 99

Judeo-Christian Theology
versus World Religions

Introduction
People worldwide hate Israel and Christianity with equal
vehemence. This is nothing new. The world has harbored
contempt for the Jews since their slavery in Egypt. They have
been maligned and persecuted for thousands of years by several
nations. Once Christianity was introduced, the world quickly
turned its disgust toward it as well. For hundreds of years,
successive Roman Emperors sought to exterminate this pesky,
offensive offshoot of Judaism. But Christianity continued to
grow, spreading farther and farther throughout the known world.
As it spread from one kingdom to another, various social and
political leaders would fuel this same hatred ignited by the
Roman Empire.
The world’s loathing of Israel and Christianity continues with
equal passion to this day. In our modern, global society it is
deemed politically incorrect to express prejudice toward various
minorities: women, races, the aged, handicaps, even sexual
pervert get a pass. It is unacceptable to make prejudicial remarks
toward followers of any of the many world religions. It is,
however, deemed perfectly acceptable to denigrate Jews and
Christians. It is a common theme among comedians, protest
groups concerning almost any subject matter, media personalities,
and Hollywood.
On the whole, the world not only tolerates, but takes great
pleasure in the numerous world religions; but there is something
about Judeo-Christian theology that offends them. Of course,
100 What Paul Might Say Today?

from the biblical perspective this is not surprising. It was

predicted to be so. Jesus said the world would hate us just as it
hated him, and just as it hated the prophets before him. But what
is the impetus for this hatred? What drives the world, from one
generation to the next, to hate Jews and Christians with such
venom?
It is not so much the answer to this question but our response
to the hatred we receive that prompts the inclusion of this chapter
among these critiques of modern practical theology. The answer
to the question of their hatred is a matter of biblical theology, but
our response to this hatred is a matter of practical theology, and
our response is inappropriate. Largely, the Western Church has
responded to the world’s intolerance by attempting to pass
legislation that would prevent it. Chapter 2 of this work, The
Church and Socio-political Activism, addresses this issue more
fully, arguing that it is not the role of the Church to affect socio-
political reformation. With that understanding, we now digress
slightly from the theme of practical theology to discuss the
underlying biblical theology associated with the practical. To
fully understand this hatred and our appropriate response to it, we
must understand its source.
Very few, who harbor this hatred, fully understand their
motivation, and therefore cannot provide a clear explanation. If
we took a survey, asking the question: “Why does the world, at
large, hate Judaism and Christianity?” We might expect some
unfounded, biased answers. Various ostensible reasons can be
conjured up, but there is no sound logic behind them. We might
hear: “They are hypocrites” (as if other belief systems harbor no
hypocrites). “They are legalistic” (as if other belief systems have
no behavioral guidelines). “They are narrow-minded, too
intolerant of others” (as if those passing this judgment themselves
are not being narrow minded).
Ask this same question to believers and they may reason that
because man is at enmity with God, and because the Jews are
God’s chosen people, with whom He has a special covenant, the
world therefore is at enmity with Israel. Christians, likewise, are
chosen by God, the recipients of God’s mercy; thereby making
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 101
them the world’s enemies as well. All of this is true, but it is not
the impetus for the world’s hatred of Judeo-Christian theology.
There is something more personal, more immediate, and
more insidious driving this hatred. It is a doctrine vital to both
Judaism and Christianity, and it separates Judeo-Christian
theology from every other religion in the world. By the same
token, it is the glaring absence of this doctrine that allows for, and
even encourages, the world to tolerate and embrace any, or all, of
the many other world religions. It is the doctrine of total
depravity: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none
that understands, there is none that seeks after God” (Rom. 3:10-
11).

Offensive nature of Judeo-Christian theology

Other than Judeo-Christian theology, without exception,
every world religion provides for personal improvement, the
ability to pull one’s self up by the bootstraps, as it were. Every
world religion believes man can achieve his particular desired
outcome (holiness, a higher plane of spirituality, closeness to his
chosen deity, nirvana, paradise, or some other mystical ecstasy);
and most importantly, man can do this on his own, by his own
effort through one means or another, which is specific to a
particular religion. Specific tasks or rituals differ, as do the
desired, blissful outcomes; but the common thread is that, one
way or another, man has within himself the ability to achieve his
idyllic, spiritual contentment.
In truth, every religion of the world is based on Satan’s lie—
the lie that placed the seed of doubt in Eve’s mind:
Ye shall not surely die: For God knows that in the day you
eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall
be as gods, knowing good and evil (Gen. 3:4-5).
You will be immortal. You will be powerful. Your eyes will be
opened to the wonderful world found in the pleasures of both
good and evil. Certainly, as a powerful, all-knowing god you will
be above such a thing as death.
At their core, this is the basic mantra of all religions. “You
are able. You have the power within you.” This belief in self-
empowerment (which is absolutely contrary to the doctrine of
102 What Paul Might Say Today?

total depravity), necessarily negates the biblical doctrine that

logically follows total depravity, the doctrine of redemption. A
powerful, all-knowing, immortal god does not need salvation.
While not all the world religions overtly claim deity for their
followers, all of their theologies coincide with the implications of
Satan’s lie: “You shall not surely die,” you shall be empowered to
make your own destiny. It is here, their common belief in man’s
ability to achieve spiritual contentment, at which the seemingly
subtle, menacing doctrine of total depravity disturbs the purpose
of every world religion.
It offends the non-religious populous as well. For they too
believe in man’s ability to achieve his desired happiness and
fulfillment; even if their desire is not the mystical pursuits of the
religious. The doctrine of total depravity contradicts this belief in
self empowerment, common to both the religious and
nonreligious alike. The doctrine of total depravity makes it clear
that man’s sinful nature has completely severed his relationship
with the Creator, the eternal Spirit, and that man has no ability to
repair it. As such, try as he may, man is prohibited from
accessing the paradise, the happiness, the spiritual fulfillment or
the God he feigns to desire. The doctrine of total depravity
predicts the need of a savior, the need for someone to redeem this
sorry lot of fallen humanity. Thus, “All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord
has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). This is utterly
offensive to those who fancy themselves above such a mean
existence. After all, are they not as gods?
You might have taken note that I said, “the God he feigns to
desire.” Pay close attention to Romans 3:11: “There is none that
seeks after God.” The outward show of pious religious rituals
may appear to be valid efforts at seeking the Creator, but in truth
they are little more than self-centered, repetitive actions; quixotic,
ceremonial activities designed to evoke an emotional response
and to make participants feel secure. In this respect, they are not
dissimilar to the actions of one with an obsessive compulsive
disorder. Even the various inward quests for a higher spiritual
plane and self awareness are mere, self-serving, mystical
journeys, rather than true quests for the Creator, for if these
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 103
practitioners truly sought the Creator they would find Him: “I
love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently will
find me” (Proverbs 8:17). Therefore, it stands to reason that if
one appears to be seeking God and yet never comes to the
knowledge of God, regardless of the pious rituals employed, the
seeker was never really seeking in the first place, at least not
diligently.
Elsewhere, we are told more of this search. “Without faith it
is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must
believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who
diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). This passage defines both the
God being sought and the seeker. Concerning God, first of all,
He is. He is the self existent eternal Spirit, the Creator of all
things. Creation itself makes this self-evident:
Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for
God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom.
1:19-20).
Secondly, God is the rewarder. Thus, by definition, He is a
personable God intimately involved with His creation.
Concerning these seekers, we see they must trust completely in
the reality of both details about God: that He is self existent and
an intimately involved gift giver. Furthermore, the seeker must
be truly seeking. The Greek term, ͗εκζητουσιν (ekzeetousin),
means to investigate, to search out, to inquire, to crave, to
demand, to seek after carefully, diligently.
The explanations in this verse are very clear. The definitions
of both the seeker and the sought after are very narrow. The God
being sought must be the self existent, personable God who
rewards His seekers. The seeker must have complete confidence
in God’s existence and be a serious, diligent seeker. Casually
calling upon “the Man” or the higher power, or any other god that
might suit one’s fancy, is not enough. Such an exercise in futility
does nothing more than appease one’s self-serving quest for
mystical adventure.
The world has no problem with man’s quest for spirituality,
or with man’s self fashioned holiness, or his religious ceremonies,
104 What Paul Might Say Today?

or even his quest for a deity. There is nothing offensive to the

world in either the outward display of rituals or the inward quest
for a self-serving spiritual journey; but introduce this doctrine in
which man does not have the ability to help himself, does not
have the ability to find his own happiness, and the offense is
made. Then, complete the argument with the idea of a necessary
redeemer and the fight is on, for it strikes at the very heart of
man’s pride. This doctrine of the miserable human condition is
the impetus for the world’s hatred of Judeo-Christian theology: it
wounds their self-image. Then, as if this is not enough, we rub
salt in the wound. Telling people they must humble themselves
before the Creator is just too much for them. Surely, “Pride goes
before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov.
16:18).

The world loves its own

The doctrine of total depravity shines light on man’s
darkness. Darkness does not like the light and runs from it. The-
man-can-pull-himself-up-by-his-bootstraps philosophy, common
to all world religions, does not shed light on man’s darkness.
Using senses other than sight, these religions cuddle and soothe
the darkened human condition, assuring us that all is well,
shaping fictional images of happiness in their mind’s eye. As
such, the world has no reason to hate these religions and every
reason to embrace them. Indeed, the world loves them, for “the
world loves it own” (John 15:19).
As mentioned earlier, and evidenced in the following pages,
every world religion (other than Judeo-Christian theology)
provides for man’s personal improvement in one fashion or
another: a higher plane of spirituality, the ability to achieve
holiness, the ability to reach its deity or deities, etc. What follows
are brief synopses of the major world religions, their basic beliefs,
and their aspirations.

Hinduism
Dating back to before 2000 BC, Hinduism believes in the
unity of everything, which is called Brahman. Man’s purpose is
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 105
to achieve enlightenment. This is realized by leaving this plane
of existence and reuniting with god, and thus, coming to the
realization that we are all part of god. Enlightenment is
accomplished through Samsara. Samsara is the reincarnation
process in which individuals pass from one body to another in the
cycle of birth, life, and death, through all life forms.
One’s personal progress towards enlightenment is measured
by karma, which is the sum of one’s good and bad deeds. The
level of one’s next reincarnation is determined by karma.
Devotion to god, personal sacrifice, and selfless thoughts promote
rebirth at higher levels. Bad deeds and bad thoughts demote
one’s rebirth to lower levels. It is for this reason that Hindus
follow an austere caste system to identify each person’s standing.
The caste into which a person is born is the direct result of the
karma from his/her previous life. Those of the highest caste, the
Brahmin, are the only Hindus allowed to perform religious rituals
or to hold positions of authority within the temples.

Buddhism
Buddhism dates back to 560 to 490 BC. Siddhartha Gautama
assumed the title Buddha after reaching enlightenment in 535 BC.
He promoted the path to enlightenment in a set of teachings called
The Middle Way, which represents the medium between two
extremes: self mortification and hedonism. Buddhists also
believe in reincarnation. After several rebirths, once a person
releases the attachment to desire and to self, Nirvana is attained.
Buddhists do not necessarily believe in god.

Zoroastrianism
A Persian, named Zoroaster founded Zoroastrianism between
600 and 1000 BC. Zoroaster taught an elaborate religion of
monotheistic/dualism. He taught that a good supreme god, Ahura
Mazda, is in conflict with his evil nemesis, Angra Mainyu—a
spirit of violence and death that originated from a different
source. The battle between good and evil takes place between
these deities at both the cosmic level and within the human
consciousness.
106 What Paul Might Say Today?

Their holy book, the Avesta, advocates social justice, the

understanding of righteousness and the cosmic order, and the
worship of Ahura Mazda. Prayers and ritualistic ceremonies are
conducted before a sacred fire which serves as a symbol of their
god. The Zoroastrian life is dedicated to a three-fold path
reflected in their motto, “Good thoughts, good words, good
deeds.”

Confucianism
The teachings of Confucius (K’ung Fu Tzu or Master Kong)
originated about 500 BC. They deal with morality, ethics, and
socio-political power. Confucians perform various rituals at
different times of life: birth, reaching maturity, marriage, and
death. It also stresses several virtues: propriety, etiquette, love
among family members, righteousness, honesty, trustworthiness,
benevolence towards others, and the highest virtue, loyalty to the
state. Although ancestral worship is practiced, the concept of an
afterlife is deemed beyond human comprehension and, therefore,
is not to be of concern in this life.

Taoism
Taoism was founded in China by Lao-Tse, a contemporary of
Confucius, about 440 BC. This philosophy and religious tradition
describes the nature of life and the way to peace by living in
harmony with the Tao. Roughly translated, the Tao means the
Way, the Path, or even the Principle. The Tao is believed to be
the source of everything and an essential force flowing through
all life. The objective is to become one with the Tao.
Practitioners seek virtue, compassion, moderation, and humility.
They believe that people, by nature, are good.
All actions are to be planned in advance and accomplished
with minimal effort. As such, Tai Chi, a slow deliberate form of
martial art movements, is practiced to balance the flow of energy,
or chi, throughout the body.
Taoism sees the universe divided into opposing pairs. Yin
(the dark side) and Yang (the light side) symbolize these
opposing pairs: good and evil, light and dark, male and female,
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 107
etc. The adverse actions of humanity upset the harmonious
balance of Yin and Yang. As a religion, Taoism has reverence
for ancestors and immortals, as well as for various magical
divinations.

Shinto
Shinto is an ancient Japanese religion dating back to about
500 BC. Originally a nebulous combination of nature worship,
fertility cults, divination techniques, hero worship, and
shamanism, it has no known founder and only a loosely ordered
priesthood. It has no sacred writings or body of religious laws.
Shinto recognizes several deities, or Kami, that are deemed
neither good nor bad, and bear little to no resemblance to the
Holy God of monotheism, or even the powerful gods of Western
and Middle Eastern polytheism.
Their numerous deities are conceptualized in many forms
associated with various objects, creatures, places, foods, rivers,
rocks, animals, geographical areas, clans, abstract forces,
exceptional people and Emperors, etc. The deity, Amaterasu
(Sun Goddess), the ancestress of the Imperial family, is regarded
as the chief deity. After death people become spirit-deities and
return to the ancestral spirit.
Shinto followers admire creativity and harmonious
influences. While they seek peace, sincerity, and truth, and teach
that all human life is sacred, at the same time, they believe
morality is based on that which is beneficial to the group. They
hold to the Four Affirmations: tradition and family; the love and
worship of nature as sacred spirits; personal, physical cleanliness;
and Matsuri, a festival to honor the spirits.

Sikhism
Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji founded Sikhism about 1500, in the
Punjab region of modern Pakistan after receiving a vision of the
path to enlightenment and god. He is believed to have been
reincarnated in a series of nine Gurus until 1708. The tenth Guru,
Gobind Singh, completed the holy text, the Shri Guru Granth
Sahib. This holy text contains the hymns and writings of each of
108 What Paul Might Say Today?

these Gurus, as well as texts from various Muslim and Hindu

saints. The text is considered the 11th and final Guru.
Sikhism believes in a single, formless god with many names.
This god, before whom everyone has equal status, can be reached
through meditation. The worship of idols or icons is prohibited.
Followers of Sikhism pray several times a day. They adhere to
karma and a similar samsara type reincarnation as the Hindus; but
they reject the caste system.

Bahá'í
Bahá’í, based on the teachings of Baha’u’llah, emerged in the
1800’s. Its followers believe the major religions of the world
originated from a series of nine divine messengers (Moses,
Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, etc., and finally
Bahá'u’lláh). Their messages all came from the one eternal God,
the Creator of all things. Each divine messenger established a
religion suited to its time and the society in which he lived; thus,
they taught different truths. Bahá’í centers around three core
principles: the unity of God, the unity of religion, and the unity of
humankind. After death, one’s immortal soul travels through the
spirit world. Through the messages of these prophets, the
character of mankind has continued to transform and develop
from age to age. The current need of humanity is to establish
world peace, socio-economic equity, justice, and the unity of all
religions and science. The world will culminate in a single world
government practicing Bahá'í.

Islam
Founded in Mecca by Muhammad, Islam dates back to the
year 622. Practitioners are called Muslims. Muslims teach there
is one God, Allah. Islam is believed to be a continuation of the
biblical prophets Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. However,
Islam rejects Jesus’ claim to deity. Muhammad was the last great
prophet. It was his task to formalize, clarify, and purify the faith
by removing erroneous teachings. It is Satan that causes people
to sin. Those Muslims who repent and humble themselves before
 Judeo-Christian Theology versus World Religion 109
Allah will return to a state of sinlessness and, subsequently, go to
paradise after death.
Muslims have five duties, known as the Five Pillars of Islam:
reciting the Shahadah—a profession of belief in monotheism and
Muhammad; Salat—five daily prayers prayed while facing the
Kaaba in Mecca. Zadat—paying alms of 2.5% of one’s total
wealth to charity, as well as giving to additional charities for the
needy if so desired. Sawm of Ramadan—fasting during the
month of Ramadan; and Hajj—a pilgrimage made to Mecca at
least once in life if it is a financial and physically possibility.

Hearing they will not hear

Regardless of its show of piety, its ostensible quest for God,
or its desire for spiritual enlightenment, what every world religion
fails to acknowledge is the basic, yet pertinent, doctrine
established in the book of Genesis and upon which Judeo-
Christian theology revolves: that humanity has inherited a sinful
nature which separates us from God and places us in need of
redemption.
While this distinction makes perfect sense to Bible students,
the world, and practitioners of the world’s religions, struggle with
the concept at some level. Reluctant to admit just how offensive
this doctrine of total depravity is, they generally fail to
acknowledge that this offense is the impetus for their disgust of
Judeo-Christian theology. Even those who seem sympathetic
toward Israel and Christianity cannot clearly understand it.
Cognitively, they can follow the argument, but in their spiritual
darkness they cannot fully understand its significance; nor can
they fully understand the depths of the world’s bias and hatred.
Beyond not fully appreciating the doctrine of total depravity
and the related doctrine of redemption via a qualified savior who
has the ability to rectify the situation, there is further reason
(albeit unwittingly) for the world to plug its ears like a child
refusing to listen. Once they have learned the truth of the human
condition, and of the Redeemer sent from God to restore their
status, they are accountable for the information. So that, these
truths bring “life unto life and death unto death” (2 Cor. 2:15-
17). For those who accept this Gospel, it means eternal life; for
110 What Paul Might Say Today?

the others it is eternal death. Therefore, they are loath to hear

these offensive doctrines, and they loathe those who proclaim
them. No act of legislation or court-ordered mandates can change
this.

Conclusion
Do not be dismayed when the world hates you and your
Judeo-Christian theology. Do not be puzzled when the world
finds great pleasure in its religions, even when these religions are
wreaking worldwide havoc; for the world loves its own (John
15:19). It is expected. It is predicted. It is useless to try to fight
this hatred in the courts, in the halls of Congress, in the media, in
the street with picket signs and protests. Jesus told us the world
would hate us just as it hated him.
As for Israelites, pray for them. They are the chosen people
of God, the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with whom God
made a special covenant. Although they have temporarily
rejected their Messiah, one day soon, Israel will accept Jesus.
This too is predicted.
 Modern Laodicea 111

Modern Laodicea

Introduction
I have included this chapter among these critiques on the
practical theology of 21st Century Western Christendom that we
might better understand our present state, that we might better
understand why we are in the pitiful condition we are in. While
the condition of the Church in the last days is detailed in various
Bible passages, a prophetic, synoptic view of the entire Church
Age is briefly chronicled in Jesus’ messages to the seven
historical churches of Asia-Minor (present day Turkey): Ephesus,
Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.
Other, more prominent congregations than some of these could
have been addressed; certainly they had issues as well. So too,
the letters could have appeared in a different sequence. But
neither their choice nor the order in which they appear is random.
Collectively, they depict a pre-written history of the Church
dispensation from Pentecost to our future gathering to meet the
Lord in the air.
Before discussing the end of the age, it is important to review
its history, both as prophesied in these letters and as it
subsequently unfolded through the centuries. Herein we will see
what it is that led us to where we are today. In hindsight, we now
understand just how precise and detailed these predictions were.
We must also review the cultural environment in which each
historical church resided. Only then can we fully appreciate the
significance of these most telling letters. This, too, will allow us
to better appreciate the passage pertaining to our current period of
Church history, the last days.
112 What Paul Might Say Today?

