Top 10 Articles of 2017

It’s become a tradition of sorts to look back at the previous year’s ten most read articles. Last year was exciting for Apostolic Voice; I kept my vow to be more prolific (by a slim margin), our readership has expanded, and we launched the Apostolic Voice Podcast.

Since it’s the time of year for setting goals I’ll mention a few of mine regarding AV. I’ve heard your requests and I do plan to review more books this year. I’m currently finishing Whisper by Mark Batterson and the review is coming soon. I’ve also been humbled by all the requests to write a book. I plan to at least make a strong effort to do just that. I promise to say “um” less on the podcast. Similarly, I vow to never begin another podcast episode with the phrase, “the boys are back.” Ok, that’s not a firm promise, but I’ll try. Seriously though, I do plan to write more on the subjects of marriage, parenting, and family this year because so many of you have reached out wanting resources on those topics.

I truly appreciate your readership and your listenership. May God richly bless you in this new year. The articles are listed in descending order beginning with the tenth most read article and ending with the number one article of 2017.

File Sep 07, 1 51 03 PM

file-jan-12-1-51-50-am

file-sep-19-9-29-10-pm

File Sep 07, 1 50 48 PM

img_1644-1

file-jan-12-1-52-59-am

File Jul 12, 10 09 32 PM

File Apr 02, 6 09 02 PM

img_6280

File Apr 27, 12 57 42 AM

Don’t Settle for an iTunes Version of the Gospel

My kids inherited their daddy’s deep love for music. Unfortunately, they’re also picky and opinionated about the music we listen to on a regular basis (also something they inherited from me). My iron-fisted reign over the music played in the car is being overthrown a little more each day. Complicating things even further, my kids aren’t in total unity about which songs are “super great”. So, when they both really like a particular singer a little shred of heavenly peace fills our daily commutes.

Recently, we accidentally discovered Matthew West, a Christian solo artist. His lyrics are godly and the kids are wild about it. Julia loves Becoming Me and Talmadge thinks Amen is the anthem of the ages. After about a week straight of playing the “Anthem of the Ages” and the “Sweetest Song Ever Penned” I simply couldn’t take it anymore. It turns out, you can have too much of a good thing. So today, I gathered the kiddos around my outdated iPhone, fired up the iTunes store and started sifting through all the Matthew West songs available. Fifteen dollars bought us all a little much-needed peace and sanity.

For those that don’t know, when you’re searching for music on the iTunes store it allows you to listen to short clips of the songs before making a purchase. This had my kids up in arms. They reasoned that people can’t possibly decide if they like a song in just a few seconds. Which is kinda true. Their recommendation was to just buy every song, but Matthew West has a big musical portfolio and that was out of the question. So, we settled for doing our best to sort out which songs we truly enjoyed with limited information.

This whole process conjured up all kinds of happy memories from my childhood. Memories I happily shared with my kids. They were shocked to hear that in the good old days you couldn’t buy one song at a time and store them on your phone. They gasped at the concept of having to buy an entire CD and needed a detailed explanation of the word cassette tape. My eyes probably shined with joy telling stories of running into the Family Christian Store to buy the newest Steven Curtis Chapman album and listening to the entire thing from beginning to end. Not only would I listen to every word of every song, I’d open that slipcover and read all the lyrics, credits, and thank you’s too. Yep. Those are some of my favorite childhood memories.

Those days are long gone. The only album I’ve purchased in full in the last several years is this one – and you should too. In fact, people typically buy one song per album. Usually, it’s a song they heard on the radio and anyone with any musical taste knows the radio hit is rarely the best song on the album (told you I was musically opinionated). We miss so much great music in the age of iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, and whatever the other newfangled digital platform is ascending nowadays. We bypass wonderful songs because the little five-second clip doesn’t do it justice. We totally ignore songs because they’re not on the local Christian radio charts. Charts that increasingly seem to only have about five songs in rotation.