Illumination
Being born anew of the Spirit of God, believers live in the
light; illumination radiates about us and through us, from God
and toward His Word. Here is where understanding divine
communication, God’s written Word, takes place. In their
darkness, unbelievers can have but a limited understanding of
Scripture. Therefore, although it paints a very clear picture of
many topics, to the unbeliever these portraits are but blurry hues,
subjective abstracts left to the viewer’s interpretation. The issue
for them is illumination; the unbeliever simply does not have it.
A prime example of the unbeliever’s inability to appreciate
scriptural portraits is the prophetic picture of the world’s
condition at the end of the age prior to Christ’s return. It is not
that they are uninformed; popular books are written about it,
major motion pictures depict the foretold scenario, and preachers
warn of the impending doom. Not only is society well informed
on the issue, it is a widespread topic of ridicule for comedians,
popular media personnel and naysayers in general. They scoff at
the idea of a one-world government, its evil leader, the antichrist
and his mark. Even as it unfolds right before them they dismiss,
as nonsense, the ancient prophecies of the Jews’ returning to
establish themselves in their Holy Land, all to the consternation
of the surrounding nations. They scoff at the prophetic picture
that depicts a society similar to that of the antediluvians: the rise
of atheists who, professing themselves wise become fools,
preferring to reverence the creation rather than the Creator, the
general approval of homosexuality; a covetous malignant society
with a seared conscience; proud, disobedient boasters,
argumentative, murderous, haters of God; and inventors of evil
things, in a world where knowledge would be increased.
Neither can the unbeliever fully comprehend the predictions
concerning the condition of the Church in the last days. Although
clearly articulated, to the unbeliever these prophecies are nothing
but subjective abstracts. However, for the believer, the gift of
illumination brings these portraits into focus, so that we, as
believers in the 21st Century, can clearly see that the last days are
upon us. In this chapter, we review the foretold, historic journey
 Modern Laodicea 113
of the Church from Pentecost to Christ’s return, and the condition
in which we should expect it to be in these last days.

His character & His promises

As we read these letters, take note of two specific details
concerning our Lord: the characterizations by which he identifies
himself and the promises he makes to the victorious. He
describes himself differently and makes different promises to
each church. His self-described characteristics are specifically
chosen to identify with the particular, historic and prophetic
environment of each church. Furthermore, there exists an
interesting progression in the promises as they symbolically
restore the victors, in each church, to the original intention God
had in store for humanity before the fall. We will also note that
of the seven, only Smyrna and Philadelphia receive praise without
rebuke, while Sardis and Laodicea are almost entirely censored.
Ephesus, Pergmum and Thyatira are praised for some things and
condemned for others.

To the church in Ephesus

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;
These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his
right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden
candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy
patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil:
and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and
are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and
hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored, and
hast not fainted.
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because
thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from
whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works;
or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the
Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let
him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him
114 What Paul Might Say Today?

that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is

in the midst of the paradise of God (Rev. 2:1-7).
To this assembly in Ephesus, who had lost their first love He
is “he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh
in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks,” an obvious
indication of his devotion to them and their security in Him,
despite their lack of fervor toward him. The victorious are
promised, “to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the
paradise of God.” After Adam’s disobedience, God placed the
cherubim to guard this tree; here, symbolically, the original
intention is restored.

Ephesus, the historic city

Just as numbers are important to biblical interpretation, so
too are names. This is especially true when the name is chosen or
singled out by God, such as Abraham, Sarah, John the Baptist
and, of course, Jesus himself (e.g. Gen. 17:5, 15; Lk. 1:13; Mt.
1:25). Each was chosen for a specific meaning, a specific
connotation it set forth. Ephesus means “the Desirable One.” At
the time of The Revelation, Ephesus was the wealthiest and
greatest city in the province. Often referred to as the Light of
Asia, it was a flourishing commercial seaport, the home of famed
annual gaming events, and the geographical center of the Roman
Empire.
The famous geographer Strabo, referred to Ephesus as the
Market of Asia. Although Pergamum was the official seat of
government for the province, Ephesus was the unofficial capital.
Located on the banks of the Cayster River along the Aegean Sea,
Roman governors often held court at Ephesus and, by statute, a
new proconsul had to enter his new domain through this, the
Gateway to Asia. As such, Ephesus held the political distinction
of being a self-governing, free city, thereby excused from the
usual oppressive garrison of troops. For all travelers, Ephesus
was the highway to Rome. Years later, when Christians were
being taken from Asia to serve as lion fodder in the coliseums,
Ignatius called Ephesus the Highway of the Martyrs.
 Modern Laodicea 115
Ephesus was also the center for magic arts and the worship of
Artemis, or Diana.12 Although it was home to several famous
temples, erected in honor of various Roman Emperors, the
Temple of Diana was its pride. Nearly 10,000 square feet, with
120 elaborate columns climbing 60 feet to the ceiling, it was one
of the most sacred shrines of the ancient world and considered
one of its seven wonders. Curiously, this goddess of the moon,
fertility, life, and the outdoors (who they believed had fallen from
heaven), was represented by an unattractive, squat, black, many-
breasted figure that, nevertheless, was revered, and held precious
throughout this stronghold of pagan superstition. This pagan
religion played a vital part in the local economy. Travelers came
from all over the world to buy Ephesian letters, amulets, and
charms, which they believed could cure sickness, make fruitless
wombs give birth, and generally bring success to any venture.
It was this economy that Paul had disrupted with his
preaching (Acts 19:23-41).13 He had so many converts that local
merchants, sellers of religious trinkets, realized they might be in
danger of losing considerable income. Thus, a ruckus erupted.
Similar to the cities of refuge for accused or guilty Israelites,
the Temple of Diana was considered a safe haven for all
criminals. Once a criminal reached the temple compound he
could claim the right of asylum. Also housed within the temple
were hundreds of prostitutes, considered sacred temple
priestesses. As one can imagine, being the center of this pagan
cult, as well as a haven for criminals and prostitutes, Ephesus was
a notoriously evil place known for its crime and immorality.
Later generations would think of Ephesus as the Vanity Fair of
the ancient world.
Many have pointed out that Ephesus was a most unpromising
soil for sowing the seed of Christianity. Yet it was here that
Christianity had some of its greatest triumphs. Paul had founded
the local church. Aquila, Priscilla and Apollos had labored here
(Acts 18:19, 24, 26; 19); Timothy had served as a bishop, and

12
Artemis is the Greek name and Diana the Roman name for the same deity.
13
Although the city no longer exists, archaeologists have discovered the ruins
of the great theater that housed the riot in Acts 19.
116 What Paul Might Say Today?

later, even John himself, after returning from exile, spent the last
years of his life as its bishop. Ephesus had become a popular
center of Christianity, as well as Diana worship.
An old ploy of Satan is to infiltrate and seduce. He tried it
time and again with Israel and has continued to utilize this
strategy with the Church. This tactic was exercised in Ephesus as
well. However, doubtless due to their strong theological
foundation, the church remained unscathed. Thus, Jesus
commends them for having “tested those calling themselves
apostles, but they are not and you found them liars.”
Paul had warned these same Ephesians that after he departed
grievous wolves would enter among them, not sparing the flock
(Ac.20:29). Centuries later, Tertullian and Jerome spoke of a
work, written by a presbyter of Ephesus, which claimed to be a
canonical history of the acts of Paul. John had condemned this
work and accused its author of heresy. Other wolves came as
well, and in various sorts. Some were envoys of the Jews who
had followed Paul about, hoping to entangle Christians in the
Law. Some taught that Christians could turn their liberty into a
license for licentious behavior. Some were professional beggars,
taking advantage of Christian charity. Located in the center of
crime and immorality, the Church at Ephesus was especially
prone to such deceivers.
Jesus praised them for their discernment and condemnation
of the Nicolaitans: “But this you have, that you hate the works of
the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” Some believe the
Nicolaitans14 were followers of Nichas, whom Hippolytus
identified as Nicolaus who had been one of the seven deacons to
serve tables in Jerusalem, but had departed from correct doctrine.
Others believe this sect merely took his name to associate
themselves with apostolic authority. Irenaeus described them as
living lives of unrestrained indulgence. Others spoke of them as
shameless, in uncleanness. Clement said they “abandon
themselves to pleasure like goats . . . leading a life of self-
indulgence.” However, he defended Nicolaus, arguing that his
followers had perverted his teaching that “the flesh must be

14
See comments on the church of Pergamum.
 Modern Laodicea 117
abused.” By this Nicolaus meant the body must be kept under
control; but the heretics, Clement explained, had distorted this to
mean the flesh can be used as shamelessly as a man wishes.
Regardless of their origin, the Nicolaitans were an early sect of
licentious heretics who claimed to be Christians, yet led ungodly,
immoral lives.
The Ephesian believers condemned the Nicolaitans, as well
as all other false teachings. However, despite their sound
doctrine, the Ephesians had a significant problem. They had lost
their fervor for the Lord. They were well versed in the Scriptures,
doctrinally sound, and had all the appearance of holiness. They
hated immorality, and fought against the heresy of seditious
teachers, diligently scrutinizing every one of them. But their
hearts had grown cold. It had been a long time since they had
earnestly thanked the Lord for His blessings. It had been even
longer since they had fallen prostrate before Him, broken from
the awesome reality of their own sinful nature in the face of His
righteousness. Therefore, to them Jesus said, “Remember,
therefore, from where you have fallen and repent and do the first
works. Otherwise, I am coming to you and I will move your
lampstand out of its place, unless you repent.” Evidently, the
historical Ephesus failed to heed this warning, for neither the city
nor the church continues to exist. Perhaps the ancient proverb of
the hard hearted is applicable: “He that, being often reproved,
hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without
remedy” (Prov. 29:1).

The prophetic portrait of the church in Ephesus

As for the prophetic view of Church history, as the years
passed, Ephesus proved to represent the Church during the first
and early second centuries. Even after the death of the apostles
the pristine 1st Century Church continued to preserve the sound
doctrine they had learned from them. But throughout the empire,
the Church had slowly lost its enthusiasm, had grown lackluster,
had simply lost its zeal. In time, this doctrinally pure, but
evangelistically complacent, early Church transformed into the
persecuted and martyred Church of the next few centuries, which
is represented by the church at Smyrna.
118 What Paul Might Say Today?

To the church in Smyrna

And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write;
These things saith the first and the last, which was
dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and
poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of
them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the
synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou
shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into
prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation
ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a
crown of life.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of
the second death (Rev. 2:8-11).
To Smyrna, once an important ancient city that had virtually
died out but had returned to life, and was now the home of
martyrs, He is the one “which was dead, and is alive.” But that
is not all, Smyrna proudly supported municipal rivalries and its
citizens aspired to be in the “who’s who” of local society. To
them, the Lord proclaimed, He is “the first and the last.” He is
the ultimate “who’s who,” all others pale in comparison. The
victors of Smyrna are promised they “shall not be hurt of the
second death.” Due to Adam’s disobedience, death has passed
upon all men; here, symbolically, the original intended eternal life
is restored.

Smyrna, the historic city

Also a city of distinction, even rivaling Ephesus in politics,
religion, and culture, Smyrna was a famed seaport located north
of Ephesus on a gulf of the Aegean Sea. While Ephesus may
have been the Market of Asia, Smyrna was considered the
Ornament, the Flower of Asia. Ramsay called it the City of Life
and Lucian said it was the fairest of the cities of Ionia. This city
of culture, boasting a large public library, a theater, and a stadium
for games, it prided itself as the birthplace of Homer.
The heart of the city cuddled the end of a long, narrow bay
providing a natural, safe harbor for war and merchant ships alike.
 Modern Laodicea 119
Thus, Smyrna was the primary siti of trade for the Hermus
Valley. The broad, paved streets of the beautiful metropolis
sprawled through the foothills to the Pagos—a summit sporting
several temples, each dedicated to a different god: Cybele, Zeus,
Apollo, Nemesis, Tiberius, Aphrodite and Asclepios. Leading
across the Pagos, from the Temple of Zeus to the Temple of
Cybele, like a necklace around the crown, was the celebrated
street of gold, which inspired many to call Smyrna, the Crown of
Asia.
Like Ephesus, Smyrna was a free city-state. In 195 BC, it
became the first city in the world to build a temple to the goddess
Roma. This had led to a longstanding friendship with Rome, so
that, in AD 26, the city was granted the honor of erecting a temple
to the Roman deity, Caesar Tiberius. Although the Temple of
Tiberius made this a chief location of emperor worship, as long as
citizens paid homage to the emperor, they were allowed to
worship their own particular deity, something every group and the
working class had and each of which the city honored with a
different holiday and feast.
If only the Christians had simply participated, even
nominally, in emperor worship they would have been free to
build a temple to their own god and would have easily blended in
with the rest of the activities. No one in the city would have paid
them any mind. However, and to their glory, this was not the
case. The church at Smyrna refused to compromise. They would
not participate in any of the feast days. They would not burn
incense and they would not bow their knee to the emperor as a
deity. Thus, they were persecuted.
The Jewish society of Smyrna was hostile to the Christians as
well. In AD 155, the Jews willfully participated in the
martyrdom of Polycarp—the bishop of Smyrna, John’s former
student, and the angel, or messenger, to whom Jesus addressed
this letter. One early account of the event explains that during the
public games, a cry went up from the crowd, “Away with the
atheists” (for this is what they called Christians who refused to
worship the Roman deity), “let Polycarp be searched for.”
The troops found him in the upper room of a building from
which he could have easily escaped. But having already told his
disciples of a dream in which he was burned alive, he calmly
120 What Paul Might Say Today?

went with his captors. Before leaving, he requested an hour alone

for prayer. His captors gave him two, marveling at the
composure, piety, and the obvious innocence of this gray haired
old man. Tradition tells us that some of these guards evidently
converted to the faith.
On the way back to the city, the captain of the guard pleaded
with Polycarp, asking him what harm there could be to say Caesar
is lord, and to offer a sacrifice to save his own life? Polycarp
responded that for him, only Jesus Christ was Lord. Tradition
also has it that upon entering the stadium, Polycarp heard a voice
from heaven telling him to “be strong and play the man.” The
governor offered him the choice of cursing the name of Christ and
making sacrifice to Caesar, or death, to which Polycarp answered,
“I have served him eighty-six years and he has done me no
wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” When
the governor threatened to burn him, Polycarp replied,
You threaten me with the fire that burns for a time and is
quickly quenched, for you do not know the fire which
awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and in
everlasting punishment. Why are you waiting? Come, do
what you will.
As they tied him to the stake he said,
Leave me as I am, for he who gives me power to endure the
fire, will grant me to remain in the flames unmoved even
without the security you will give by the nails.
At this the crowd pressed in, tossing their sticks into the flame. It
is then that Polycarp offered his now famous prayer.
O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed
Child, Jesus Christ, through whom we have received full
knowledge of you; God of angels and powers, and of all
creation, and of the whole family of the righteous, who live
before you, I bless you that you have granted unto me this
day and hour, that I may share, among the number of the
martyrs, in the cup of your Christ, for the resurrection to
eternal life, both of soul and body in the immortality of the
Holy Spirit. And may I today be received among them
before you, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as you, the
God without falsehood and of truth, have prepared
 Modern Laodicea 121
beforehand and shown forth and fulfilled. For this reason I
also praise you for all things. I bless you, I glorify you
through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ,
your beloved Child, through whom be glory to You with
Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and for the ages that are
to come. Amen.
The flames rose, but as they gathered intensity they began to
flare out, arching about him so that he was not harmed. Seeing
that he would not burn, at last the executioner reached up and
stabbed him with his spear. In this account of the event, the
volume of blood spewing from the wound quenched the fire,
causing the crowd to marvel at the difference between them and
the Christians.
Polycarp was not alone in his refusal to bow to Caesar as
lord. The entire church of Smyrna denied his deity. Their failure
to worship Caesar made it difficult for them to acquire even the
small supply of daily necessities, for they were unable to find
work with the idolatrous employers (each of whom demanded
participation in pagan rituals). They were also subject to sudden
and unprovoked attacks by the pagan mobs. During such attacks,
it was not unusual for believers to lose their possessions, their
homes, and their businesses. It is for this reason the Lord
encouraged them,
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou
art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they
are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
The term Smyrna is the equivalent of myrrh, a bitter sap used
as an anesthetic, a holy ointment, an embalming element, and a
perfume. When crushed, its aroma becomes stronger and even
more pungent. As a desirable aroma, its typical significance is
referenced three times in connection with our Lord: at his birth
(Mt. 2:11); at the cross (Mk. 15:23); and at his burial (Jn. 19:39).
This, no doubt, speaks of the pleasing aroma of the entire body of
our Lord’s work and his suffering to complete it (Eph. 5:2; Ps.
45:8). Here, also it has typological significance, speaking to the
pleasing aroma of this suffering church, toward which the Lord
has not one complaint.
122 What Paul Might Say Today?

The prophetic portrait of the church in Smyrna

Having comforted them with His knowledge of their plight,
He then warned them of an even greater trouble they were about
to incur,
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold,
the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be
tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days.
Prophetically, this message to Smyrna represents the Church Age
from the turn of the 1st century through the early part of the 4th
century. During this time the Church suffered ten great
persecutions at the hands of ten deviant Roman Emperors.15 To
justify these persecutions, six different charges were typically
brought against the Christians.
Cannibalism, because the sacrament of communion refered
to the body and blood of Christ.
Orgies of lust, because the common meal was called the love
feast.
Tampering with family relationships, because conversions
often caused families to split.
Atheism, because they would not worship the images of the
gods.
Politically unpatriotic, because they would not say Caesar
was lord.
Incendiaries, because they foretold of the end of the world in
flames.

To the church in Pergamum

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write;
These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with
two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even

15
In AD 64 the Church suffered severe persecution at the hand of Nero. But
by the time of this writing, 95 - 100, Nero’s reign had ended. Ten other
Roman Emperors followed with similar practices: #1, 96 Domitian; #2, 98-
117; Trajan; #3, 117-138 Hadrian; #4, 138-161 Antoninus Pius; #5, 161-180
Marcus Aurelius; #6 193-211 Septimis Serverus; #7 235-238 Maximin; #8,
249-251 Decius; #9, 253-260 Valerian; and #10, 284-305 Diocletian.
 Modern Laodicea 123
where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and
hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein
Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you,
where Satan dwelleth.
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast
there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught
Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of
Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit
fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine
of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I
will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them
with the sword of my mouth.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat
of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and
in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth
saving he that receiveth it (Rev. 2:12-17).
To the church of Pergamum, who tolerated an immoral
heresy, He is “he which hath the sharp sword with two edges.”
Because the church would not separate truth from error, he would
do it for them, and it would be painful. The victorious believers
in Pergamum are promised “to eat of the hidden manna, and will
give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written,
which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” The
judgment passed upon man after the fall was that “by the sweat of
his face shall he eat bread, for the land would be accursed for
him with thorns and thistles.” Here, life without labor is restored.
Also, perhaps it is a reference to the Jewish tradition, which
taught that during the siege of Solomon’s temple, Jeremiah had
hidden the ark and the golden pot of manna kept in it. The ark
was to remain hidden until Israel was restored (2 Macc. 2:5ff.).
The “white stone” is a clear symbol of victory, and it implies
justification. To the Greeks, it was a symbol of acquittal just as a
black stone was a symbol of guilt.

Pergamum, the historic city

Pergamum, the northernmost of the seven cities, sat
overlooking the valley of the River Caicus. Although not located
124 What Paul Might Say Today?

on any major trade route, still it was a great and flourishing

metropolis. Strabo described it as the most illustrious of the
Asian cities. Pliny said it was the most famous; and it certainly
was, at least historically speaking, the greatest of them all. In 282
BC, Pergamum became the capital of the Seleucid kingdom—a
portion of the fractured empire of Alexander the Great. During
197 to 159 BC, Pergamum had grown under the rule of Eumenes
II, who built a number of large buildings, including a library
boasting some 200,000 volumes, second only to the library in
Alexandria.16 Upon his death in 133 BC, Attalus III willed this
territory to Rome, from which Rome formed the Asian province
of Pergamum with this, the city Pergamum, remaining as its
capital.
Its rich history, the voluminous library, and its many temples
made Pergamum another important cultural center. Its citizens
regarded themselves as the custodians of the Greek way of life
and worship. Somewhere around 240 BC, Pergamum had been
victorious over the savage invasion of the Gauls. To
commemorate the victory, they had built an altar to Zeus in front
of the Temple of Athena. Like Ephesus and Smyrna, Pergamum
was littered with temples to their favored gods.
Not far from the great grove of Nicephorium was the grove
and the Temple of Asklepios—the god of healing, who was also
called the god of Pergamum. Here, was a school for medical
studies in honor of this, their favorite god. The symbol of
Asklepios, a serpent, the emblem of paganism, was etched into
the rock alongside the great throne and altar to Zeus. This is a
symbol with which we are still familiar today. Galen—second
only to Hippocrates in the medical history of the ancient world—
was born in Pergamum. Speaking of his favorite oaths, he

16
The word parchment comes from the name Pergamum (pergamene charta,
the pergamene sheet). For many centuries scribes had used papyrus, made of
the pith of a very large bulrush that grows beside the Nile. In the 3rd Century
BC, the Pergamene king, Eumeses, persuaded Aristophanes, the librarian at
Alexandria, to come to Pergamum. Ptolemy, of Egypt, was enraged,
imprisoned Aristophanes and put an embargo on the export of papyrus to
Pergamum. Thus, the scholars of Pergamum invented parchment or vellum,
made from the polished skins of animals—a superior medium, in time it
overtook papyrus as the preferred writing material.
 Modern Laodicea 125
observed that people often swore by Artemis of Ephesus, or by
Apollo of Delphi, or by Asklepios of Pergamum.
Appropriately, the Lord said of Pergamum that this is,
“where Satan's seat is.” It was to this city that the Babylonian
priests had nested after the destruction of Babylon (Isa. 13:17-22).
Although they assimilated to, and adapted their practices for, the
local culture, Pergamum had become the center for the old
Babylonian Mysteries, and for the imperial cult. It was the
headquarters for emperor worship. In 29 BC, the city built a
temple in honor of Augustus Caesar Octavian, and by the end of
the 1st century AD, all Roman subjects were required to offer
prayers and sacrifices in the name of the emperor, who was
regarded as divine.
Some, within the church of Pergamum, had refused to
comply with the idolatry. For Antipas and others, like
Agathonice, Attalus, Carpus and Polybus, who kept the faith even
to the point of death, there is praise, “you hold fast my name and
did not deny my faith.” But for others, those who had tolerated
the teachings of Balaam and the teachings of the Nicolaitans,
there was condemnation. The doctrine of Balaam goes back to
the Midianites, who worshiped Baal with the practice of fertility
rites (Num. 25:1-17). They believed their god died and rose each
year in conjunction with the changing seasons, which resulted in
the cycle of fertility for their crops and their flocks. Balaam’s
doctrine was to corrupt the people of the Lord. He told Balac to
have their young women infiltrate and seduce the Israelites. Their
specific mission was to persuade the Israelites to disobey God’s
command for separation, so that ultimately, they could cause
Israel to forsake the Lord. Quite fittingly, the name Pergamum
means the “objectionable marriage.”
The Nicolaitans brought great shame to the Church.17
Although they professed Christianity, they lived lives steeped in
immorality and vice. Nicolaitans abused the doctrine of grace by
exercising Christian liberty as a license to partake in sensual
pleasures, while yet professing the faith. Unlike the believers in
Smyrna, they were willing to compromise with the Imperial
religion by permitting Christians to participate in worship at the
17
See comments of the church of Ephesus.
126 What Paul Might Say Today?

pagan temples.18 It is also believed that the Nicolaitans were the

first to divide the clergy from the laity. Jesus warned them,
“Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight
against them with the sword of my mouth (Rev. 2:16).19

The prophetic portrait of the church in Pergamum

Prophetically, the message to Pergamum represents the early
part of the 4th Century through the 5th and into the 6th Century. It
is during this era that the Church is befriended by the empire.
After the great persecutions of ten successive emperors, the
Church increasingly assumed a role as a ward of the state, until at
last, the table was turned and the Church took control of the
Empire. The Empire’s embrace of the Church began with
Constantine the Great, who openly expressed his favor for the
Christian faith. Whether he did so to achieve political unity or
out of personal commitment has always been debated.
Ultimately, the outcome is undeniable—immediately, the empire
became overtly tolerant and encouraging toward the Church.20
Although Constantine seemingly accepted Christianity,21 he
continued to placate the pagans by retaining the title and

18
This practice seems quite similar to the present day confessional of Roman
Catholicism. It also seems similar to the popular Armenian “saved and lost”
doctrine, held by many Protestants. Herein, church members are permitted to
openly partake in a licentious lifestyle as long as they show up at the temple
from time to time to confess their sins and be absolved of all wrongdoing, or in
the case of the modern Armenian Protestants, to be saved again.
19
Roman governors were divided into two classes—those who had the right of
the sword, and those who did not. Those who had the right of the sword had
the power of life and death. On their word a man could be executed on the
spot. The proconsul headquartered at Pergamum had the right of the sword
and at any moment he could use it against the Christian.
20
By an imperial edict in 311, Christians were granted a limited tolerance.
Another edict in 313, by the emperors Licinius and Constantine, granted
Christians full liberty to follow their faith as desired. Many have called these
the Magna Carta of Christianity.
21
Constantine’s professed conversion was the result of a supposed vision just
prior to the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. He claimed to have seen a cross,
with the words written above it, “In This Sign Conquer.” The reality of his
conversion has always been questioned. Because he simultaneously appeased
the pagans by retaining the title and performing the duties of the Pontifex
 Modern Laodicea 127
performing the duties of the Pontifex Maximus—the High Priest
of the pagan religion.22 This had a significant effect upon the
Church. With the chief of the pagan priests, so strongly
patronizing and favoring the Church, it was only natural that other
pagan priests would embrace it as well; or rather infiltrate it, for
their ostensible conversion was motivated by political gain.
Instantly, yesterday’s pagan priests became Christian priests.
These new leaders, naturally—like their supreme leader, the High
Priest, the Pontifex Maximus—also retained their priestly titles.
This infiltration (although not a new tactic) was an obvious
change in Satan’s heretofore strategy of Imperial persecution. It
is here that the harlot of the seventeenth chapter (the symbol of
the false prophetess who has plagued the people of God from
days of old), gains her first real foothold in the Church.23

Maximus (the High Priest of the pagan religion), continued to serve the pagan
idols, and refused Christian baptism until just prior to his death, many consider
his conversion merely a brilliant political ploy that sought, and succeeded, to
unite the empire religiously, as it was politically, and thereby extend his
influence. Whether his conversion was real or not, we don’t know, but one
thing is certain, it changed the course of history. From that day forward the
Church and the empire were united. It was also a change in the adversary’s
strategy that cannot be overlooked. This was a ploy Satan had used before,
when persecution failed to do the job. His plan is so predictable there is
nothing new under the sun—infiltration and seduction from within is always
the next step after persecution fails.
22
Once Constantine became the sole emperor he strongly encouraged his
subjects to become followers of the Christian faith. In 313, he declared the
Christian clergy exempt from taxation. In 314, he assembled the Council of
Arles to settle the Donatist controversy. In 315, he did away with certain
ordinances offensive to the Church. In 321, he issued a decree for the
observance of Sunday as a day of worship. In 325, he assembled the Nicean
Council—the first General Council of the Church. In 330, he transferred the
seat of government to Byzantium, largely to escape the heathen influence of
Rome. Constantine also gave large sums of money for the support of Christian
clergy, the circulation of Christian Scriptures, and to the building of Christian
cathedrals, which was a new thing for the hitherto persecuted believers. He
made certain that his son was given a Christian education and he sought
Christians to fill his chief advisory posts.
23
Except for Julian the Apostate (361-363), all subsequent emperors embraced
the Church. In 392, Theodosius the Great decreed that all heathen sacrifices
were to be considered treason; and in 529, Justinian the First demanded the
school of philosophy, in Athens, be closed. Outwardly, it looked as though
128 What Paul Might Say Today?

To the church in Thyatira

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write;
These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes
like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I
know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy
patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the
first.
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee,
because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth
herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to
commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she
repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them
that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except
they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with
death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which
searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every
one of you according to your works.
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as
many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known
the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you no
other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I
come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto
the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he
shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter
shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my
Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath
an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches
(Rev. 2:18-29).
To the assembly in Thyatira, which allowed itself to be
seduced by Jezebel (the same immoral heresy that Pergamum
merely tolerated), He is the one “who has his eyes like a flame of
fire and his feet are like polished brass.” Judgment is soon
coming. To the victors of Thyatira is given, “authority over the

Christianity had vanquished paganism, but in truth the Imperial Church had
merely absorbed it, tradition-by-tradition and rite-by-rite, it had bedded down
with Jezebel.
 Modern Laodicea 129
nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as the pottery
vessels are broken to pieces”—again a restoration, in that Adam
was to subdue and have dominion over God’s creation.

Thyatira, the historic city

Located inland on the banks of the Lycus river (northeast of
Smyrna and about forty miles southeast of Pergamum), of the
seven historical cities Thyatira was the least significant.
Although it did not have a commanding presence, still it was a
prosperous industrial city, known especially for its booming trade
guilds and the production of royal purple. Lydia, who was
converted at Philippi (Acts 16:14), and her family, have long been
considered the likely founders of this local church.
Jesus leveled very serious charges against the Christians of
Thyatira. They had permitted “that woman Jezebel” to seduce
them. Although she called herself a prophetess, she had taught,
and seduced, his servants “to commit fornication”—a clear
reference to both physical and spiritual infidelity.
Apollo was the primary deity of Thyatira, a center of activity
for the idolatrous and licentiousness Nicolaitans who had also
been seduced by the prophetess Jezebel—an advocate of pagan
worship. Like Balaam, she persuaded believers to compromise
their faith by co-mingling with hers. She taught that promiscuity
and physical infidelity were acceptable, even necessary. It was a
profane treatment of the spiritual teaching of Christian liberty.
But there was another offense. She also taught them “to eat
things sacrificed unto idols.” Meats sacrificed in the pagan
temples were seldom consumed on the altar. Only a very small
portion of the meat was actually burned, sometimes only a few
hairs from the animal’s head. After the priest took what portion
he wanted, the worshiper who had brought the sacrifice took the
rest. Worshipers then served these meats at special feasts for
friends and coworkers, either in the temple compound or in their
homes.
These feasts, when served in the homes of friends and
coworkers, presented a problem for the Christians. Should they
or should they not eat of it, in that it had been offered to an idol?
An additional problem was that even the butcher’s meat had very
130 What Paul Might Say Today?

likely been offered to an idol as well, and then sold to the butcher
from the priest’s excess. This issue of sacrificial meats had been
a controversy since the beginning of the Church. The Apostles
addressed it at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:29), and Paul
spoke of it to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 8-10). Each had come to
similar but slightly different conclusions: the Jerusalem Council
instructing new Gentile believers to simply abstain, and Paul
admonishing the Corinthians to abstain if it was going to cause
those with a weaker conscience to stumble. The overriding
principle was that one should not offend either his own, or
another’s conscience in this or other such matters.
In Thyatira, abstinence from these meats seriously limited the
Christians’ social lives. It also made it impossible for them to
join any of the trade guilds, all of which held common meals
served with meats offered to the idols. Paul explained to the
Corinthians that both an idol and the meat offered to it are
nothing, for in and of themselves, they are insignificant.
However, not everyone had this understanding, and many ate the
meat with consciousness toward the idol as if giving regard to the
sacrifice; thereby offending their conscience. It is for this reason
that abstinence is best, lest one offends the conscience of the
weak.
The religious significance placed on these sacrificial meats in
Thyatira compounded the issue. Participation in the ritual of
these religious feasts was expected, no one got along in society
without it. If one did not attend the feasts and eat the meats, he
did not take part in a guild and, ultimately, he found no work, or
his business received no patronage. Thus, no doubt Jezebel used
an argument of situational ethics to convince believers that it was
acceptable for them to partake in these banquets. After all, their
very livelihood was at stake.

The prophetic portrait of the church in Thyatira

Prophetically speaking, the Thyatiran Church Age brings us
into the dark ages. During the Pergamum period, the Church was
tolerated and controlled by the state. By the Thyatiran era, the
tables had turned; the Church now controlled the empire. Soon,
this Imperial Church was littered with the atrocities of the same
 Modern Laodicea 131
Babylonian Mysteries that Pergamum had merely tolerated.
Beyond mere toleration, now the Mysteries were being practiced
by some as holy necessities of the Christian faith.
Years earlier, attempting to escape the oppression of
paganism, Constantine had moved the center of the Church to
Byzantium, granting equal status to both the bishops of
Constantinople and Rome. But in the centuries to follow, the
bishop of Rome would become the clear leader of the state
Church. By the time the last Emperor was dethroned in 476, the
Roman Bishop was already the real power of the empire and,
subsequently, the real power over the new territorial kingdoms
established after the barbarian conquest.
One by one, the new territorial kings professed their
conversion to the Imperial Church and bowed their knee to the
Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome. To this day, the Bishop of Rome
(now known as the Pope), wields power over the fractured,
sleeping, Roman Empire. To this day the Pope claims the title,
Pontifex Maximus (the title held by the chief pagan priest of the
Babylonian Mysteries). The rituals of Babylonianism (introduced
by pagan priests who had migrated from Babylon to Pergamum,
and then on to Rome), are the hallmark of the Imperial Roman
Church. They are also the hallmark of the harlot in Revelation
chapter seventeen. The names of the gods and the rituals were
altered to seduce the unwary, but the essence of Babylonia
remained unscathed.
Thus, many of these ex-pagan priests, now the leaders of this
new Imperial Church, decided at the council of Ephesus in 431,
that Mary was born without original sin, that she was the mother
of God, the mediator between man and Christ, and that four feasts
should be established in her honor: annunciation, purification,
assumption and nativity. Herein is the essence of
Babylonianism—Satan’s counterpart to God’s revealed truth. In
ancient Babylonianism, Nimrod was worshiped as the savior and
his mother, Semiramis, whom he eventually married, was
worshiped as the Queen of Heaven, the mother of god. This
comparison is by no means meant to bring any dishonor on Mary,
who was indeed “blessed among women,” but Mary must be
viewed with proper perspective. To worship her as some sort of
demigod is not fitting.
132 What Paul Might Say Today?

As in Israel’s time, with Jezebel and King Ahab, this

Thyatiran period (in which the Imperial Church champions the
Mysteries of Babylon),24 is the darkest period in Church history.
And just as Jezebel promoted false worship and claimed to be a
prophetess of God, so too, the ruling Imperial Church took upon
herself the prestige of self-proclaimed infallibility. It was during
this period that the Church became completely compromised by
the pagan doctrines and rituals of Jezebel. As a result, we now
have such “Christian rituals” as the Christmas tree, the Easter egg
and bunny, hot cross buns, the sign of the cross, holy water,
prayers to the saints and even prayers to the mother of god.
These same pagan affiliations gave us prayer beads, various
icons, sanctuaries, altars, holy church buildings, convents, chants,
monasteries, priesthoods, holy orders and the vast divide between
the laity and the clergy.
Once again, the name is nothing less than fitting. Thyatira
means “continual sacrifice.” What could better depict the
Imperial Roman Church than the Eucharist, wherein
transubstantiation is said to occur. Here, the bread and wine
change into the body and blood of Christ, so that He is
continually sacrificed,25 a doctrine that blatantly ignores the truth
that, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb.
9:28).
Although the period of Thyatira eventually relinquished its
prominence to the era of Sardis, the corruption remains to this
day; like Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, remnants of Thyatira
will linger until the end of the age. Jesus warned Thyatira that
she would be cast “into a bed, and them that commit adultery
with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.”

24
The darkest period in Israel’s history was under the rule of King Ahab, and
his wife Jezebel. She, a worshiper of Baal, had infiltrated Israel, seducing
them with her devilish doctrine. The blackest, most sinister action of this
Imperial Church was its outright murder of the true saints of God—those
precious souls who refused to participate in its heathen rituals and doctrines.
25
The doctrine of transubstantiation—in which it is believed that Jesus dies at
each Eucharist, was a key issue with the reformers: Luther, taught
consubstantiation—that Jesus was nearby during the communion; Calvin
taught symbolism—that communion was simply a symbolic gesture by which
we remember Christ.
 Modern Laodicea 133
There are few words of encouragement for the Thyatirans,
but Jesus does commend them for some things; He said, “I know
thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience,
and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.” This
statement that the last works are greater than the first leads us to
believe that Thyatira (the remnants of which extends unto the end
of the age) will experience some reform near the end of the
Church Age. It does not take much consideration to equate these
last works with those of the Vatican Council in 1962-65, from
which, a gentler Imperial Church emerged. Here, the Roman
Church determined to seek reunion with the reformation
denominations, increase laity participation, and use vernacular
languages rather than the ancient, cryptic Latin. Of note also, is
the genuine concern Pope Benedict XVI seems to have had for
the faith (as did the late Pope John Paul II), taking a stand for
fundamental doctrines, even against great opposition. Certainly,
as the Church Age is coming to a close, these last works of the
Imperial Church outnumber her historic failures, which reached
their zenith during the Dark Ages.
Another encouraging word is given to those devout souls
who, despite having a heart toward God, have unwittingly found
themselves members of this Thyatiran Church. To them he says,
As many as have not this doctrine, and which have not
known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon
you no other burden. But that which ye have already hold
fast till I come.
Jesus telling them to hold fast till I come seems to be a reference
to the transfiguration of the faithful, the rapture, just prior to the
Great Tribulation.26 During His ministry, Jesus warned His
listeners to watch and pray that they be counted worthy to escape
the Great Tribulation (Lk. 21:36).

To the church in Sardis

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write;
These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God,
and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a

26
(see 1 Thess. 4:15-18)
134 What Paul Might Say Today?

name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and

strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die:
for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and
hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I
will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what
hour I will come upon thee.
Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not
defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in
white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same
shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his
name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an
ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches
(Rev. 3:1-6).
To the church at Sardis, which had a name and is dead, He is
the one who holds “the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars.”
Although they fall short in their work, the Lord does not. The
work of the Spirit is complete. Those few in Sardis who
overcome are promised to be “clothed in white raiment; and I
will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess
his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Only those
so clothed in the righteousness of Christ will escape having their
names blotted out of the Book of Life—a gain, another symbol of
restoration, in that blotting out names from the book of life began
in the Garden of Eden.