I may be pining for the old days now but in reality, I love the convenience of not carrying 300 CD’s around in my car. Also, it’s nice having all my music available at the touch of a button. Music is much cheaper when you aren’t forced to buy the entire album. In other words, there’s no going back now. And musically speaking, maybe that’s fine.

Every cultural revolution and technological advancement has unintended (or at least corresponding) sociological consequences. For example, many people approach the Bible like an iTunes playlist. They get little biblical snippets here and there, mostly from easily accessible digital sources. They’re familiar with the top ten Bible verses, but rarely know the context or framework of their favorite scriptures. Their theology and resulting understanding of the Gospel is based on sound clips and abbreviated versions that sound great but lack depth and richness. This is evidenced by nationwide lagging attendance during midweek Bible study services. And further demonstrated by Christians who lack transformation and basic biblical knowledge. For unbelievers, they see and hear the lack of mainstream Christianity’s depth and want nothing to do with that slick, naive, cheap, polished brand of empty believe-ism.

It’s not possible to pick and choose the “highlights” or the “best of” moments of the Bible and leave the rest out. Jesus put it this way: “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word the proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).” Many churches are filled with sincere unsaved people who have not truly obeyed God’s Word because they unwittingly settled for an iTunes version of the Gospel. And the world is full of people who have rejected the iTunes version of the Gospel because they easily recognized it as inconsistent, indefensible, and unsatisfying. You see, cheapening the Gospel doesn’t make it more palatable, it actually renders it worthless to the world. A little fly in the perfume gives the whole bottle a bad smell (Ecclesiastes 10:1).

The saving power of the Gospel is more than mental assent, a moment of sincere belief, or an ecstatic emotional experience. Simply stated, the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Before you can even enter into the plan of salvation you must believe that God exists and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6). Many people believe in the idea of God but reject Jesus. But to embrace the Gospel we first must believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior (Acts 16:31, John 3:18, John 4:42).

At the heart of the Gospel is the teaching that we must undergo our own spiritual death, burial, and resurrection just as Jesus did physically (Romans 6:3-8, Galatians 2:20, Colossians 2:12-13). There is one recorded instance in the Bible where bystanders clearly asked a question about salvation (Acts 2:37). Peter gives the most concise biblical answer in the following verse and everyone in the early Church followed that apostolic foundation for salvation. The apostle Peter preached: “…repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).” That precise formula is the only way to be birthed (John 3:3, 1 Peter 1:23) into the Kingdom of God.

Essentially, repentance is our spiritual death (Galatians 5:24, Romans 6:11, Galatians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:24, Romans 6:6), baptism in Jesus’ name is our spiritual burial (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12-13), and the infilling of the Holy Ghost is our spiritual resurrection (Romans 6:5, Colossians 3:1, Romans 8:8-14). Furthermore, the infilling of the Holy Ghost is first evidenced by supernaturally speaking in unknown (previously unlearned) tongues (languages) just as they did in the book of Acts (Mark 16:17, Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6) and every time from then on. And, baptism is only salvific when done in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12, Colossians 3:17, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, Acts 10:48, Romans 6:3).

After we are obedient to the fullness of the Gospel all the old sinful things pass away and we become a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). We walk in agreement with the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). Meaning, God not only saves us from our past sin, He empowers us with His own Spirit to live righteously (2 Peter 1:3-4). The extra good news of the Gospel is that God doesn’t just save us and leave us the same: He saves us, changes us, dwells within us, and continues to strengthen us daily. Now that’s really good news, and we’ve only scratched the surface of what it means to be transformed by the power of God.

I know that isn’t the slick version of the Gospel many people have seen on TV or heard on the radio. It doesn’t fit nicely on a bumper sticker. God didn’t design the Gospel to blend in with our overly commercialized culture. No. The Gospel is timeless, changeless, and sacred. Please don’t settle for an iTunes version of the Gospel that doesn’t save or satisfy.

Here’s Why Young People View the Church Like the Last Old Department Store

In the last 25 years, the church growth movement has transformed how America has church. It has also changed how younger people view church.