Sardis, the historic city

Located east of Smyrna and Ephesus, some thirty miles
southeast of Thyatira, once the capital of the great kingdom of
Lydia and home to the rich king Croesus, Sardis was an old city
by the time of this writing, with an illustrious history of financial
wealth dating back to the 6th Century BC.
Its strategic location on the northern slope of mount Tmolus,
with the river Pactolus flowing at its base, made it practically
impregnable. However, Cyrus was able to conquer Sardis in 549
BC, when a Median soldier paved the way to victory by
successfully scaling the acropolis. In 214 BC, Alexander the
 Modern Laodicea 135
Great conquered the city again. Then years later it suffered yet
another defeat at the hands of Antiochus the Great, so that now,
when John addressed it, it was a city of contrast—that of its past
splendor coupled with its present unrest and decline. Although it
had lost its greatness, it was still a considerable city in the 1st
Century. Pliny said it was here that the dyeing of wool was
discovered. Ramsay called it the City of Death, while others have
said it was a city of softness, luxury, apathy, and immorality.
This was also the seat of the licentious Cybele worship.
Along with Laodicea, Sardis is the most condemned of the
seven churches. The church of Sardis is admonished for its
failure, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest,
and art dead.” Melito, a 2nd Century bishop of Sardis, was
known for his piety and learning. After visiting Palestine to
assure himself and his flock as to the Old Testament canon, he
wrote an epistle on the subject and a commentary on The
Revelation. But things had changed in Sardis. This church was
like the city itself; though it once had a wonderful reputation it
was now morbid and decaying. Jesus cautioned them to,
Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that
are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect
before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received
and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt
not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not
know what hour I will come upon thee.
These believers had let their faith deteriorate to the point of
mere nominal Christianity. Their experience and their deeds were
all but non-existent. Thus, Jesus warned them, “I will come as a
thief in the night.” This would have special meaning to them, for
they lived under the constant threat of a notorious band of vicious
thieves residing unchallenged in the mountains surrounding the
city. Led by a man called Chakirijali, they would swoop down,
ravish and plunder a community, then quickly return to the high
country before capture.

The prophetic portrait of the church in Sardis

Sardis means “that which was left” or “remnant.” In the
prophetic view this church speaks of the Reformation Age. The
136 What Paul Might Say Today?

Reformation—and its subsequent Protestant movements—began

with much glory, founded by heroic theologians and their faithful
followers who sought, and managed to some degree, the return to
godly principles and biblical doctrine. Many of these saints gave
their lives defending God’s Word and attempting to rid the
Church of the Babylonian influences introduced by the
Pergamum and Thyatiran periods. Their labors led the world out
of the cruel inequities of the Dark Ages, into an era that produced
many great theologians and evangelists.
But from the beginning, they were hindered by traditions and
practices which they had brought with them from the previous
period. Each reformer withdrew from the Imperial Church by
differing degrees. The variations, although relatively minor,
prevented them from uniting in their quest for purity. The
divisions were immediate and sometimes very harsh. The end
result was our many Protestant denominations.
Like Sardis of old, these Protestant denominations, which
once stood boldly for Christ, are now, largely, Christian in name
only, so that today, much of organized Protestantism no longer
even accepts the basic doctrines of Christendom (the authority of
Scripture, the deity of Christ, etc.). For them, Christianity is a
tradition, a philosophy that molds itself to the times. Recently, at
the 2012 national legislative meeting of the United Methodist
Church (the largest Protestant body in America), the council
voted 60% to 40% to uphold the denomination’s policy that
homosexuality, is incompatible with Christian teaching. That it
was even on the docket for discussion is most distressing; that
40% of the council voted to modify the stance is abysmal.
Even more appalling is that the United Methodist Church is
the only mainline Protestant body that has not, as yet, relaxed its
stance on homosexuality. The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA),
and the United Church of Christ have all moved toward winking
at this lifestyle that is clearly forbidden in Scripture. Within a
week of the United Methodist’s vote, the president of the United
States of America announced that he, too, approves of the
homosexual lifestyle. Thus, Jesus warned the believers in Sardis:
“You be watching and establish the remaining things that are
 Modern Laodicea 137
ready to die.” The New International Version translates this
“You be watching” as “Wake Up!”
Jesus does commend them for having a “few names even in
Sardis which have not defiled their garments.” Others have
mentioned that out of Sardis flow two streams. Of the one there
is nothing to rebuke, and of the other there is nothing to praise.
These, of course, are Philadelphia and Laodicea.

To the church in Philadelphia

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;
These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he
that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man
shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy
works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no
man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept
my word, and hast not denied my name.
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,
which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I
will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to
know that I have loved thee.
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also
will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall
come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the
earth.
Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast,
that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I
make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no
more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God,
and the name of the city of my God, which is new
Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God:
and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an
ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches
(Rev. 3:7-13).
To Philadelphia, those who were faithful even though having
little strength, he is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath
the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and
shutteth, and no man openeth”—a pleasant reminder that their
138 What Paul Might Say Today?

strength is in him and that without Him they can do nothing. He

promised the Philadelphian victor that he would be made
a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more
out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the
name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which
cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write
upon him my new name.
Here is another restoration, for Adam was expelled from the
garden and given the task of tilling the ground from which he was
taken.

Philadelphia, the historic City

The city of Philadelphia, “brotherly love,” is located about
twenty-eight miles southeast of Sardis in a valley leading to the
Aegean Sea. Its economy was based on agriculture, industry, and
commerce. The Emperor Tiberius had rebuilt the city after it was
badly damaged in the earthquake of AD 17. Sardis had been
struck even harder by the quake, but subsequent frequent tremors
had so plagued the Philadelphians that for many years some
residents had been living in tents, in fear, outside of the city.
Although not a large city, it was frequently visited by
travelers. Situated on the trade routes leading to Lydia and
Phrygia, Ramsay called it the Missionary City, for it was a prime
avenue to promote the spread of the Greco-Roman civilization,
and later, Christianity—whose primary opposition in this region
was Judaism. During the Byzantine and medieval periods,
Philadelphia was perhaps the busiest trade route in the old world.
Although important to the empire, Philadelphia was not as
gifted as the other six cities to which these letters are written.
Neither was the church corrupt. The pagan authorities often
tested the Philadelphian believers, demanding them to blaspheme
the name of Christ or be killed. But they remained true with what
strength they possessed. In this Jesus commended them, for
although they had “little strength” they had kept his word and
had not denied his name. Not even the slightest hint of judgment
or condemnation is found in this message to the Philadelphians.
There is only praise, encouragement and promise. Only Smyrna
 Modern Laodicea 139
and Philadelphia escape censure. They are also the only churches
of the seven historical sites still in operation.

The prophetic portrait of the church in Philadelphia

Prophetically, Philadelphia depicts the Church of the 19th
and early 20th Century, a time of great revival and missionary
outreach. Avenues for evangelism, which had been closed for
centuries, were suddenly and miraculously opened. Jesus said,
“Behold, I have set before you an opened door.” These
champions of the faith were quite different from those leaders of
the Dark Ages, who used the sword to force Christianity upon the
vanquished.
The Philadelphians were promised deliverance: “Because
thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from
the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to
try them that dwell upon the earth.”27 In the prophetic sense, this
is a reference to the Great Tribulation from which the Church will
be saved via the rapture. This is not a time for the Church, but it
is a time for Israel and for the whole world, so that none, but the
faithful shall escape it. Speaking of the last days, Jesus warned,
“then shall be Great Tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world . . .” (Mt. 24:21). Paul, too, warned that it
would come “as a thief in the night, for when they shall say peace
and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them . . . and they
shall not escape.” He then encouraged his readers, saying, “but
you, brothers, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake
you like a thief” (1 Th. 5:2-4).
Differing views exist among the futurist, or pre-millennialist,
as to when the resurrection of the Church takes place. Pre-
millennialism understands that the Great Tribulation will occur
just prior to the Lord’s return to earth, at which time he will
establish his 1,000 year kingdom, thereby fulfilling the Davidic
covenant.
I will raise up your offspring after you, who will come forth
from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will
27
The Church is always promised escape or deliverance from the tribulation
while Israel is merely promised to be preserved through it (see Lk. 21:36; 1 Th.
5:4, 9, 10; Jer. 30:7; Zech. 13:7-9).
140 What Paul Might Say Today?

build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne

of his kingdom forever (2 Sam. 7:12-13).
Pre-tribulational, pre-millennialism provides the most
plausible chronology.28 Herein, the Great Tribulation is viewed
as period belonging to the Jews. It is not a time for the Church.
It is the 70th week of Daniel (Dan. 9:24-27). Daniel was told that
from the command to rebuild Jerusalem, his people had seventy
weeks to make reconciliation of iniquity and to bring in
everlasting righteousness. The Messiah, he was told, would be
cut off after the 69th week.29 This was fulfilled with the death of
Christ, but the 70th week is yet to occur. Daniel was also told that
the 70th week would span a seven year covenant made by the evil
prince who would also orchestrate the abomination of desolation.
Jesus made it clear that this abomination of desolation is yet to
occur and that when it did occur, it would be a sign of His soon
return (Mt. 24:15).
Furthermore, it is also understood that the last half of this
70th week is the time of Jacob’s trouble—a time of punishment,
specifically targeting the Jewish nation for having rejected their
Messiah. “Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it. It
is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he will be saved out of it”
(Jer. 30:7). As such, this period is not designed for the Church,
which is a separate redeemed body. Therefore, it is believed that
the Church will be caught away, translated into its heavenly state

28
Some hold to a Mid or Post Tribulational viewpoint. Mid-Tribulationalists
believe the translation of the Church will occur in the middle of the 70th week,
while Post-Tribulationalists believe it will occur at the end of the 70th week,
immediately prior to the return of the Lord. However, both of these views
have serious trouble reconciling such chronologies with very important
passages. For example, upon the dividing of the just and unjust at the return of
Christ, in the Post-Tribulational view there is no one left to populate the
kingdom, for everyone is either in hell or in a glorified, resurrected state. The
Mid-Tribulational view fails to consider Paul’s comment that the restraining
power must be removed before the man of sin, the one who is to make the
seven year covenant, is revealed.
29
This is a reference to weeks of years. It was a common and important
measurement of sabbatical time in the Jewish calendar (see Gen. 29:26-28).
Failure to keep these sabbatical weeks played a large part in the Babylonian
captivity of the Jewish nation; and it determined the 70-year period (Lev. 25-
26).
 Modern Laodicea 141
immediately prior to the tribulation. This is what we commonly
refer to as the rapture.30 Thus the encouragement to the
Thessalonians,
But we do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning those who are sleeping, that you grieve not,
even as the rest—those having no hope. For if we believe
that Jesus died and rose again, even so those having slept
in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you
by the Word of the Lord, that we—those living, those
remaining unto the arrival of the Lord—by no means shall
precede those having slept. For the Lord himself, with a
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet
of God, shall descend from heaven and the dead in Christ
shall rise first. Then we—those living, those remaining—
together, shall be caught up with them in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the
Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words (1
Th. 4:13-18).
Paul had discussed these things with the Thessalonians, but
false teachers had crept into the congregation and contradicted his
instructions, telling them they had missed the gathering and that
they were actually in the Day of the Lord, the seventieth Week.
Therefore Paul wrote to them again, carefully explaining the
chronology of these future events. First the apostasy; then He
that restrains the evil (the Holy Spirit) will allow the son of
perdition (the antichrist) to be revealed; then is the Day of the
Lord.
Now we beseech you, brothers, touching the arrival of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him, so

30
In the Greek term in the text, 1 Th. 4:17, αρπαγησομεθα harpageesmetha,
literally means “shall be seized, shall be taken away” in a physical sense.
Although our popular term “rapture,” which we use to describe this event, is
not found in our popular versions, the term is not exactly amiss. Our modern
term rapture has a meaning of “a mystical experience in which the spirit is
exalted to a knowledge of divine things.” Thus, because when we are caught
away physically into the heavens to be with the Lord, we will see Him as He
is, “rapture” is a justifiable figurative term (in a dynamic equivalence sense) to
express this event: see 1 Th. 4:13-5:10; 1 Cor. 15:51; Jm. 5:7-9; Lk. 21:36.
142 What Paul Might Say Today?

that you be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor

disturbed, neither by spirit, nor by speech, nor by epistle as
from us, as that the day of the Lord is come. Let no one
deceive in any way, because [that day shall not come]
except the apostasy come first, and the man of sin is
revealed, the son of perdition, the one opposing and
exalting himself against all that is called God or that is
worshiped; so that he sits in the temple of God, setting
himself forth as God. Don’t you remember that when I was
yet with you, I used to tell you these things? And now you
know the thing restraining, so that he be revealed in his
own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already
works—only there is one that restrains now, until he be
taken out of the midst, and then shall be revealed the
lawless one (whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath
of his mouth, and bring to naught by his glorious
appearance), of whom whose coming is according to the
working of Satan with all power and signs and lying
wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them
that perish; because they did not receive the love of the
truth, that they might be saved. And, therefore, God sends
to them a working of error, that they should believe a lie;
that they all might be judged—those who did not believe the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Th. 2:1-12).
The promise and prophetic statement that those of the
Philadelphian Church Age would be kept from the hour of trial
about to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon
the earth, cannot, in itself, be considered conclusive evidence as
to the pre-tribulational taking away of the Church—indeed, no
single passage can be used in such a manner for any subject or
doctrine—but this passage certainly lends strong evidence to this
view. In a context speaking to this coming time of judgment,
Paul told the Thessalonians that they were, “not appointed unto
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Th.
5:9); and speaking of this time, Jesus instructed believers “Be
watchful, always, praying that you might be able to escape” the
Great Tribulation (Lk. 21:36).
 Modern Laodicea 143

To the church in Laodicea

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans
write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy
works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods,
and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art
wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I
counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou
mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be
clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear;
and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous
therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and
knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will
come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To
him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my
Father in His throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches (Rev. 3:14-21).
To the church at Laodicea, those who had fallen into a
lukewarm testimony of the faith, Jesus is “the Amen, the faithful
and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” A
statement designed both to convict them and to portray Himself
as the example in service and life. To the victors of this seventh
and final church, He promised they would be granted “to sit with
me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with
my Father in His throne;” once again a restoration. Adam had
been a co-ruler and shared a deep intimate fellowship with the
Lord.

Laodicea, the historic city

Not far from Phrygia, Colosse, and Hierapolis, Laodicea was
located in the Lycus valley, about forty miles southeast of
144 What Paul Might Say Today?

Philadelphia and forty miles east of Ephesus. Settled along the

bustling eastern trade route from Ephesus, it was home to many
trading banks and manufacturers of wool carpets and clothing. It
was a city very proud of its wealth and affluence, Ramsay called
it the City of Compromise. Here too, was another seat of
Asklepios worship and thus, another medical school. Centuries
later, Cicero would live here and write several of his letters.
Jesus describes the historic church of Laodicea as nothing
less than apostate in both word and deed.31 It is a church no
longer concerned with sound theology. Their concern was for the
luxuries of material life. Appropriately, the name Laodicea
means “laity rules,” which in the historic context means “people
rule.” This is a rebellious church that has little regard for its
elders, its pastors. It is a renegade church in pursuit of personal
satisfaction.
As with each of the seven churches, the Lord’s comments are
tailored to their peculiarities. Here, he gives not one word of
praise; nothing good is said about them. Rather, he indicts their
faith for being “lukewarm . . . neither cold nor hot.” Certainly
the Laodiceans would have understood the meaning of this
statement. Not far from town were a number of extraordinary hot
springs; by the time their waters reached town they were
lukewarm, tepid, not fit to drink. Thus, he said “I will spue thee
out of my mouth.” His words are strong; the Greek term for spue
εμέσαι (emesai) is the term from which we get the word emesis.
It meant to vomit or reject with disgust. Who enjoys a lukewarm
beverage? Aside from the unsavory taste, it breeds bacteria.
Laodicea was the exact opposite of Smyrna. Christians in
Laodicea took glory in, and bragged of, their material wealth.
The persecuted saints in Smyrna lost their worldly possessions;
many lost their lives for their faith. The believers in Smyrna
served as role models for the faith; not so the Laodiceans. They
were very pleased with their personal financial success; the Lord
was not impressed. His words were stern. Thus, it is worth

31
Apostasy (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-8, 4:1-4; 2 Pet. 2 & 3; 1 Jn. 2:18-19;
2 Jn. 7-11).
 Modern Laodicea 145
noting the special rebuke He has for each of their prized
possessions.
As for their material wealth, being rich and increased with
goods, and in need of nothing, He told them to “buy of me gold
tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich.” The Laodiceans
produced very rare and expensive black wool which was used for
making fine garments. To this he said, buy from me “white
raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy
nakedness do not appear.” They manufactured a special powder
as well, which, when mixed with a certain medium served as a
medicinal eye salve. He said, “anoint thine eyes with eye salve,
that thou mayest see.”
Someone has paraphrased this message as such: “All that you
have, all that is so precious to you, that which is the center of
your life, means nothing to me. It has no value toward your
future state. Buy from me, without price, that which is needed.
Put to use the very medicine for which you are famous.” As we
might recall, the Lord gave a similar message to Israel:
“Everyone that thirsts, come to the waters, and he that has no
money, come, buy and eat. Yes. Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price” (Isa. 55:1). Eventually these
lukewarm, non-committed Christians of Laodicea were
exterminated in a great massacre. In the end, their wealth was of
no value.

The prophetic portrait of the church in Laodicea

Now we arrive at the purpose for including this chapter
among these critiques in the practical theology of 21st Century
Western Christendom. Laodicea is the prophetic picture of the
Church in the last days. We are in the last days. We are
Laodicea. Any honest look at the modern Western Church and
Western culture will see the Laodicean state of mind.
The Western culture is wealthy beyond belief. We are the
world leaders in luxurious items and medical supplies. Our
churches are wealthy as well. When compared to other cultures,
even the majority of those living on government assistance in our
culture are rich. They have plenty to eat, a closet full of clothes, a
roof over their heads and indoor plumbing. They have a cell
146 What Paul Might Say Today?

phone, a big, flat screen TV and cable, air conditioning, and a

nice car in the driveway. All this and they don’t even have to
work.
Truly, we are rich and increased with goods and have need of
nothing. In our culture, even in many churches, one’s success is
measured by his financial statement. It is quite telling that the
greatest health issue among our “poor” is obesity. We are the
modern embodiment of Laodicea. We are the fulfillment of this
prophetic passage.
This is especially true of American culture where, although
we comprise a mere 5% of the world’s population, we are among
the largest consumers of manufactured goods, the niceties of life,
and advanced healthcare. Of course, we appease ourselves with
the idea that God has blessed us because of our righteous heritage
and commitment to Christian ethics. Because we are the product
of God’s blessing, we take great national and personal pride in
our material possessions, which, after all, we have earned. Slick
looking, fast talking, Bible toting, preachers and televangelists, on
the airwaves 24/7, affirm our God-given right to these blessings.
They sell books and sermons, seminars explaining just how
Christians can, and are meant to, receive financial rewards.
But I submit that this is a facade. It is the prosperity theology
of Laodicea. Outwardly, most followers of evangelical orthodoxy
reject this health and wealth gospel as fallacious; but inwardly,
and behind closed doors, they likely admire it, practice it, and rely
upon it as truth. Like Laodicea, this self-deception is nothing
more than a mask covering the ugly face of misplaced trust,
which, like that of the Laodiceans, is placed in self, wealth,
materialism, and a medical system promising impossible cures.
A prime example of this opulence within the Church can be
clearly observed by simply comparing the yearly missionary
budget (of nearly any local church in America) with the total
sums spent on worldly excesses by its parishioners. Then, to
further make the point, divide the total of these worldly excesses
into separate categories; it is likely that even the individual
categories will top the missionary expenditures. It is just as likely
that certain families alone, within the church, will have personal
excessive expenditure that top the entire church’s missionary
 Modern Laodicea 147
fund. Some topics that might fit well into these categories of
excess could be extravagant vacations, expensive dinners, ball
games, expensive jewelry, elegant clothing, luxurious motor
vehicles, recreational flying, mansion-like houses, luxurious
church buildings, ad nauseam.
In general, the average church member in America finds
more pleasure in, and gets more excited about, sporting events
than evangelism. And no doubt, he finds a greater sense of
fulfillment in his patriotic fervor than in discipleship. Frankly, he
is more concerned with his IRA, stock options, 401K, and
retirement plan, than with his spiritual life or missionary work.
Am I saying that all luxuries, material goods, wealth and
entertainment are wrong or sinful? Of course not; but I am saying
they are clearly out of perspective. When as much, or more,
concern is given to such trivial activities and luxuries and sports
than is given to spiritual matters, it is a good indication that we do
not know how “wretched . . . and miserable and poor and blind
and naked” we are.
Furthermore, to counterbalance this lust for wealth (perhaps
for no other reason than merely to placate our consciences), we
have developed a legalistic mindset that, at least outwardly, seeks
the ethical reformation of society. Laying aside true efforts of
evangelism, achieved by the testimony of personal example, we
exert vast amounts of energy on socio-political reform. It is
echoed from our pulpits, on Christian television and radio
programs, books are written about it; we have demonstrations and
protests. We even form alliances with Christian heretics that we
might further pursue this self-serving, temporal agenda. We are
so dogmatically bent on, and content with, the mere socio-
political reform of our society that we pursue it even at the
expense of those whom we actually would seek to convert.
Sadly, I fear it is not society’s conversion, or even reform, that we
truly seek with our pharisaical legalism; but we seek, merely, to
placate our consciences.
Basking in the luxury of material wealth, the historic
Laodicean Christian community was content and proud of its
success. They were fat and sassy and without conviction. But
this temporal, pseudo-happiness, coupled with their spiritual
ignorance, resulted in spiritual lethargy and indifference. They
148 What Paul Might Say Today?

are we. We are them. We are delusional and do not know just
how “wretched . . . and miserable and poor and blind and
naked” we were.
Scripture warns of the apostasy that will prevail in the last
days. Jesus asked, “when the Son of man returns, shall he find
faith be on the earth?” (Lk. 18:7-9). The entire letter of Jude is
given to this subject. Paul, Peter, and John refer to it in their
epistles. At the beginning of these seven letters, and thus
prophetically, at the beginning of the Church Age, Jesus is
standing in the midst of the churches (Rev. 1:13); now in
Laodicea, at the end of the Church Age, he is standing outside,
knocking on the door, seeking entrance. “Behold, I stand at the
door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I
will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev.
3:20).