Many churches are now driven by business and marketing philosophies, moving away from a focus on discipleship and relationship with God.

The pastor has changed roles from shepherd to salesman. A distorted view of grace is his wares.

Evangelism is nonexistent. Apostles are no longer understood. Prophets are rejected. Teaching revolves around life skills. Prayer is redefined as positive thoughts, and the Spirit has no place in the business plan.

People now go to church to be courted and entertained, rather than to worship God.

Choosing churches is now the equivalent of deciding between buying jeans at the GAP or Old Navy. The product is pretty much the same. So who has better customer service? Or you can always stay home and do your shopping every Sunday morning online with a beer in your hand.

The result of this church culture is that younger people now view most churches like the last old department store in town, barely hanging on from the last century.

And they are simply shopping elsewhere.

Attempts to become mega church businesses have equated churches in the minds of millennials with the Sears downtown.

There is a “Going out of business” sign on the windows and everything is for sale, including the fixtures, the building, and even management.

The only way the Church will ever out-market, out-perform, or out-sell the world is through prayer, the preached Word, and the power of the Holy Ghost.

This world doesn’t need the Church to be Sears, a megachurch, their coffee shop, or a theater where they can view a well designed theological-themed production.

The world needs the Church to be Apostolic, Spirit-led, and Gospel preaching.

The world needs the Church to be full of conviction and separated unto God.

They need the God-designed Church that began in the Book of Acts, has thrived in every century, and still preaches the Truth that has the power to change even this generation.

Rev. Jonathan Sanders is a dynamic evangelist, preacher, teacher, and coffee connoisseur. This article originally appeared on Jonathan’s Facebook page. His posts and daily thoughts are always inspirational, articulate, interesting, relevant, and thought provoking. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter here and here. As I read his original post, I couldn’t help but think of David refusing King Saul’s armor before fighting Goliath. David understood that he needed to use the tools that God had equipped him with rather than conventional weapons of war. The modern Church desperatelly needs to reject marketing methods and embrace spiritual, God-ordained weaponry.

 

File Jul 01, 5 39 53 PM
Rev. Jonathan Sanders

file-feb-22-12-52-02-am

file-jan-30-11-45-43-am

img_1699

file-jan-12-1-50-49-am

img_1644

img_6280

img_6327-2

img_6337-4

img_1650

 

4 Problems Preacher’s Kids Face

If you’re a preacher, a preacher’s kid, or someone who loves the ministry and wants to be sensitive to their needs, this article is for you.

Today is my son’s seventh birthday and he loves the Lord and Legos very much. I think his love hierarchy is Jesus, his mommy, his sister, and his Legos. I trail those things by a small but pronounced margin. On a sappy parental note; I love his toothy grin, his high pitched (and very frequent) laughter, his sensitive heart, and his never-ending questions that leave me scratching my gradually balding head.

My son has the distinction of being a second-generation preacher’s kid and a fifth-generation Apostolic Pentecostal. He’s got a pretty stalwart legacy of faith behind his little Lego littered life. He’s too young to really feel the pressures of being a PK but with every passing birthday I know he’s getting a little closer to feeling that burden.

My nine-year-old daughter is just starting to show the telltale signs of the PK pressure. I recognize them easily because I faced them myself. Sometimes they’re subtle and sometimes they’re manifested dramatically. Even before having kids of my own I’ve had a heart for PK’s. I’ve been privileged to speak at several PK seminars over the years, and listening to their stories takes me right back to my childhood faster than Odyssey’s Imagination Station (if you don’t know what that means, do yourself a favor and look it up).

I would never minimize the challenges that every child faces. Certainly, these are challenging times for children in general. It’s also true that being born into a preacher’s home is a tremendous privilege with certain built-in advantages. Having said that, there are unique difficulties and problems that are specific to PK’s. In the hopes of helping, or at the very least drawing some awareness to the issues, I am listing a few common PK problems below.

1. Extreme Feelings of Loneliness & Isolation: Because there are so few peers that can relate to the unique challenges of the ministry lifestyle, PK’s often feel lonely and isolated. They suffer in silence and deal with a lot of unresolved emotional tension. They usually feel ashamed to voice these feelings to their parents because they genuinely don’t want to hurt them or sound harsh towards the things of God they cherish so deeply.

2. Bitterness Towards Saints: PK’s parents are incredibly busy. Ministry isn’t something you can just turn off or punch a time clock and be done with. Saints often don’t realize that the ten minutes you just spent on the phone with them is just one of a series of hundreds of ten-minute phone calls that interrupted yet another family moment. Not to mention all the mandatory church events, bi-vocational ministry homes, impromptu counseling sessions, mountains of prayerful study time that sequesters preachers away from their families, meetings, administrative work, conferences, ministry-related travel, the business of life in general, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Also, pastor’s wives are unpaid workers with heavy loads of responsibility. They labor alongside their husbands, and although they are technically not on staff they shoulder an immense amount of time-consuming work. All of this can leave a PK feeling like everyone else is more important than them. Every need is more urgent than their need. Every crisis trumps their crisis. So, they retreat and grow bitter (or jealous) towards the people (or the church in general) who constantly pull mommy and daddy away. If left unresolved, those feelings can morph into bitterness towards mom and dad.

It’s not uncommon for kids to feel a level of bitterness towards their parent’s job responsibilities because it keeps them busy and away from home, but when a child starts feeling that way about the place they are supposed to go for spiritual nourishment real dangers are lurking.

3. They See the Ugly Underbelly: No matter how much their parents try to shield PK’s from the worst aspects of a church it is impossible to keep it all neatly hidden in a drawer. PK’s see their parents attacked by saints and sinners alike. They see their parents disrespected by people they thought were respectable, and they have a front row seat to the tragic showing of every backslider’s decline. Sadly, disgruntled saints will sometimes try to use a PK to get at their parents or cause a church rift. This is disgusting at best but not unusual.

PK’s see their parents at their highest high’s and their lowest low’s. They see Elijah calling fire from heaven and they see him running from Jezebel too. These are hard scenarios for a child to process and still love their church family like they should. Others may only see the public displays of respect for ministry, but PK’s see the ugly moments when the masks come off.

4. Unrealistic Expectations: PK’s live under a different set of expectations than most kids. And it can go from one extreme to the other. On the one hand, many people stereotype PK’s as being trouble makers, spoiled rotten, or bratty. On the other hand, many people expect PK’s to bypass their childhood completely and act like miniature perfectly mannered adults. PK’s live in a glass house where their every move is under the watching eye of curious people. Everything they and their parents do is highly visible and scrutinized. The feeling of constantly being under a microscope can devolve into spiritual and emotional suffocation.

Some PK’s live under the overwhelming pressure to grow up and be in the ministry just like their parents. I’ll never forget, I was all of eleven years old when someone very seriously asked if I knew Greek and Hebrew like my father.

To complicate things even further, if PK’s do feel called to the ministry they face the all-too-familiar critical eye of a watching crowd. Will they be more anointed than their parents or less anointed than their parents? Will they be as talented as their parents or less talented than their parents? Some PK’s balk at the emotional reality that some shoes just seem too big to fill.

Preacher’s Kids Are People Too. Bottom line, kids are kids. Preacher’s kids must learn, grow, laugh, cry, win, lose, fall, and get up just like every other kid. They have strengths and weaknesses. They have unique talents and special abilities distinct to them and them alone. Some are called to pastoral ministry while others are not. They are not puppets to be used in a sacrilegious game of tug-of-war. They have peculiar challenges and special advantages at the same time. Saints that love the ministry will love PK’s with grace, sensitivity, and understanding. And yes, your pastor and his wife will appreciate it more than words can express.

Final Note: For those that might be wondering, as far as I can tell no one in my church has ever been anything but sweet to my children. I truly appreciate the kindness and consideration that Apostolic Tabernacle shows my children on a regular basis.