Conclusion
What a mixture, this Church in the last days—with remnants
of the Thyatiran, Sardis, Philadelphian and Laodicean ages co-
mingled, representing Christ to the world. One is entangled in
ancient pagan mysteries. Another bears no vestige of Christ,
other than the “Christ” in Christianity, a title to which it clings
even though it denies the fundamental doctrines that define the
faith. In yet another (the dominant body of the times), is
opulence and gaudy self-reliance. Aside from the relatively few
faithful souls within these apostate bodies, only those of the
Philadelphian remnant are upholding the Word of the Lord; and
they, Jesus said, are of but little strength. May every reader of
this work seek to be among the remnant of the Philadelphian
believers.
 Reality, What Is It? 149

Reality, What Is It?

Although they are loath to admit it, the more scientists learn
about our universe, the more this knowledge seems to necessitate
intelligent design. That is, “In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth.” This critique argues that point, then
concludes with the answer to perhaps the most asked question of
all time: What is the meaning of life?
Societal and peer pressures, exerted by the modern academic
and scientific communities, cause many to shy away from the
creation account as set forth in Genesis. This interferes with
evangelism. Therefore, this chapter (concerning ontological
issues, which are actually matters of Theology Proper) is included
among these critiques on Practical Theology to show there is no
scientific reason to retire the Genesis account. The knowledge
gained in the following pages should strengthen our faith as it
further clarifies the answer to the hope that lies within us.
The intention for my original publication (which largely
makes up this chapter), was to produce an evangelical tool for
science nerds. As such, I ascribed a fancy title for publication:
“An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of
Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance,” which was
published in Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 27-42.
Translated into everyday terms, this title could be, “A theory, and
defense thereof, to reconcile non-physical realities with physical
realities.” Ultimately, the discussion is directed toward the
necessity of God’s Spirit (the non-physical) involved in, and
communicating with, the physical creation, and the non-physical
human spirit communicating with its corporeal human body.
The first several pages show that our universe, at the
quantum or subatomic level, is merely emptiness, electromagnetic
energy, and information. Therefore, what we perceive as solid
matter is the product of electromagnetic force fields between
150 What Paul Might Say Today?

various systems found at both the subatomic level of electrons,

protons, neutrons, etc, as well as the visible world of molecules,
cells, and physical structures. This is the basic theme of the first
few pages, so don’t let any unfamiliar terms (purposefully
employed for the scientifically minded) dissuade you. Once you
get through these first pages, the terminology eases up. Stick
with the logic of the argument, and the meaning of any unfamiliar
terms should become self evident.

Outline
Because one is tangible and the other intangible the physical
and metaphysical are generally treated separately. But this
dichotomy is illogical; at the very least it is inconsistent with
reality, for the two are inseparable. A basic introduction to the
principle issues in quantum physics is provided to stress to this
point.
I. First we discuss:
A. Our physical reality which consists largely of empty
space, electromagnetic energy, and information.
B. The metaphysical activities and implications of subatomic
particles as evidenced by studies in entanglement,
quantum teleportation, and zero-point energy.
II. Then the impossibility of several critical issues:
A. The spontaneous ex nihilo appearance of a theretofore
non-existent exploding mass, via its own non-existent
energy.
B. The spontaneous and complex self-organization of this
chaotic array of inorganic material.
C. The spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic
non-life.
D. The spontaneous generation of reproductive ant intelligent
life from simple life forms.
E. The formation of our complex metaphysical reality from
physical matter.
 Reality, What Is It? 151
III. This then leads to an apology for the necessity of a Creator.

IV. A theory is set forth that reconciles inorganic, organic, and

animated matter with the metaphysical realities of both the
Creator and the created.

A. By coupling the metaphysical implications of quantum

physics with the biblical understanding of God’s
attributes, the thesis is set forth that our immediate
physical reality—consisting of empty space,
electromagnetic energy and information—is basically a
holographic depiction of God’s intent. God spoke and it
was so.

B. Since creation, God’s Spirit has continued to energize and

interact with the universe in an entangled nature at the
quantum level.

C. Similarly, the individual metaphysical reality of each

animated being interacts with its individual corporeal
body via this same entangled nature at the subatomic
level.

D. Key theological issues are also addressed:

1. Man’s having been created in the image of God.

2. Freewill.
3. The existence of evil.
4. Redemption.
5. And finally, because man is a special creature created
in God’s image it follows that man, merely by his
intent, has within himself the ability, at least in a
limited capacity, to cause change to his environment,
this holographic reality; thus biblical healings and
miracles occur. This concept could also provide an
explanation for certain other human generated
phenomena.
152 What Paul Might Say Today?

Introduction
I have been contemplating this issue of ontology for more
than 40 years: the conformity of non-physical realities with that
of physical matter. Of special interest has been the reconciliation
of our metaphysical cognizance and our corporeal existence. Of
course I did not know these big words back then and would have
stated it differently, but the concepts were there. Back then it
was: How do the non-material and the material interact? And
how do the mind and the body work together?
Both realities (the metaphysical and the material) are
undeniable, yet neither is easily understood. Because one is
tangible and the other intangible, they are generally treated
separately and seldom treated as a unit. But this dichotomy is
illogical; at the very least it is inconsistent with reality, for the
two are inseparable, at least in this life.
From the very beginning of my muse (when my thoughts
were still in their infant stage) until this present day, the resultant
inferences of this union have profoundly affected me; not in a
mere philosophical sense alone, but in an immediate practical
sense, having considerable influence on many issues and
decisions in my life and even, to some degree, shaping my
personality.
That our physical universe exists is denied by no one; but of
equal reality are the multi-faceted metaphysical aspects of our
daily existence. Beyond animation and consciousness, we think
complex thoughts, communicate, create, find humor, make music,
make inferences, and (perhaps except for the sociopath)
experience emotion and direct our lives by a basic universal set of
morals—intuitively knowing right from wrong: That we should
not kill, lie or steal; and when we do so our conscience is highly
offended. These metaphysical realities are as much a part of our
makeup as is our physical world.
But where and how do these worlds meet: the physical and
metaphysical? Any discipline focused on one to the exclusion of
the other is incomplete and ultimately dishonest with its data.
Nevertheless, these exclusions exist, with extreme views held by
proponents on both sides. On the one hand are those who
advocate a purely material universe in which everything follows
 Reality, What Is It? 153
predictable laws of physics. In this closed system with its finite
number of forces, theoretically everything in the known universe
could be predicted and analyzed. Therefore, even the notion of
metaphysical realities (which necessarily lie outside the basic
laws of physics) is not subject to consideration, thereby
effectively excluding such concepts as spirituality, supernatural
intervention, and even life after death. On the other hand, are
various pseudo-spiritual orders that dismiss the significance of the
material world, so much so that some even hold the physical body
in contempt.
Both extremes are mistaken; each adhering to a worldview
that necessarily obstructs its vision of reality. With this as the
premise it is the objective of this paper to reconcile these two
worlds: the material and the metaphysical.

The amazing universe

The wonders of the universe are untold. To this day science
is mystified by the underlying forces and natural phenomena that
are so basic to our existence: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear
forces, and even light. Although certain observed laws of
classical Newtonian physics are able to accurately predict various
characteristics of each, still physicists do not fully understand any
of them.
As quantum physicists attempt to answer fundamental
questions at the subatomic level where Newtonian physics fails,
they have discovered new realities, which have brought them to
terms with concepts that challenge specific features of classical
thought. For example, if atoms were governed by the classical
laws of electromagnetism the positively charged protons would
repel each other even as the negatively charged orbiting electrons
would be drawn toward and collide with the protons. Instead the
protons hold their place in the nucleus and the electrons stay in
their distant orbital paths. Thus, one of the most startling
discoveries of quantum mechanics was that here, at the subatomic
level of energy, the rules have changed.32

32
Ford, Kenneth W. 2005. The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for
Everyone. Cambridge, MA: First Harvard University Press, 1.
154 What Paul Might Say Today?

This enigma sparked the initial studies in quantum mechanics

as scientists sought diligently to explain the atom. The spectra of
light emitted from different atomic species were of special
interest to the physicists. Indeed, the nature of light itself has
always been a primary concern for physicists. In spite of the
rigorous debate being waged since the 1600’s, as to whether it is a
particle or a wave, the issue is still not settled to everyone’s
satisfaction. However, because recent studies show that light
simultaneously maintains certain properties of both waves and
particles, while simultaneously failing to display other certain
properties of both, some quantum physicists have concluded that
light is intrinsically neither a wave nor a particle. For these
reasons quantum field theory currently holds to a wave-particle
duality definition of light in which photons (considered the
smallest particles in classical physics) are now thought of “only at
their instant of creation or destruction, and to consider light to be
a probability wave in between these times;” except for the
geometrical limit where light continues to act like a particle with
an assigned trajectory.33
Is that confusing enough? Trust me, it is confusing to the
scientists as well; and I have merely presented an extremely
simplified, amateurish version. But this is significant because
Newtonian physics taught that the universe consists solely of
solid particle-based matter, where everything is the sum total of
its parts; a closed system with a finite number of forces that
theoretically could be totaled, and by understanding the basic
laws that govern these particle-based interactions everything in
the known universe could be predicted and analyzed. However,
and to the surprise of many, studies in quantum mechanics
revealed the atom to be something more complex than mere solid
particles;34 and neither the universe not the atom, as we shall see,
is it the closed system of classical thought.
33
Carlson, E. H. “Wave-Particle Duality: Light.” Physnet. Peter Signell for
Project Physnet, Physics-Astronomy Building, Michigan State University, E.
Lansing, MI. (ID Sheet MISN-0-246: Version 2/1/2000):8. E. Lansing, MI.:
Michigan State University, 8.
34
Cottingham, W.N. and Greenwood, D.A. 2007. An Introduction to the
Standard Model of Particle Physics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 1.
 Reality, What Is It? 155

The subatomic world

Atoms of course are unimaginably small with some having
diameters something in the order of 1 x 10-10 meters.35 A few
illustrations may help put this in perspective. An atom is about a
million times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.36 It
would take a million atoms, edge to edge, to equal the thickness
of a page of paper or 100 million atoms side by side to stretch 1
centimeter.37 With every breath you take “you inhale a million
billion billion” atoms of oxygen.38
Atoms consist of a nucleus, orbiting electrons, and mostly
empty space. The very tiny nucleus is comprised of positively
charged protons and neutral neutrons. But the phrase “very tiny”
does not adequately depict the size of the nucleus, which is
smaller than its perspective atom in varying degrees from a factor
of 23,000 for uranium to a factor of 145,000 for hydrogen. And
electrons are even smaller—almost 2,000 times smaller than a
single proton.39
To put this in perspective look at the period (or dot) at the
end of this sentence. If you are reading paper pages, versus a
digital display, the period contains about 100 billion carbon
atoms. To see one of these atoms with the naked eye we would
have to magnify the dot to a diameter of 100 meters (a little larger
than a football field).40 Then to see the nucleus of one of these
carbon atoms the dot would have to be enlarged to about 10,000
kilometers, which is roughly the size of the earth from pole to
pole.41 In yet another perspective, if the nucleus was the size of a
baseball, the atomic diameter, which is established by the orbiting

35
Glenn Ebert, ed. 2007. “Diameter of an Atom.” The Physics Factbook: An
Encyclopedia of Scientific Essays. Written by his students (Michael P.); an
educational, Fair Use website. http://www. hyper textbook.com/facts
(accessed July 18, 2007).
36
Glenn Ebert.
37
Oklahoma State Chemistry Department. Concepts/Skills Development.http:
//intro. chem.okstate.edu/ ChemSource/Atomic/concpt2.htm (accessed July 18,
2007; no longer posted).
38
Close, 1.
39
Ford, 2.
40
Close, 2.
41
Close, 2-4.
156 What Paul Might Say Today?

electrons, would be about 4 kilometers. That is nearly 2 ½ miles

across; and the electrons would each be smaller than a period
(.).42 Between the nucleus and the electrons is empty space.
But things get even smaller. While classical Newtonian
physics considered these subatomic features to be particle-based
mass with the nucleus accounting for virtually all of the atomic
mass, quantum physicists theorize that particle-based mass, even
in the nucleus, is all but non-existent. Some believe the very tiny
nucleus consists almost exclusively of strong interaction energies
and the gluon field—a mass-less mediator of the strong
interaction between certain “fundamental particles” called quarks,
which they surmise account for slightly less than 1% of its
fundamental particle mass. In our aforementioned analogy, that is
1% of the baseball. Neither are electrons any longer considered a
particle-based mass. They are structureless point particles43 or
non-partial based clouds of negative electromagnetic energy.
For many, even the concept of the discrete 1% zero-
dimensional fundamental nucleonic particle is now brought into
question, replaced by the idea of wave-packets of uncertain
boundary, with mysterious properties known only as probabilities
interacting with other particles. For those quantum physicists
who promote superstring theory in their diligent effort to
harmonize general relativity with quantum mechanics,44 the
notion of discrete zero-dimensional particles is completely
discarded in favor of very tiny one-dimensional supersymmetric
strings of energy, each having unique resonant vibrations—like
that of a guitar string—characterized by the particular
fundamental force in question. In this view, “specific particles
correspond to specific oscillation modes (or quantum states) of
the string.”45
Not only does superstring theory do away with the traditional
idea of particle-based mass, it also opens the door to, and even

42
Oklahoma State Chemistry Department.
43
Cottingham and Greenwood.
44
Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, John H Schwarz. 2007. String Theory and
M-Theory: A Modern Introduction. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 1.
45
Becker, Becker and Schwarz, 2.
 Reality, What Is It? 157
requires, multiple dimensions beyond those with which we are
accustomed. While we are familiar with the three spatial
dimensions of length, width and height, and with the generally
considered fourth dimension, time, superstring theory mandates
additional spatial dimensions that are too small for our direct
observation.
It is also interesting to note that physicists believe these
strings of energy are either closed (forming a loop) or open
(forming a line interval). I cannot help but to think of the binary
numeric system as used in electronic circuitry and computer
programming. I can imagine a subatomic world in which there
are various vibrating strings of electromagnetic energy, some
circular like a “0,” some linear like a “1,” interlocked in various
multidimensional mathematical computations to form complex
structures in multidimensional binary code.
If the speculations of superstring theory are correct there is
no such thing as particle-based atomic mass. If the concepts of
general quantum physics are correct the atom is less than 1%
particle-based mass. And even if we hold to the original and now
discredited notion of subatomic particle-based mass, still the atom
is mostly empty space. The nature of the subatomic structure
compels us to address the fundamental question of matter; for the
only things we can identify with certainty are infinitesimal
charges of electricity and a vast amount of empty space. We
know these tiny electric charges create electromagnetic force
fields that cause atoms, and the various molecular chemical
compounds they form, to present as solid matter;46 but in the end
we are still dealing with the infinitesimal charges of
electromagnetic energy and empty space. This is the core of what
we perceive as our physical reality.