Video – The Worship Wars with Ryan & Nathan French

This is essentially part two of my conversation with my brother Nathan on the subject of worship. I really appreciate Nathan taking the time to talk. We both lead incredibly hectic lives and finding time to do anything is extremely difficult. But we both care deeply about the importance of worship and leading worship. In […]

Just Another Article About Why Millennials Are Leaving Churches

Everyone seems to be consumed with the question of why Millennials are leaving churches. Just google “why are millennials leaving the church and you’ll have a month’s worth of reading material. Millennials are writing “open letters” to the Church like doctors write prescriptions. America has shifted its focus from the Baby Boomer generation to the Millennial generation. The reasons are many, Millennials by most estimations have surpassed the Baby Boomers in number, they are taking over the workforce, and shaping culture in countless ways both good and bad.

Full disclosure, at 33 I am technically a millennial. For those who have remained blissfully unaware, the consensus seems to be that Millennials are comprised of those born from 1982 – 2012 (although there is some debate). So, I squeaked into what is often called “the worst generation”. Good for me!

Having said that, it should be noted that Millennials are not monolithic. We simply cannot be lumped into one big pile. I think that’s one of the most interesting and underreported aspects of my generation. We are radically different from person to person. This can be attributed to the massive amounts of data and information that have become accessible to us from our youth via the rise of the internet, social media, education, and other media sources. In fact, we have so much data we’re literally drowning in it.

img_1676

Regarding the hysteria surrounding the so-called mass exodus of Millennials from churches, this is not a new issue. Every generation has had a falling away (check out this article written in 1993 regarding the Baby Boomer generation). I’m a fifth-generation Oneness Pentecostal Christian, and every generation in my family has bemoaned the departure of large portions of their generation from the Church.

file-jan-12-1-50-49-am

So why all the frenzy? One, there are more people polling, studying, analyzing and collecting data about Christianity than in days gone by. Second, the rise of blogs (like this one), social media, and the internet in general spreads the word beyond the stuffy conversations of church board meetings. Third, my generation doesn’t leave quietly. We make a big deal over it. We whine and write and vlog and yada-yada-yada about it. The result is that this feels like a brand-new problem when it’s really just an old problem with a new label.

file-jan-12-1-52-59-am

As this study points out, young adults commonly leave churches for a season only to return later in life. Jesus parabolically described this very thing in the story of the Prodigal Son. Marriage, the birth of a child, a life crisis, or the realization that secularism is full of emptiness often draws people back to their childhood faith. My grandparents used to call this phenomenon “sowing wild oats”. I still have no idea what that means.

Featured Image -- 2739

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying this isn’t a problem, it is. It’s just not a new problem. Beyond that, I think overreactions and knee-jerk responses to the perceived death of Christianity are ridiculous, unnecessary, and unhelpful. I would even argue that the overreacting has contributed to the problem.

Recently, an article caught my attention on Facebook called 12 Reasons Millennials Are Over Church. I’ve read countless articles like it but this one gives a clear window into the heart of the issue. I’d like to address several things the author mentions head on (from one millennial to another so to speak).

It’s probably the narcissistic millennial part of me, but I think being at the upper end of the age spectrum gives me a unique insight into the issue at hand. In other words, I see both sides of the coin; sometimes I think like a typical millennial and other times millennial thinking makes me want to hang my head in shame. Regardless, bridges must be built between the generations, but they must be properly built on foundations of truth and honesty; not hypocrisy and cheap compromise.

Back to the 12 Reasons Millennials Are Over Church, the first complaint on the list is Nobody’s Listening to Us (don’t worry I won’t take the time to address all 12). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this also is not a new problem. Every generation has felt undervalued, unappreciated, and unheard. We are in the throes of a generational clash. Every younger generation has felt they could do it better, run it better, make it better, etc. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.

Growing pains are tough and feeling marginalized is tougher. Generational clashes are as old as time, we’ve all heard the platitudes about kids who thought dad didn’t know anything about anything until they had kids of their own. This is the natural order of life, but it must be addressed and discussed.

img_1642-2

While it is true that Millennials don’t know everything many of us are sincere (although we are often sincerely wrong). Approaching sincere Millennials with bad assumptions about our character and name calling will alienate us further. Opening channels of communication is imperative if you want us to feel connected to the future and health of the Church. On the flip side, we Millennials must learn that listening is just as important as being heard. The generations ahead of us endured tons of obstacles to get where they are and when we insult their dignity they automatically (and understandably) question our motives.

This brings me to my biggest problem with my generation. Lack of respect. I know, I know. Respect must be earned, but a vast majority of Millennials struggle to respect any traditional authority structures. Mountains of research have been compiled on this very subject. Like most Millennials, I’ve seen many “heroes” fall both secular and religious. This has produced a general mistrust towards leaders of all kinds, which is reason number 7 (Distrust & Misallocation of Resources) in the article we’re discussing.

Since we Millennials love to point out hypocrisy, I’ll shine a little light on one of my generations hypocritical conundrums. Many of my peers may be shedding the “chains” of Christianity and parental dominance, but they are trading them for a secular dogma that they pursue with religious fervor. Their preachers call themselves professors, their bishops are politicians, and science is their Bible. They even have an apocalyptic End Times theology called global warming. Taxes are nothing more than tithes in the mega church of government, and morality is not sexual but it is social. Here’s the problem, politics and science and social justice warriors have far more scandals, greed, misappropriation of funds, antipathy, complacency, inconsistencies, and general fraud than all the churches in all the world could ever dream of having. For example, here’s a list of solutions that the author has given to help churches overcome the distrust Millennials have towards financial stewardship within churches:

Actually, I think all those things are great ideas, and many churches do that stuff and much more. But as Millennials become increasingly politically active why are we not voicing the same concerns towards the almighty federal government? Where is the outrage over the waste and fraud within beloved government social programs? Millennials supposedly value consistency above all and when the Church fails the test we’re out, right? Why then aren’t we imposing these same concerns in the realm of politics?

Moving on, reason number 3 on the list of why Millennials are over church: Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority. This one always irks me a little bit even though I think I know where he’s coming from. Honestly, it seems like every mega church in America is more concerned with sending water to Africa than actually preaching the Gospel (no need for hate mail, I’m all for sending water to Africa). The social gospel movement dominates western Christianity. Helping the poor is important, vital, necessary, and Christ-like. But nothing could be more compassionate, life-changing, and elevating than the Gospel. That’s why the Great Commission is Gospel-centric not welfare oriented.

But therein lies the true problem my fellow millennial is addressing. To some degree, I’m jumping to conclusions here, but it’s fairly safe to assume based on his description that the author attends a typical semi-mega church. Meaning that the Gospel is so watered down and shallow it’s just a shell of the authentic truth of the Bible. Performance has replaced praise and relevance has replaced righteousness. And these are the kinds of churches that Millennials are fleeing like a religious Titanic.

Churches like this rail against the culture (see point 4) but they are saturated with the culture. They preach sermons based off movies and incorporate secular music into their services. Millennials spot the hypocrisy a mile away. They see churches filled with a form of godliness yet denying the power of it (2 Timothy 3:5). It’s a point I’ve previously made here, many heterosexual Millennials supported gay marriage because they watched churches wink at adultery, divorce, and various other sexual sins while bellowing against the gay lifestyle. Let me be clear, all those things are biblically unacceptable, but many American churches lost the moral high ground a long time ago in the name of relevance. These churches thought they were making the Gospel more palatable, but they really just perverted it.

img_1647-1

So, churches that are like the culture have no room to rail against the culture. It’s like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, or to use one of Jesus’ analogies; it’s like the guy with a beam in his eye pointing out a speck in the other guy’s eye (Matthew 7:3-5). And we’ve circled right back around to hypocrisy; we millennials hate hypocrisy even if we don’t always recognize it in ourselves.