Zero-point energy field

Another subject of special concern to our topic is the zero-
point energy field. Newtonian physics postulates that if we were
to cool the sea of virtual particles underlying every point in the
universe to absolute zero it would retain no energy. However,

46
Close, 3.
158 What Paul Might Say Today?

once again many physicists were amazed to find an enormous

amount of energy resides in this zero-point energy field;
consequently, its intricate nature has become a principal feature
of quantum physics. Quantum physicists believe the zero-point
energy field inextricably and inexplicably connects everything in
the universe, so that some have dubbed it the Mind of God. Not
that physicists are being converted to Christianity (or to any
world religion) by the droves; but they have reached a dilemma in
their unified field theory in which subatomic systems
mysteriously defy the known laws of physics so that events some
might consider miraculous (that is, in defiance of the laws of
classical physics) are not only accounted for but expected. For
example, quantum physicists postulate that even as the expansion
of the universe accelerates, “zero-point energy is assumed to be
constant: no matter how much the universe expands it does not
become diluted, but instead more zero-point energy is assumed to
be created out of nothing.” Furthermore, they believe “the zero-
point exerts a negative pressure which, counter-intuitively, leads
to an expansion of space-time.”47 To the consternation of many,
this is not the closed system of Newtonian physics.
The issue of “locality versus non-locality” is of special
interest to our topic. Recent studies have provided quantum
physicists with what they believe is empirical evidence against
local realism. Local realism speaks of the intuitive notion that
particles within a specific subatomic structure are not influenced
by systems that are not present within that local structure, and that
these particles have a physical reality of definitive values that are
not influenced by an observer.48 Simply stated, this speaks of a
closed system. However, many studies have demonstrated that
predictions of quantum mechanics at the subatomic level are not
intuitive; that is, they are not subject to the expectations of local

47
Bernard Haisch, Director. “Zero Point Energy and Zero Point Field.”
Calphysics Institute. http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html (accessed July 10,
2007), 4.
48
Yoav Ben-Dov. 1994. “Conference Talk published in: Frontiers of
Fundamental Physics.” Cohn Institute for the History of Science, Tel-Aviv
University. (Ed. F. Selleri, London: Plenum Publications.
http://bendov.info/eng/crucial.htm (accessed August 11, 2007).
 Reality, What Is It? 159
realism.49,50,51 To the contrary, effects at the quantum level
exhibit characteristics of non-locality, hence making it not
possible to treat spatially separated systems as independent. This
“open system” implication of non-locality was Einstein’s primary
objection to quantum mechanics because the notion of non-
locality makes possible what he ridiculed as, “spooky action at a
distance.”52
However, it has been shown that at the subatomic level the
very act of observing will cause the phenomenon being observed
to change; thus the term, observer effect. For example, before an
electron could be observed a photon would necessarily have to
interact with it which then changes the path of the electron. And
physicists believe that even less direct means of measurement
whereby direct observation is absent will still, theoretically,
modify the photon’s position. Even at the level of macroscopic
life the physics necessary to observe or measure a particular
phenomenon causes change. For instance, to measure the
temperature of a particular solution we place a thermometer in the
solution, which then interacts with the solution, thereby absorbing
some of the energy and consequently, changing the temperature
of the solution. Therefore, it is concluded that one cannot observe
a system without entering into that system and thereby causing
change to that system.
Of equal importance to the issue of non-locality is the
phenomenon of entanglement. The noted philosophizing
physicist and professor of physics at Vienna University, Dr.
Anton Zeilinger, explained that at the quantum level, once two or
more particles connect by colliding like billiard balls, they are

49
Simon Gröblacher, et al. 2007. “An Experimental Test of Non-locality
Realism.” Nature 446: 871-875.
50
Paul G Kwiat, et al. 2001. “Experimental Entanglement Distillation and
‘Hidden’ Non-Locality.” Nature 409: 1014-1017.
51
Jian-Wei Pan, et al. 2000. “Experimental Test of Quantum Nonlocality in
Three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Entanglement.” Nature 403: 515-
519.
52
Dennis Overbye. 2006. “New Tests of Einstein’s ‘Spooky’ Reality.”
International Herald Tribune on the Web, 10 January 2006,
www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/28/healthscience/sneinstein.php (accessed
August 15, 2007).
160 What Paul Might Say Today?

immediately linked or entangled, and the information each

particle contained is “smeared over both particles,” so that no
matter how far apart they are, by measuring the previously
uncertain momentum of one, the second will instantaneously gain
a clearly-defined momentum. This information, he contends, “is
the basic building block of our world.” It is “at the basis of
everything we call ‘nature’ . . . because we can’t talk about
anything without de facto speaking about the information we have
of these things.”53
Amazingly, with this knowledge physicists have successfully
realized Einstein’s concern of “spooky action at a distance” by
using methods of entanglement to teleport particle properties up
to 600 meters under the Danube River; and they believe,
theoretically, the distance is limitless.54

The significance of quantum physics

By now I suspect the reader is asking: Why all this
discussion about physics? My objective is not to explain or even
introduce classical or quantum physics. Indeed, if it were I have
failed miserably, for I have but scratched the surface of a topic
about which admittedly I have limited knowledge. I will leave
technical introductions and explanations to the physicists. My
interest is geared more toward the practical than the technical; the
implications for the driver of the car if you will, versus the
painstaking analysis of the design engineer. So I have merely
pointed out that the car has certain features; I have not addressed
in detail, nor do I wish to address, the intricate mechanical
engineering of these features.
Nor is it my intent to set one branch of physics against the
other, nor even necessarily to side with one or the other. That
being said, my objective is twofold. First, to show that atoms,
and thus the universe, consists of empty space and mysterious

53
Anton Zeilinger. “Spooky Action and Beyond.” An interview by Die
Weltwoche. Original interview in German on January 3, 2006. English
version sited from http://www. signandsight.com/ features/614.html (accessed
August 12, 2007).
54
Zeilinger.
 Reality, What Is It? 161
infinitesimal interactions of electromagnetic energy and
information. Depending upon one’s scientific view of subatomic
fundamental particles, the universe is exclusively (or almost
exclusively) empty space and very tiny charges of
electromagnetic energy and information. This necessarily causes
us to contemplate, our perception of the material universe.
The second purpose for addressing these issues is to point out
that at the subatomic level of energy the universe is not the closed
system that many have supposed. The zero-point energy field and
non-locality as evidenced by the observer effect, entanglement,
and teleportation dismiss this notion. The significance is that
because electromagnetic energy at the level of the photon is
entangled and exhibits the effects of non-locality (so that it can be
influenced by remote systems) phenomena are not only possible,
they are expected.
These discoveries continue to amaze the physicists who seek
to understand this subatomic world. It is so different from what
we know as reality that Dr. Zeilinger said, “It’s all pretty crazy.”
And taking it yet a step further, he explained, “The spooky effect
at a distance is a process outside time and space that even I can‘t
really imagine. But I believe that quantum physics tells us
something very profound about the world. And that is that the
world is not the way it is independently of us. That the
characteristics of the world are to a certain extent dependent on
us.”55 For example, as we measure a particle, its previously
uncertain location and velocity becomes a reality at that moment.
In so doing, he observed, “we’ve had a major impact on
reality.”56
So then, from quantum physics we learn that our physical
universe consists largely of empty space and infinitesimal charges
of electromagnetic energy and information, and that subatomic
systems are not only subject to influence from distant systems,
they are to a certain extent conditioned by us. All of this becomes
extremely important to our ultimate understanding of the union
between the physical and the metaphysical.

55
Zeilinger.
56
Zeilinger.
162 What Paul Might Say Today?

The big question

The significance of these findings must not be overlooked.
Despite the extremely complex nature of physics, with concepts
and mathematical formulas that only a handful of people in the
world can compute, the complexity seems somewhat pedantic in
light of the larger question that looms before us. Because all
mass, and thus the entire universe and all that is in it, is made
from atoms and atoms consist mostly of empty space and
infinitesimal interactions of electromagnetic energy and
information, the question is necessarily evoked: What then is
reality in the physical sense? And because an individual
metaphysical entity is the singular force that defines the very state
of being human, it stands that our metaphysical existence is a
certainty, as elusive as it may be, which necessarily evokes the
question: What then is reality in the metaphysical sense?
Furthermore, because the quantum world at the subatomic level
can be affected by non-local systems, and because the corporeal
being is ultimately animated and governed by its individual
metaphysical being, the ultimate question must be asked: How do
these two extremely divergent worlds interact? What is their
common reality?
What is the mystery of physical mass interacting with
metaphysical cognizance? Indeed, what is the mystery of life
itself? Even beyond the animated being, what of this
metaphysical cognizance we generally refer to as soul or spirit?
And what of ethics and morals and all the other metaphysical
issues that constitute our daily existence? Neither classical nor
quantum physics provide answers to these questions; but while
classical Newtonian physics necessarily neglects such concepts
(for it holds to a closed particle-based system that must follow
predictable laws), quantum physics not only invites such
questions and concepts, it seems to expect them. For as the
University of Chicago, Professor of Physics, Dr. Bruce A.
Schumm, has acknowledged: “As we attempt to understand and
codify the rules of existence at this level, we enter the realm of
quantum mechanics, with its jarring metaphysical implications.”57

57
Bruce A Schumm. 2004. Deep Down Things: The Breaking Beauty
 Reality, What Is It? 163
So I ask, I am compelled to ask, What is reality? That is: What is
the fundamental reality beyond our perceptions, for both the
material and the metaphysical? The answer to this question will
necessarily reconcile these two worlds.

Childish questions
Today we use the term “tween” to describe those important
early adolescent years when hormones are beginning to change
but the youngster has yet to attain the defining stature of teenager.
It was during my tween years that I began asking certain defining
questions that would ultimately change my life. Of course there
were the all important questions of: “Why do we exist; and what
is the meaning of life? But I had other questions that few of my
peers seemed to be asking. At least I knew of none. I recall my
interest in biology and my awe of life, at both the human and the
microscopic level. But even then my interests lay more in the
marvel of life itself than in its simple biological anatomy; this
reality was far more reaching, far more mysterious.
I also spent countless hours staring at the stars in utter
amazement. It was not the constellations of ancient imagination
that caused me to spend so many nights lying on the rooftop
watching the majestic scene pass overhead; it was the
consideration of what could lie beyond the heavens and the
contemplation of what a truly finite being I was in the face of it
all. I debated in my own mind if there could be an end to the
universe, to the heavens. What would that end be: a solid wall,
empty space? For even the wall or the space is something; and
what then is beyond that? This naturally inferred the daunting
concept of infinity and its parallel, eternity—something else, and
perhaps even more difficult, to comprehend.
Of course it was also about this time I was learning evolution
in school: the big bang, the primordial ooze, Darwinism, survival-
of-the-fittest and so forth. But as I asked my questions (on the
one hand gazing into the heavens, and on the other, contemplating
the wonders of even the simplest life forms; and even considering
the unscrupulous dog-eat-dog concept of survival-of-the-fittest

of Particle Physics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2.

164 What Paul Might Say Today?

versus the very real innate sense of social ethics and personal
morals), I knew neither the big bang nor the evolutionary model
could be correct. Not only did these hypotheses fail to adequately
account for my personal existence as an intelligent ethical being,
they failed even to answer the most basic questions about the
physical universe.
Indeed, evolution answered nothing. Neither did its mother,
the big bang. Both seemed little more than a comic book fairy
tale. I saw them as absurd, baseless, and fantastical hypotheses
mired down by one conjecture upon another while conveniently
overlooking the most important questions. Even as a tween I
realized this feeble attempt to account for the universe had four
glaring gaps: the beginning, the end, the origin of life, and
especially the existence of intellectual and moral beings. For
these questions begged to be answered: What existed before the
universe, before time and space, and from where did the
exploding mass come? What is beyond the galaxies in the
infinite reaches of space? What comes after it all ends? And
what of life, especially intelligent and ethical life? Somehow the
primordial ooze and time, no matter how much time one can
imagine, simply did not account for even one of these questions.
Even before I understood the model of evolution was anything
but scientific, I already knew it was not logical. Frankly, I was
offended that my teachers expected me to believe such rubbish.
And I was extremely disappointed in them for apparently
believing it themselves. In time I learned that logic can never
convince passion. Irrespective of one’s education, without a
purposed conscious intervention, one’s passion transcends one’s
logic and reason. Consequently, somewhere along the way I
developed a healthy indifference toward achievement awards,
peer accolades, and academic credentials—including my own—
for generally they are merely bestowed by those sharing similar
passions, passions that all too often confuse their logical
processes.
Case in point: Although accepted by some of the greatest
minds in the world, could there be anything more irrational than
the notion that untold billions of years ago—erupting as an
enormously powerful fireball—out of nothing, a theretofore non-
 Reality, What Is It? 165
existent, dense, mass spontaneously emerged by its own
theretofore, non-existent energy, and from this chaos the defined
fundamental forces of physics and the subatomic fundamental
particles, which eventually organized themselves into a variety of
atomic species, were spontaneously and immediately created;
then of their own accord molecules formed; then a diverse
assortment of inorganic matter which gravitationally assembled
itself into this highly structured and precisely ordered universe?
Then, after several billions of years, from this inorganic
matter a primitive biological life-form spontaneously emerged.
Not only had this organic life-form been spawned from non-
living inorganic previously non-existent matter that had sprang
into existence from non-existence by its own non-existent energy,
this newly formed primitive organism managed to survive on
nutrients that, heretofore, were also non-existent.
After another three billion years or so this primitive organism
mutated into a more complex multi-cellular life-form, which over
the next one billion years grew even more complex spawning a
variety of ever increasingly diverse and more complex species;
some of which became animated, eventually splitting into two
genders and achieving the capacity for selective reproduction.
After countless changes the most advanced life-form developed
the ability for critical thinking—the ability to reason and make
inference. In time, this advanced life-form realized its own
metaphysical reality beyond its mere physical existence. And at
last the advanced critically-thinking being assumed a common
ethic based upon its universal metaphysical sense of morality,
singularly common to every family of its highly structured
existence.
In the end, and of its own accord, the original state of a non-
material reality had come full circle. From the non-existent and
non-material reality before the erupting fireball, to the material
reality of the universe, and then returning yet again to another
non-material, though existent, metaphysical reality in the highly
advance being. Now, perhaps I am still naïve, but somehow the
very logic of this entire hypothesis seems non-existent;
conceived, perhaps, somewhere in the process before the ability
for critical thinking developed.
166 What Paul Might Say Today?

Regardless of the time frame, the statistical probability of

such events occurring is absolute zero at every critical step. How
can one calculate variables that do not exist? How does one
calculate the first obstacle, the probability of absolute nothing
spontaneously generating a dense mass? One does not calculate
zero variables; one imagines them as you would a fairy tale.
Likewise, the probability of lifeless matter spontaneously
generating life, no matter the time frame, is zero. There are
simply too many conditional demands for even the lowest life-
form to emerge. One of many such conditions is the sequencing
of amino acids. As the physical chemist, Dr. Johnathan Sarfati,
explains: “Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single
type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences,
which have extremely low probabilities (~10-650 for all the
enzymes required).”58 And that is but one of many requisite
conditions of impossible contradicting scenarios that must be met
to generate life from non-life. Another such difficulty is that
“The alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible
with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with
condensing agents.” So too is the detail that certain requisite
‘building blocks’ are not formed; “ribose and cytosine are hard to
form and are very unstable.”59 The list of requisite conditions
continues, but the point is that the probability of life
spontaneously generating from non-life is essentially zero. For
these and the many other conflicting conditions to be
simultaneously reconciled by their own accord is beyond the
realm of probability.
And for those insincere pretentious proponents who
recognize these difficulties and wish to avoid them by only
invoking the evolution paradigm to explain man’s existence once
matter and life are accounted for; their obstacles are no less
difficult; in that even if a primitive life-form miraculously
emerged, the probability for a sustainable life-form is zero.
Again Dr. Sarfari explains: “Biochemicals would react with each

58
Johnathan Sarfati. 2007. “Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the
Origin of Life: Summary.” Answers. http://www.answersingenesis.org /docs/
4220.asp (accessed August 11, 2007).
59
Johnathan Sarfati, 1-3.
 Reality, What Is It? 167
other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl …
compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other
amino . . . compounds), but must be present for a cell to form.”
Then too, “The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would
destroy organic compounds. . . ;” but “if there was no oxygen
there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy
biochemicals.” Indeed, “All energy sources that produce the
biochemicals destroy them even faster.”60 Once again the list
continues so that the sustainability probability of this supposed
primitive life-form is essentially zero, thereby making even the
notion of upward development a moot issue and relegating all
such controversial arguments to the logical fallacy category of red
herrings.
Finally, and just as difficult, is the probability of a self-
structured purely physical life-form consisting of billions of
beings that each possesses an identical, yet individual
metaphysical cognizance, intellect, and conscience which
intuitively adheres to a universal moral code. The probability is
zero, no matter how many gradual upward mutated changes the
physical life-form assumes. Just as non-existent matter
spontaneously springing into existence by its own non-existent
energy is incalculable due to the absence of viable variables, the
probability of even one of these physical beings spontaneously
generating these complex non-material metaphysical realities is
non-existent, absolute zero; and the probability of billions of them
developing and sustaining the same metaphysical realities is
beyond absolute zero, no more probable than your favorite pet
eventually resolving the issue of world peace.

The logical conclusion

I did not come from a religious home. There was a family
Bible, an heirloom, somewhere in the house but the notion of
God, especially a personal God, was not a part of our daily lives.
Nevertheless, even as a tween, my contemplations concerning life
and the heavens lead me to conclude that a Creator must exist. I
did not know who, but logically and intuitively I knew it had to

60
Johnathan Sarfati, 1-2.
168 What Paul Might Say Today?

be so. The universe was created. Life was created. I was

created. The logical order of cause and effect left no alternative.
I reasoned that the complex nature of life and the universe was
such that the agent of cause had to possess great intelligence.
Such an elaborate design even to a fraction of this degree would
require a superb imagination and precise engineering. It was too
intricate, too exact, too ordered to be the haphazard outcome of a
great explosion, no matter how magnificent or ancient we
envisioned it. Of course, this realization raises the question of
who then created us; but it also inferred there were answers to
those all-consuming questions of purpose: “Why are we here?
And what is the meaning of life?”
A few years later I found those answers. I was introduced to
the gospel of Jesus Christ, which I accepted and follow to this
day. It may sound prosaic, but it is the age-old story of a journey
that millions upon millions have taken. I found that the Scriptural
account of the universe seamlessly answered these questions.
The mechanics are not explained but the concepts are there;
everything is accounted for right down to the purpose of life.
Years later I discovered whole societies of credentialed scientists
who also found the Scriptural account flawless.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 It
was only after reading their works that I learned of the horrendous
and seemingly agenda-driven gaps in the fossil record as set forth
by proponents of the evolution paradigm; and of the erroneous
chronological representation of the geological strata; and the
inaccurate interpretations of carbon dating methods; and of the
neglect and even unwillingness to address certain paleontological
61
The Creation Research Society. 2007. http://www.creationresearch.org
(accessed July 10, 2007).
62
Answers in Genesis. 2007. www.answersingenesis.org (accessed August
18, 2007).
63
Institute for Creation Research Center. 2007. http://www.icr.org (accessed
July 11, 2007).
64
The Society for the Advancement of Creation Science. 2007. A Mississippi
State University student organization. http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs
(accessed July 10, 2007).
65
Northwest Creation Network. 2007. The Creation News. http://www.nwcre
ation.net (accessed July 11, 2007).
66
American Scientific Affiliation. 2007. www.asa3.org (accessed July 21,
2007).
 Reality, What Is It? 169
and scientific findings that did not fit into the evolution
scenario.67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 But even so, all of these issues are
merely red herrings, specifically designed to remove the attention
from the truly critical issues: the self-generated spontaneous ex
nihilo origin of matter; the spontaneous generation of organic life
from inorganic non-life; and the advent of man’s intelligent,
passionate, and moral metaphysical reality from mere physical
matter.
Not only had my questions been answered but a very real
interpersonal yet metaphysical relationship ensued with my
Creator, a relationship that is beyond mere explanation. It is not
something I could or should expect the nonbeliever to understand.
Indeed, this personal relationship with God simply is not
something the unbeliever can understand anymore than an animal
can appreciate a fine gem. As Jesus said, do not cast your pearls
before the swine.73 This is not meant to denigrate the unbeliever,
but to illustrate the uselessness of presenting certain truths to
those without the capacity to receive them. First man must
believe in God before a relationship with God is possible.
An apropos statement by the Scottish anthropologist, Sir
Arthur Keith, seems to epitomize the unbeliever’s mindset and
succinctly illustrates the lesson I learned long ago concerning
logic versus passion. He confessed: “Evolution is unproved and
unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special
creation, and that is unthinkable.”74 Similarly, D.M.S. Watson,

67
Morris, Henry. 1974. Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life
Publishers.
68
Duane Gish. 1980. Fossils: Key to the Present. Green Forest, AR: Master
Books.
69
Duane Gish. 1972. Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on
the Origin of Life: A Critique. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
70
John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris. 1981. The Genesis Flood: The
biblical record and its scientific implication. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
71
Georgia Purdom. 2007. “Origins of Life: A Simple Approach?” Answers.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/origins-of-life-simple-approach
(accessed August 11, 2007), 1-4.
72
Johnathan Sarfati, 1-3.
73
Matthew 7:6.
74
W.A. Criswell. 1972. Did Man Just Happen? Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
p.73. (As quoted by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Evolution as a Threat to the
170 What Paul Might Say Today?

the famed Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at the

University College of London from 1921 to 1951, a man who
held the prestigious Chair of Evolution and was even awarded the
Darwin Medal, conceded that “evolution itself is accepted by
zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be
proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the
only alternative, special creation, is incredible.”75 I recall many
years ago reading a similar statement by one of the famed
Huxleys (Julian, Aldous, or their grandfather Thomas). I
paraphrase, of course, but his confession read something like:
‘The concept of evolution is convenient; but what else do I have?
I refuse to believe in God.’
Apparently fanatical egotists never change. Long ago the
psalmist noted, “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”76
Neither do their foolish actions change. Even before the psalmist,
the antediluvians exhibited this same egocentric stupidity by,
“professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, . . . who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator.”77
Of course, as a tween I did not know these biblical passages,
nor had I read the statements of Keith, Watson or Huxley; but like
them I did know the notion of evolution was, at the very least,
imprudent. Unlike them I did not close my mind to potentially
offensive answers.