Reason number 7 (We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At) is probably the best example of how I see both sides of the coin. On the surface, I agree with the statement but once he starts elaborating he loses me. I do see a dearth of one on one mentorship in the average church. Jesus said to go and make disciples (Matthew 28:19). His whole ministry was a combination of public preaching and private teaching. Millennials are desperate for godly mentors, especially with the overwhelming absence of mothers and fathers due to divorce, careers, and addiction.

img_6337-4

But I fear that the minimization of preaching and the weird comfort level that Millennials have with virtual pastors is a product of weak pulpits. Meaning, the average commercially relevant Christian church is preaching watered down sermons thinking that’s what it takes to connect. When in reality they are disconnected from the anointing and the biblical authority they desperately need.

Here’s a point to ponder for holiness pastors such as myself; Millennials are not afraid of biblical righteousness if it is correct, sincere, consistent, and kind. That may rock your boat a little but it’s true. Millennials are not afraid to be counter-cultural if it is presented to them truthfully, sincerely, convincingly, and directly.

img_1675

Which leads me to reason number 9 on the list of why Millennials are over church; We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is). This is the most important point in the entire article, and it is 100% accurate. For too long now churches have remained alarmingly silent on the big issues. Hollywood, social engineers, politicians, and liberal professors don’t have any qualms about facing the big controversial issues head on. So why should the Church? Churches need to talk about jobs, money, careers, sex, marriage, dating, addiction, social issues, and more. As he said, I understand all these topics can’t and shouldn’t be discussed in the main sanctuary. However, opportunities need to be provided to face the controversial issues head on.

img_1646-1

For my fellow Pentecostals, there is some good news regarding the scary millennial statistics and the general decline of American Christianity. While mainline, denominational churches are dying Pentecostals are experiencing growth (check out this fascinating article Why Do These Pentecostals Keep Growing? by Ed Stetzer).

While Pentecostals may have declining ranks of Millennials, statistics strongly indicate that we have much better retention than mainline denominational churches. Why? Because we have what the apostles had, the power of the Holy Spirit. We have not allowed liberal theologians to create contempt and mistrust for the Bible. While imperfect, we are distinct and separated from the world. Is carnality creeping into many of our churches? Yes! And that will be the death of those churches. Because Millennials hate hypocrisy. So, if you want to impress Millennials, “…be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58)”.

file-sep-09-7-32-00-pm

Finally, Millennials are ultra-social conscious. We want to see poverty, disease, and anguish eradicated. We may be more sensitive than our predecessors in petulant ways, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t earnest. That’s great news for true Bible believing Apostolics because we know that the Gospel can genuinely change lives. The Holy Ghost can lift a drug addict out of crippling addiction, restore marriages, heal sickness, and turn a liar honest. What could be better for broken communities than hundreds of thousands of Spirit transformed people? Apostolic revival is the greatest social program of all time. The Acts 2:38 message can still turn the world upside down (Acts 17:6).

file-jan-12-7-50-29-pm

A Oneness Pentecostal – Making A Difference by Ellington Haywood Ellis

I was pleasantly surprised to see an article in The Huffington Post by Ellington Haywood Ellis entitled A Oneness Pentecostal – Making A DifferenceI hope you will read the article for yourself. Ellis claims a direct correlation between the dynamic Oneness Pentecostal movement in Ethiopia and subsequent economic growth. Interestingly, Ellis mentions that the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Hailemariam Desalegn, is a Oneness Pentecostal believer.

On a personal note, Ellis cites my father’s tremendous book at about the halfway point of the article. As many of you know, my father, Dr. Talmadge L. French is one of the premier scholars and historians within the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Here’s the quote:

“…the Oneness Pentecostal movement centered on a charismatic Leader, Garfield Thomas Haywood. According to Talmadge L. French in his book, “Early Interracial Oneness Pentecostalism (2014), the African American Leader, Garfield T. Haywood was its primary architect and figures most prominently into the movements history, not only as one of its leading proponents, but as its central interracial voice, as well as its most renowned leader.”

file-sep-09-7-32-00-pm

1.png

Baptism “In Jesus’ Name” And the New Testament Greek

I am excited to introduce you to the first contribution to Apostolic Voice by a noted theologian, Dr. Talmadge French. He is my father, pastor, mentor, and friend.