Blind faith
Those, like Keith, Watson, and the Huxley dynasty, who are
unwilling to submit to an intelligent Creator, opting rather to

Christian Home. p. 8. Apologetics Press, Inc., Montgomery, AL.

<http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/ Evolution-as-a-Threat- to-the.
pdf> (July 20, 2007).
75
D.M.S. Watson. 1929. “Adaptation.” Nature, 123:333. (As quoted by Bert
Thompson, Ph.D. Evolution as a Threat to the Christian Home. Montgomery,
AL: Apologetics Press, Inc., p. 8. .
<http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-to-the.pdf>
(July 20, 2007).
76
King James Bible. Psalms 14:1.
77
King James Bible. Romans 1:22-23.
 Reality, What Is It? 171
embrace absurd and unwarranted belief system are the ultimate
examples of utter blind faith. With absolutely no evidence other
than one stubborn conjecture or hypothesis built upon another,
and in the face of pure logic, and despite finding after finding that
disproves even the possibility of such a paradigm, still they cling
to the notion of evolution as if it were fact. If anything could ever
illustrate the conundrum, blind faith, this is it; for it is an illogical
belief fueled by passion. In this case, it is a passionate hatred for
even the concept of a Supreme Being, a personal Creator to
whom they must answer. And this passion is generally evidenced
by their vitriol and ad hominem abuse of those scientists who
disagree with their illogical passionate hypothesis.
Actually, there is no such thing as blind faith; it is a
euphemism for wishful thinking, or even unrealistic thinking that
is contrary to reality. The very concept of faith infers
confirmation. By definition faith is an evidence-based system
that holds to a particular view because it is substantiated by data.
We generally use three concepts (trust, belief and faith) to
translate the original Greek πίστις (pistis)78; but the definition is
not left to our imaginations. Pistis “is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” 79, 80
According to this biblical definition, science is a faith-based
system. For it is a system often governed by “the evidence of
things not seen.” Indeed, this is an essential modus operandi in
science. Without ever having directly observed them, science
believes in many concepts and systems at the subatomic, the
super-galactic, and even the macroscopic natural level of life.
Black holes, certain astronomical objects, the chemical
composition of celestial bodies, the recent evidence that water
once existed on the surface of Mars and many other topics are
unobserved beliefs that are held due to certain data sets that infer
their reality: “the evidence of things not seen.” Even gravity and
the earth’s magnetic poles fit the description. We cannot directly

78
Harold K Moulton. 1978. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan..
79
Kurt Alund, et al. 1963. The Greek New Testament. 3rd edition. West
Germany: United Bible Societies.
80
Hebrews 11.1.
172 What Paul Might Say Today?

observe either, nor even thoroughly explain them; but we can see
and measure their effect and we believe they exist.
Because predictable outcomes are observed in a particular
concept, physical body, or system, scientists believe that
particular concept, physical body, or system exists. By definition,
these are faith-based beliefs; the precise implementation of the
biblical concept of faith: “the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.”
Although modern scientists clearly come to certain
conclusions based solely on “the evidence of things not seen,” I
find it curious, if not amusing, that many refuse to address the
faith-based aspect of their work even as they pretentiously pride
themselves on accepting only those things that can be duplicated
and proven in a laboratory setting. It is for this ostensible reason
(the inability to reduplicate in a laboratory setting) that many
scientists dismiss or even blatantly deny the possibility of
metaphysical realities. Yet strangely, they find no problem with
their adamant, even passionate, adherence to the completely un-
testable (not to mention illogical) notion of evolution. This is
beyond pretentious; it is nothing less than disingenuous.
Using the same sound logic a true scientist uses when
trusting the inferences of his data set, those not offended by the
inferences of this data set (the universe) have concluded that it is
an amazingly imaginative and ordered structure; and given its
intricate and precise nature, from the macro super-galactic level
down to the subatomic quantum level, and then topping it off with
the inexplicable mystery of life itself, an intelligent Creator is the
only logical and plausible cause. Therefore an intelligent Creator
exists. God exists. The precisely ordered universe and the
astounding physical and metaphysical life it contains are the
evidence. This is not only the conclusion of the simple observer
but of hundreds of well qualified scientists from numerous
scientific disciplines.81, 82

81
Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios (accessed
July 19, 2007).
82
Lee Strobel. 2004. The Case for the Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
31-32.
 Reality, What Is It? 173

Logic versus passion

How intelligent individuals can correctly deduce from a few
flint arrowheads or awls, or stone hammers, or shards of pottery
that intelligent life was resident, but cannot discern the requisite
imagination and intricate precision of the universe as evidence of
intelligence is dumbfounding. For them to conclude that it
developed by its own accord is beyond puzzling, it is illogical—
clearly the result of ideology and passion rather than logic.
This passion was clearly exhibited by the famed Huxley
brothers; Julian, the revered scientist and Aldous, a well-known
intellect and social commentator. When placed against the
backdrop of his brother Julian’s comments that, “Darwinism
removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from
the sphere of rational discussion,”83 Aldous’ confession as to why
he proclaimed atheism and evolution with such enthusiasm is
easily understood. For if there is no personal Creator to whom
man must answer then there is no such thing as absolute morality.
Thus, Aldous explained:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning:
consequently, assuming it had none, and was able without
any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption. . . . The
philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not
concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics;
he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why
he personally should not do as he wants to do. . . . For
myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the
philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was
simultaneously liberation from a certain political and
economical system and liberation from a certain system of

83
Julian Huxley. 1960. “At Random: A Television Preview,” Issues in
Evolution, ed. Sol Tax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 41. (As
quoted by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. 2007. Evolution as a Threat to the Christian
Home. Apologetics Press, Inc., Montgomery, AL: p. 8.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-to-the.pdf
(accessed July 20, 2007).
174 What Paul Might Say Today?

morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered

with our sexual freedom.84
Another example of passion versus logic is evidenced by the
British biologist, Professor Richard Dawkins, whose ardent
promotion of evolution has inspired the title “Darwin’s
Rottweiler,” a nickname no doubt spawned from his
philosophical predecessor, the famed zealot, Thomas Huxley,
who was dubbed “Darwin’s bulldog.” Attempting to refute the
notion of complex design, Dr. Dawkins concedes that if
creationists are correct about the irreducible complexity of the
universe it wrecks Darwin’s theory; and he freely concedes that
“Darwin himself said as much.”85
Of course, he couches this in terms that shift the burden of
proof to the opposition: “if genuinely irreducible complexity
could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin‘s
theory.”86 This is the classical error in logic called the “Appeal to
Ignorance,” a fallacy that makes a claim and then challenges the
opponent to disprove it. There currently exist a number of people
who believe the Great Pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens to
serve as navigational devices. An outlandish claim to be sure, but
actually no more unwarranted than is Darwin’s evolution. One
could argue their evidence and reasoning is as solid as that of
Darwinism. What if a group of archeologists were to take up this
hypothesis and say, “Because some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
seem to speak of bright lights and beings from the sky who taught
technology, and because some of the giant stones, perfectly
placed hundreds of feet high, weigh as much as twenty tons; we
have concluded that the Great Pyramids of Egypt were
constructed by aliens; and unless this can be proved incorrect we
shall accept it as fact.” No one in their right mind would take
them seriously. Yet this is exactly what Darwin’s proponents

84
Aldous Huxley. 1966. “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report:
Perspective on the News. 3:19. (As quoted by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. 2007.
Evolution as a Threat to the Christian Home. Apologetics Press, Inc.,
Montgomery, AL. p. 8. http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-
as-a-Threat-to-the.pdf (accessed July 20, 2007).
85
Richard Dawkins. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 125.
86
Dawkins, Richard, 125.
 Reality, What Is It? 175
have done. From very sparse, selective and controversial
evidence at best, they have set forth the argument of a non-
complex universe in which simple life-forms slowly evolved into
more advanced life-forms; and they expect it to be accepted as
fact unless it can be proven wrong.
Logically, it is up to Darwinism to prove its case, which of
course it has never done. Indeed, the one million dollar prize still
lies unclaimed, which is offered to anyone who can propose even
“a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic
instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.” The only
stipulations are that “the explanation must be consistent with
empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts . . .
and be published in a well-respected peer-review science
journal(s).”87 I dare say, shifting the burden of proof to the
opponents, especially in this case, is illogical and disingenuous.
But Dr. Dawkins’ concession to the inference of irreducible
complexity is mere rhetoric; for he salvages Darwinism and
himself by simply refusing to accept that genuinely irreducible
complexity has been properly demonstrated. Of course he
conveniently ignores the hundreds of well qualified scientists
from numerous disciplines who accept such complexity and
openly acknowledge their disagreement with the non-complex
evolution paradigm. Lee Strobel recently referenced some of
these scientists in his book A Case for the Creator.
After spokespersons for the Public Broadcasting
System’s seven part television series Evolution asserted
that ‘all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian]
evolution’ as does ‘virtually every reputable scientist in
the world,’ these professors, laboratory researchers, and
other scientists published a two-page advertisement in a
national magazine under the banner: ‘A Scientific
Dissent From Darwinism.’ Their statement was direct
and defiant. ‘We are skeptical of the claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life.’88

87
The Origin-of-Life Prize. 2007. www.lifeorigin.info (accessed July 18,
2007).
88
Lee Strobel, 31-32.
176 What Paul Might Say Today?

………………………………..........................
There were hundreds of them—biologists, chemists,
zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and
cell biologists, bioengineers, organic chemists,
geologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists. Their
doctorates came from such prestigious universities as
Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Rutgers, Chicago,
Princeton, Purdue, Duke, Michigan, Syracuse, Temple,
and Berkley.
They included professors from Yale Graduate School,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tulane, Rice,
Emory, George Mason, Lehigh, and the Universities of
California, Washington, Ohio, Colorado, Nebraska,
Mississippi, Iowa, Georgia, New Mexico, Utah,
Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.89
Dawkins also ignores the conclusions of the hundreds of
current scientists who not only adhere to creationism based upon
their specific scientific disciplines, but embrace the concepts of a
young earth and the six days of creation as recorded in Genesis.90
While the evidence of genuinely irreducible complexity may
not be sufficient for an impassioned Darwinian zealot, nor even
the passive disciple, for those scientists willing to handle the data-
set with unbiased and open minds it is more than sufficient, it is
undeniable—so much so they are willing to stake their careers
and reputations on it. And in the ardent world of academic
science where the iconic ideals of the big bang and evolution rule
the roost, this is no small matter.
Dr. Dawkins concludes his comments on irreducible
complexity with a nonsensical comment that showcases not only
his passion but his illogical thought process. He reasoned; “In
any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity would
wreck Darwin’s theory if it were ever found, who is to say that it
wouldn’t wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it
already has wrecked the intelligent design theory for, . . . however
little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that

89
Lee Strobel, 31.
90
Answers in Genesis.
 Reality, What Is It? 177
he would have to be very complex and presumably irreducibly
so!”91
While exposing the “balancing-the-fence” approach of those
proponents of intelligent design who are not willing to take the
next logical step—that of stating their belief in an intellectual,
supreme and personal Creator—the comment does nothing to
support Dawkins’ position; for as he makes clear, even he realizes
that an incredibly complex Creator is the obvious inference.
Rather, this surprising remark simultaneously commits an error in
logic and an error in debate. The logical error is a bizarre fallacy
of induction in which he draws the conclusion based upon the
unstated assumption that creationism is false. The argument
intelligent design makes is that the design of this extremely
complex and highly structured universe is such that it required
extreme intelligence. To which Dawkins counters that if this is
correct and the universe is of such complexity, then intelligent
design itself is wrong for it would have taken an irreducible
complex intelligence, which is exactly the position of the
creationists. As best as I can tell his logic is as foolows:
Irreducible complexity is not Darwinism.
Irreducible complexity is intelligent design.
Intelligent design demands a complex Creator.
A complex Creator is creationism.
Therefore, intelligent design is false.
The logical conclusion is not that intelligent design is false but
that intelligent design infers creationism. Because some
proponents of intelligent design have not openly stated the
obvious does not make the argument for intelligent design any
less true.
In the same comment he also commits an error in his debate
as he apparently makes a Freudian slip by conceding the very
point he is attempting to argue against—that of irreducible
complexity. Although he insists that irreducible complexity has
not been demonstrated, he argues that if it were demonstrated it is
so complex that God “would have to be very complex and
presumably irreducibly so!” Again his logic seems thus:
Irreducible complexity is not demonstrated.
91
Richard Dawkins, 125.
178 What Paul Might Say Today?

If irreducible complexity is demonstrated, God would have to

be irreducibly complex [presumably implying the extreme
complex nature of creation].
I am still scratching my head. In his hypothesis, complexity
goes from being non-existent to extremely complex based merely
on an observed demonstration; for nothing of the structure has
changed, only the observer’s perception. It has occurred to me
several times through the year that trying to defend such in-
defensible positions as the big bang and evolution is like being
caught in a web of lies; every time the subject is broached yet
another inconsistency is exposed.
Instead of imperiously and arrogantly dismissing their peers
who have logically arrived at intelligent design, perhaps popular
science would be better served if the prejudiced impassioned
zealots who stand for almost anything against the notion of a
personal Creator would revisit the issue of logic versus passion as
it relates to their “scientific” research. Certainly their personal
interests would be better served. Because the universe and the
life it contains are such strong witnesses to the reality of a
Creator, the Apostle Paul specifically addressed those who reject
this evidence.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse.92

Opening the door to new truths

Once we accept the reality that God created our immediate
physical universe, encasing it in time and space by simply saying
it was so, certain truths are immediately apparent. The inferences
to be drawn from these few concepts are enormous, for God, for
man, and for the universe. God created the light and called it day
and the darkness He called night. He created the heavens and the
earth and all that is in them. And God created man, both male
92
Rom. 1:19-20
 Reality, What Is It? 179
and female, in His own image: individual souls, persons with the
ability to think, to experience emotion, to make inference, to
enjoy humor, to will, and all the other metaphysical mysteries of
personhood.93
That God created our physical universe infers that He is other
than and superior to our immediate physical reality. Being the
Creator of, and thus other than and outside of, our limited time-
space continuum necessarily infers God’s infinite eternal being,
while simultaneously inferring the finite nature of His creation.
We can no more fully comprehend God’s infinite eternal nature
than we can comprehend the notions of eternity or of space as it
stretches past more than 100 billion galaxies into a vast infinity.
Such concepts boggle the mind; but the idea of their not existing
is completely illogical, for how would they end or how could they
even have begun? Something would have to be on the other side
of the end or beginning.
A substantial difference between the metaphysical concepts
of infinity or eternity versus the metaphysical concept of God is
that infinity and eternity are merely dimensional, whereas God is
living, God is spirit, God is the ultimate personal intellect. By
definition, infinity and eternity logically must exist for the very
nature of the physical universe demands it. Time demands
eternity; space demands infinity. So too, God logically must exist
for the very nature of the reality of life demands it; both physical
and metaphysical life demand it. And the highly-structured,
precisely-ordered material universe demands it. And finally, even
the concepts of eternity and infinity demand a Creator, for
ultimately, they find their very state of being in God who
transcends both and simply is.
Thus, to ask the question, “Where did God come from?” is
like asking, “Where did eternity come from?” or “Where did
infinity come from?” This is the logical fallacy of begging the
question; for it assumes eternity, infinity or even God came from
somewhere. God did not come from somewhere. God is.
That God created our physical universe also infers His
omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience—attributes that
transcend our limited and immediate four dimensional physical
93
Genesis 1.
180 What Paul Might Say Today?

reality. God’s omnipotence is exhibited by His ability to bring all

things into existence. His omnipresence is necessary in that all of
creation exists merely within His consciousness. Literally, we
exist in the mind of God. And His omniscience is understood in
that while we are encased in time and space so that events appear
linear in nature; He is eternal, not limited to time or space. The
linear nature of time is our reality or our limitation if you prefer,
not His. To Him all of creation, including time, is but a punctiliar
thought to which He knows all. What we perceive as a linear
passage of time with the historical versus the future and even the
beginning from the eventual end of the universe, is but a
punctiliar zero-dimensional event to Him. Similar, perhaps (in a
limited way for this analogy cannot be pushed too far), to an
author’s book. The author knows the story intimately: the plot,
the characters, the ending. To the author it is an event, but to the
characters in the book, or to those reading the book for the first
time, there is an apparent linear time frame.
If then all of creation, all beings, the entire universe and the
laws that it follows exist simply because God, the ultimate reality,
spoke it into existence, we then have within our grasp the
necessary information to answer the questions of our reality and
to reconcile the material with the metaphysical. Jesus testified
that “God is Spirit.”94 Although God is the only eternal Spirit,
He is not the only spirit, for Scripture tells us He created other
spirits. So then at the metaphysical level, for both the Creator and
the created, spirit is reality.
As noted earlier, scientists have concluded that the subatomic
level of energy consists mostly of empty space with very tiny
interactions of electromagnetic energy and information, all of
which is mysteriously held together by an indefinite nuclear
force. But Scripture identifies this mysterious binding force. It is
the direct action of God Himself. Paul explained, “by Him all
things consist.”95 In the original language this term, συνέστηκεν
(sunesteeken) “sunstone,”96 means “to place together, to stand

94
John 4:24.
95
Colossians. 1:17.
96
Alund, Kurt, et al. 1983. The Greek New Testament, 3rd edition. West
Germany: United Bible Societies, 694.
 Reality, What Is It? 181
together, to hold together, to cohere. He is the principle of
cohesion in the universe. . . . God Himself is the unifying band
which encompasses everything and holds it together. This applies
not only to the largest things of the universe, but also to the
smallest things of the universe”97
So then, God is not only the source of light, and energy, and
the very existence of the universe,98 He is also the mysterious
agent of quantum nuclear forces that bind the subatomic world
together. Therefore, and for lack of a better or even more
appropriate description, our immediate physical reality is
basically the multidimensional hologram of God’s intent,
consisting of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and
information. God simply said it was so and it was so. Thus, even
the reality of our physical universe finds its foundation in spirit . .
. the Spirit of God. This hologram concept once again brings to
mind the image of open and closed vibrating strings of subatomic
electromagnetic energy and information interlocked in various
multi-dimensional mathematical computations to form complex
structures in binary code, not unlike computer software or
complex electric circuitry; but here God is both the programmer
and the source of power.
From here we might see how these two worlds (our material
and our metaphysical) meet at the subatomic level where
electromagnetic energy and information is mysteriously entangled
with the reality of spirit. It is this non-local entanglement at the
quantum level between the electromagnetic energy and
information, and the Spirit of God that gives life to the hologram.
And it is a similar entanglement at this quantum level between the
electromagnetic energy and information and the spirit of certain
created beings that brings animated life to their bodies. With the
boundaries set, comprising both the physical and the
metaphysical laws of the universe, this hologram becomes the
medium in which man interacts with his fellow man, with
creation, and with his Creator.

97
Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers. 1980. A Linguistic Key to The Greek
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 768.
98
Genesis 1.
182 What Paul Might Say Today?

For man there is yet another aspect to reality. Created in

God’s image, like God, man possesses all the mysterious
properties of person. This dimension of reality is shared by no
other beings but God and man. God breathed into man’s nostrils
and man became a living soul.99 From our temporal perspective a
certain entanglement exists between the spirit and soul so that it is
difficult to differentiate between the two; there is nevertheless a
distinction. While the individual’s spirit provides the life giving
energy, the individual’s soul is who he or she is. The unique
nature of the human soul defines us as persons; it is this that
makes us like God.
That other lesser souls may exist cannot be ruled out.
Certainly other beings possess select aspects of what we generally
consider personality. Many animals communicate; some show
emotion; others exercise resourcefulness; some have limited
reasoning capabilities; and angelic beings have the ability for self-
determination. However, none but God and man possess all the
complex attributes that define person: to feel emotion, to will, to
create, to understand humor, to reason and make inferences, to
communicate, to love and hate, and all the other mysteries of
personhood.
Our material reality is but a holographic concept to the
eternal Creator who merely spoke it into existence. He is both the
source of its energy and its continued existence as His Spirit
interacts with creation in an entangled nature via non-local
realism at the subatomic level. Created in God’s image, man’s
individual metaphysical cognizance is the resultant product of his
individual spirit and soul which interact with his individual
physical body in a similar, but less pervasive, entangled nature at
the subatomic level. This entanglement also takes place for other
animated beings having lesser degrees of consciousness.
Put succinctly, the unification theory for the reconciliation of
corporal physical matter and metaphysical cognizance is as such:
Man’s individual metaphysical reality, comprised of his spirit and
soul, interacts with his corporeal being in an entangled nature via
non-local realism at the subatomic level.

99
Genesis 2:7.
 Reality, What Is It? 183

Further implications for this reality

That God created man in His image and placed him in this
environment makes additional inferences. Being created in God’s
image man, is necessarily endowed with certain, albeit limited,
abilities to interact with and manipulate his environment. Both
historical-biblical accounts and the concepts of quantum physics
make the manipulation of our immediate physical environmen
possible, at least to some degree.
In the mysterious world of quantum mechanics this
manipulation comes at the subatomic level in the form of both the
observer effect and the effects of nonlocality. At the level of
daily life, it is evident from both historical-biblical accounts and
certain current events, that man has an ability, at least to some
degree, to change the physical environment via metaphysical
means. By combining what we know about quantum physics and
what we know about human ability, such changes to the
environment can be easily explained.
There is an intimate relationship between God’s intent and
creation; God spoke and it was so. Literally, the whole of
creation is the thought of God, the electromagnetically charged
holographic presentation (so to speak) of his intent. Because man
is created in God’s image, it follows that man’s intent also
possesses a certain potential, so that an intimate relationship also
exists between man’s intent and creation. To a lesser degree, of
course, in that man is merely in God’s likeness not his equal, man
has the potential, by his intent, to influence his physical
environment as his soul and spirit interface with the subatomic
world at the level of energy.
Such potential on man’s part is not only logical it is
discussed and demonstrated in Scripture. Although all power
ultimately finds its source in God, it is clear that man by his very
nature (aside from being righteous or unrighteous) has the
potential to access this power to cause change in his environment.
This generally untapped God-given and godlike ability explains
many things. Of course, it explains biblical miracles. To this
regard, many prophets performed numerous miracles, and Jesus
and the disciples healed and fed the people. Jesus informed his
disciples that with even the slightest degree of “pistis” (faith,
184 What Paul Might Say Today?

belief or trust) they could tell a mountain to go hence and it

would go, or tell a tree to be plucked up and cast into the sea and
it would obey. “Nothing,” he said, “is impossible.”100 In this
scenario, man causes change to his environment by an entangled
union between his intent to cause change and his belief that it will
take place.
This human potential also answers such events as the
Egyptian magicians’, Jannes and Jambres, ability to duplicate
Moses’ miracle of turning Aaron’s staff into a serpent. Of course,
man’s ability is no match for God’s. This was aptly illustrated
when Aaron’s serpent quickly consumed those of the
magicians’.101 But that man could even duplicate the miracle was
quite impressive; that is, as far as giving insight into the human
potential. Likewise, it could explain how shaman and other
secular healers are able to perform their miracles. It could also
explain how certain individuals are telekinetic, or able to levitate
objects, or bend spoons, or even remotely view particular
events—something for which even our government once devoted
an entire department. And such abilities could even answer the
mysteries of the great pyramids, Stonehenge, or the Coral Castle.
Although Christians have historically discounted such
activities as demon power, this is not necessarily so. Certainly
demon power can and does account for various supernatural
events such as poltergeists, medium activity, and fortune telling;
but it does not necessarily hold true that all supernatural activities
(be they good or evil) are resultant to direct intervention from
supernatural beings. Indeed, in that man is created in the image
of God (while neither Satan, his minions, nor even holy angels
are), it follows that man is endowed with certain abilities that
neither angelic nor demonic beings possess. Thus we might
conclude that demons, and even Satan, are more powerful when
their spirits enter into and possess a human body, thereby gaining
access to the unique powers that only God and man (albeit to a
limited degree) possess. Witchcraft or sorcery would be an
example of this bastardization of the human potential.
Enlightened as to this human ability and influenced by and
100
Matthew 17:20; Luke. 17:6.
101
Exodus 7:8-12.
 Reality, What Is It? 185
empowered with certain other demonic abilities, the sorcerer
maliciously manipulates the environment. Such was the case
with the Egyptian magicians who accessed their powers via
enchantments.
The oft-spoken of antichrist will possess such powers.
Scripture tells us that Jesus will soon return to earth; but before he
returns a world leader will emerge making many promises and
swaying the masses with his brilliance and supernatural prowess.
He is the antichrist. Drawing upon Satan’s power, he will have
great knowledge and the ability to perform signs and wonders.
But he will be a deceiver and will ultimately wreak havoc. While
it is generally assumed that Satan grants all these powers to this
antichrist, it might be more accurate to understand that an
entanglement of dynamics is occurring in which Satan grants
certain aspects, such as riches and the ability to foresee the future,
and to perform lying wonders and the power to rule the world (for
the world is currently in his control), but Satan merely awakens
certain other human abilities within this man that he might use
them for evil—abilities that Satan himself does not possess, such
as manipulating the environment and generating spontaneous
healing.

The question on everyone’s mind

Having considered both our physical and metaphysical
reality it would be remiss to ignore the all-consuming question as
to the meaning of life. Our temporal physical universe is more
than a mere playground for God’s entertainment, or even a stage
for Him to direct the play of the ages. Here, man interacts with
both the physical and the spiritual realms, exercising his freewill
and his ability for self-determination. And most importantly, the
universe with its physical laws and limitations in time and space
is the medium in which God placed us with the specific intent of
allowing us to participate in His ultimate act of love—His
personal sacrifice for those whom He created after His own
image.
Creating man in His own image necessitated that man be
granted freewill. The very nature of freewill infers the possibility
for disobedience and rebellion. Without this option there could
186 What Paul Might Say Today?

never be true freewill. So then, by allowing man (and in another

venue, certain angelic beings) to exercise freewill and self-
determination God, by definition, allowed the possibility for evil
to materialize. This was the objective of the forbidden tree in the
Garden of Eden. God gave man one straightforward and
undemanding commandment: Do not eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for if you do you shall surely die.102
The tree itself had no natural or supernatural power over man by
which it could cause his death; it was man’s simple single act of
disobedience that brought about the abysmal outcome.
By disobeying this simple commandment Adam acquired
first-hand experiential knowledge of sin. There was no retreat, no
reversal of this rebellion—this knowledge of evil. He had sold
himself and his seed into the bondage of sin. Man and certain
rebellious angelic beings in the other venue are therefore the
responsible agents of sin and for the misery it breeds. Through it
all God not only remains righteous, but shows mercy to those
whom He created in His own image.
In the end man’s failure highlights God’s great love for His
creation. In His omniscience, which infers foreknowledge, we
must realize that God knew the eventual outcome. He knew man
would disobey, thereby severing communication with Himself.
And He knew the great price He Himself would have to pay. He
knew the only cure for this severed relationship would require a
great personal sacrifice on His part.
With God and man’s fellowship severed, the age long battle
for man’s soul began. No effort on our part, no degree of
goodness no matter how pious and spiritual it may be, can bridge
this great gulf. Sinful man cannot have, nor does he truly desire,
honest fellowship with the righteous God. Nor can God
fellowship with sin; and in Adam every man and woman is born
into sin. Sin is part of our nature. Theologians call it total
depravity and every two-year-old is proof of it. Rebellion is in
their nature; no one has to teach it to them.
Throughout the ages man has proven time and again that he
cannot rectify this great divide between God and man. His effort
to do so is the impetus for every world religion. But try as he
102
Genesis 2:17.
 Reality, What Is It? 187
might, man could not and cannot make himself righteous in the
eyes of God. Then a truly amazing event took place. Out of love
the Creator entered into His creation to experience it in an
intimate way. Born of a human mother by miraculous
intervention, the second person of the triune Godhead became a
man and dwelt among us. He subjected himself to the laws and
limitations of the physical universe, and to the moral and ethical
trials man faces. Scripture tells us the angels watched in
amazement at this, seemingly unable to comprehend how the
omnipotent Creator veiled Himself and took on a form lower than
themselves. It was a demonstration of love such as even they had
never witnessed.
Unlike his fellow man, Jesus remained righteous in the eyes
of God. Having a human mother he was truly the son of man, and
having God as his father he was truly the son of God, thereby
simultaneously possessing two natures, that of God and of man.
As such, Jesus was free from the bondage of sin which has passed
down from Adam. Having this freedom from the sinful nature he
overcame temptation and became the only man to live a sin-free
life and thus the only man not exiled from God’s fellowship.
Nor was Jesus subject to the death penalty, which is the
sentence for all sinners. Nevertheless, out of love for his fellow
man, though not being himself subject to death, Jesus offered
himself as a sacrifice, a propitiation for man’s sin. In so doing he
voluntarily took upon himself the punishment for the sins of the
world. And of even greater consequence, by becoming sin for us
He was forsaken by and separated from the Father for a time; all
this that we might be saved and restored to God’s fellowship.
When He resurrected to life three days later, He had conquered
sin and death; thereby opening the door for man to enter God’s
presence and to restore the lost fellowship. It is for this reason
that Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. No man,
He said, comes to the Father but through him. All who try to
access the Father but through Jesus are robbers, thieves
attempting to possess that which is not theirs.103
Alas, man’s rebellion served yet another purpose. The
selfless redemptive act on God’s part would never have been
103
John 14:6; 10:1.
188 What Paul Might Say Today?

possible had man not rebelled, in which case we would have

known nothing about certain attributes of God. We would know
nothing of God’s justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, and
sacrificial love; even the idea of God’s being good would have no
meaning.
Yet despite God’s gracious offer of redemption as a free gift
granted merely for the asking, man’s sinful nature interferes.
With a heart full of pride man prefers to attempt to prove his own
self-righteousness rather than to admit his failure and submit to
his Creator. Thus, secular humanism and the world’s religions
continue to thrive. For unlike the Judeo-Christian faith, this one
thing they all have in common: every world religion and secular
belief system believes man, in one way or another, has the
capacity for self-improvement, self-superiority, self-salvation.
Call it what you may, be it physical, spiritual, or both, the notion
is that man has the capacity for self-redemption. It is for this
reason that every world religion and secular belief system is so
offended by the Judeo-Christian faith. Indeed, this is the only
belief system in the history of man to understand that man’s only
hope lies in the mercy of his Creator, and that (other than
receiving God’s mercy) man can do nothing of his own volition
to improve his standing with God.
What then is the answer to this question that nearly everyone
asks at some point in life: What is the meaning of life? It is
simple: man is to obey and glorify God his Creator.104 Scripture
tells us it is man’s duty to fear God and to keep His
commandments; and He has commanded all men everywhere to
repent—to receive His mercy as a free gift, which He has made
possible through the redemptive work of his son, Jesus Christ.105,
106
But this is a daunting, even offensive, concept for the proud
of heart who envision this as nothing short of a dismal existence.

Conclusion

104
1 Corinthians 9:13.
105
Ecclesiastes 12:13.
106
Acts 17:30.
 Reality, What Is It? 189
God is eternal. God is Spirit. Spirit is life. Spirit is the
ultimate reality for both the metaphysical and the physical. God
exists aside from our temporal, material paradigm, of which He is
the light, the ultimate source of energy. The physical universe
and all that is in it, including time, is the manifestation of the
thoughts of God. He spoke and it was so, so that our physical
universe is essentially an electromagnetically charged
holographic image empowered by the Spirit of God. Here there
exists a certain entanglement between the quantum state and the
Spirit of God. Even beyond His empowerment of the
infinitesimal electromagnetic charges and the nuclear forces that
bind all things together, this entanglement brings life in all its
forms to the universe.
Similar to the entanglement that exists at the subatomic level
whereby the Spirit of God energizes the universe, the spirit of
every conscious being brings animation to its physical existence.
Man is such a being. Indeed, man is the foremost of these beings,
created as a living soul in the image of God Himself with every
attribute of personhood. Placed in this temporal, physical
paradigm, we, God’s greatest and most beloved creation, are
being tested even as God demonstrates His unfailing love for us.
Our physical bodies are but temporal vessels in which our
individual spirits and souls are currently residing. Because our
ultimate reality is spirit in nature, both sin and righteousness are
spiritual in nature. The physical manifestation of either is just
that: the physical manifestation of the true reality—the reality of
spirit and its intent; “for as a man thinks in his heart, so he is.”107
For this reason Jesus explained that it is not what goes into a
man’s mouth that defiles him but what comes out.108 And He
warned that a man who looks on a woman with lust has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.109 The intent of the
heart is at the root of one’s actions, be they good or evil.
Therefore, it is also for this reason that true worship is done in

107
Proverbs 23:7.
108
Matthew 15:11.
109
Matthew 5:27-29.
190 What Paul Might Say Today?

spirit not by pomp or rituals. God is Spirit and those who

worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.110
When this present temporal reality—this holographic
medium—comes to an end, time will be no more. The physical
universe as we currently know it will be no more; yet we shall
live. The spirit and soul of every man and woman will find itself
suddenly in the reality of eternity, standing face to face with its
Creator. Many will not be there; indeed, only those who
submitted to His authority and received the forgiveness He
provided through the sacrificial work of His Son. All others will
find they are personally required to pay the unspeakable penalty.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

110
Matthew 5:27-29.
 Bibliography 191

Bibliography
Aland, Black, et al., The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. West.
Germany: United Bible Society, 1983.
Allen, Desmond. The Revelation – a blessing penned for our
time. Opelika, Alabama: LaRue Publications, 2004.
American Scientific Affiliation, 2007, www.asa3.org (accessed
July 21, 2007).
Answers in Genesis, 2007, www.answersingenesis.org (accessed
August 18, 2007).
Becker K, Becker M, and Schwarz J. H., String theory and M-
theory: A modern introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
Ben-Dov, Y. 1994. Conference talk. In Frontiers of fundamental
physics. Cohn Institute for the History of Science, Tel-Aviv
University, Ed. F. Selleri. London: Plenum Publications.
http://bendov.info/eng/crucial.html (accessed August 11,
2007).
Carlson, E. H. Wave-article duality: Light. Physnet. Peter Signell
for Project Physnet, Physics-Astronomy Building, Michigan
State University. February 1, 2000. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University.
Close, F., Particle physics: A very short introduction. Oxford,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Cottingham, W. N., Greenwood, D. A., An introduction to the
standard model of particle physics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Creation Research Society, 2007, www.creationresearch.org
(accessed July 10, 2007).
192 What Paul Might Say Today?

Dawkins, Richard. The God delusion. New York: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 2006.
Dawkins, Richard. Interviewed by Paul Hoffman, Part of the
Series Believe it or Not. Recorded on: October 21, 2009,
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17052 (accessed March 22, 2012).
Dawkins, Richard. Is Science a Religion?, 2012, Published in the
Humanist, January/February 1997.
www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
(accessed March 22, 2012).
Ebert, G. ed, 2007, Diameter of an atom. In The physics factbook:
An encyclopedia of scientific essays,
www.hypertextbook.com/facts (accessed July 18, 2007).
Ford, K. W. The Quantum world: Quantum physics for everyone.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: First Harvard University Press,
2005.
Gish, D. T. Speculations and experiments related to theories on
the origin of life: A critique, Santee, California: Institute for
Creation Research, 1972.
Gish, D. T. Fossils: Key to the present. Green Forest, Arkansas:
Master Books, 1980.
Gröblacher, Paterek, et al. An experimental test of nonlocality
realism. Nature 446: 871–875, 2007.
Lewis C. S. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics,
Grand Rapids: Erdmann’s, 1994.
Haisch, B. n.d., 2007, Zero-point energy and zero-point field,
2007, www.calphysics.org/zpe.html (accessed July 10,
2007).
Huxley, A. 1966. Confessions of a professed atheist. Report:
Perspective on the news, 3:19. In B. Thompson, Evolution as
a threat to the Christian home. Montgomery, Alabama:
Apologetics Press.
www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-
to-the.pdf (accessed July 20, 2007).
Huxley, J. 1960, At random: A television preview. In Issues in
Evolution, Ed. Sol Tax (p. 41). In B. Thompson, Evolution as
a threat to the Christian home. Montgomery, Alabama:
Apologetics Press.
 Bibliography 193
www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-
to-the.pdf (accessed July20, 2007).
Institute for Creation Research, 2007, www.icr.org (accessed July
11, 2007).
Kwiat, P. G., S. Barraza-Lopez, A. Stefanov, and N. Gisin, 2001,
Experimental entanglement distillation and “hidden”
nonlocality. Nature 409:1014–1017.
Matthews, L. H. 1971. Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of
Species, p. xi. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Morris, H. M. 1974. Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-
Life Publishers.
Moulton, H. K. 1978. The analytical Greek lexicon revised.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998 Registered No. 785998
England, www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html
(accessed March 20, 2012).
Northwest Creation Network, 2007, The Creation News,
www.nwcreation.net (accessed July 11, 2007).
Notarius, U.S. News & World Report, February 21, 1994, p. 67.
George Eliot, quoted in Today in the Word, July, 1989, p. 28,
www. quotesnsayings.net/quotes/67969.
Oklahoma State Chemistry Department. n.d.,
http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/ChemSource/
Atomic/concpt2.htm (accessed July 18, 2007).
Origin-of-Life Prize, 2007, www.lifeorigin.info (accessed July
18, 2007.
Overbye, D. 2006, New tests of Einstein’s ‘spooky’ reality,
International Herald Tribune, January 10, 2006,
www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/28/healthscience/sneinstein.ph
p (accessed August 15, 2007).
Pan. J. W., D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniel, H. Weinguftter and A.
Zeilinger. 2000. Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in
three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger Entanglement.
Nature 403:515–519.
194 What Paul Might Say Today?

Purdom, G. 2007, Answers: Origins of life: A simple approach?

www.answersingenesis.org/ articles/am/v1/n1/origins-of-life-
simple-approach (accessed August 11, 2007).
Rienecker, F. and C. Rogers. 1980. A linguistic key to the Greek
New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
Sarfati, J. 2007. Answers: Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of
the origin of life: Summary. http://www.answersingenesis.
org/docs/4220.asp (accessed August 11, 2007).
Schumm, B. A. 2004. Deep down things: The breaking beauty of
particle physics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Society for the Advancement of Creation Science, 2007,
www.msstate.edu/org.sacs (accessed July 10, 2007).
Strobel, L. 2004. The case for the Creator. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan.
The New International Version, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1976.
The Pilgrim's Progress (Paperback; Fleming H Revell Co., 1999).
Watson, D. M. S. 1929. Adaptation. Nature 124:133. In B.
Thompson, Evolution as a threat to the Christian home.
Montgomery, Alabama: Apologetics Press.
www.apologeticspress.org/ rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-
tothe.pdf (accessed July 20, 2007).
Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
Zeilinger, A. 2006. Spooky action and beyond. Interview by Die
Weltwoche, January 3, 2006,
www.signandsight.com/features/614.html (accessed August
12, 2007).
Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger. 2007. An
experimental test of nonlocality realism. Nature 446: 871–
875.