Preliminary Considerations for the Defense of Baptism In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ

Postmodern tendencies away from distinctive doctrinal, and thus competitive, views in the arena of theological ideas must be confronted with a renaissance of fresh affirmation and defense of New Testament baptism rooted in the conviction that Scripture alone, and thus the Apostle’s doctrine, is the sole rule of faith. Oneness Pentecostals have been consistent and “thoroughgoing restorationists” in this regard, insisting that Apostolic practice be followed, regardless of later formulations.  Indeed, at times, the Oneness movement is caricatured for this as exclusivistic and sectarian, not so much for insisting upon the originality of the Jesus’ name form, but for the insistence that it matters.

Of course, the Oneness position on baptism, the contention that the name of Jesus in baptism fulfills the Lord’s commission, is also an emphatic substantiation of the doctrine of the absolute Oneness of God and Jesus’ full, unshared Deity. Evidence of the unwarranted alteration in the formula of baptism, in order to accommodate Triune distinctions, is further indication that original doctrinal positions were modified.

But, while such distinctions currently matter to Oneness Pentecostals, perhaps the greatest challenge of our times is the formidable task of transferring a sincere passion for the truth to the next generation of Apostolics. Amidst the prevailing “who cares?” cultural and religious mentality, with its dominance of relative thought and the equality of all belief(s), the Oneness movement must not fail to stir anew that intense love for the name which has been its most distinguishing, promising, and resolute characteristic.

New Testament Significance of the Name

The postmodern shift in theological ideology intensifies the issue over baptism in varied and subtle ways. Historically, for example, attempts have been championed to separate the use, or speaking, of the name, from the authority and person of the one named. Such a view is without biblical support and reflects a minimizing of the import of the recurrent New Testament form, and use, of the name. An alleged lack of precise baptismal form is sometimes said to substantiate an assumption that “the name of Jesus” was merely an idiomatic way of speaking of one’s person or authority.  But to indicate that form was an imprecise variable, and thus unimportant, or even nonexistent, shifts the debate considerably.

It is true that the erroneous assumption—that, as long as the one named is intended as the authority of an act, it makes little or no difference what one says—would necessarily apply also to the Triune form. The subtle and increasingly accepted implication is that either no formula whatsoever existed, or that there was no set formula that mattered. This goes far beyond the creedal debate as to which is original, but ignores as irrelevant, or eradicates, any Apostolic precedent and practice, the basis of the Oneness contention.

But it also ignores the historical reality. Rigorous exception should be made to the rejection of the significance of the New Testament use of the phrase “in the name” with reference to baptism and the working of miracles as unique to the name of Jesus and Christian practice. These are core, not peripheral, issues to Jesus’ name theology. As such, the Oneness position takes strong issue with the assertion that the expression “in the name” has no actual reference to a name, but only to an authority.

The overwhelming sense is that the New Testament church was very literally a people of the name, who used Jesus’ name uniquely, prominently, and powerfully, and of whom God said: “upon GREEK 1 whom my name is called.” The use of “this name” was a prominent aspect of their “doctrine.” The issue was a specific name, unapologetically and boldly preached, for which they “hazarded their lives,” and for which they rejoiced “that they were counted worthy to suffer.” To magnify His name was to magnify Jesus.

The emphasis on the name makes no sense, theologically or historically, apart from the corresponding use of the name Jesus itself. It is not as though you can disregard the use of the name in baptism or elsewhere, and maintain the theological cohesion of the Apostolic intention and truth. Nor is it hair-splitting to insist upon the distinctive Apostolic doctrine and practice and resistance to the casual dismissal of Apostolic precedence.  There is simply no legitimacy to the assumption that the Apostles needed to speak the name, baptize in the name, and suffer for the name, but that others are exempt, superior, and without need of the same necessity.

For example, the power of God was manifest in the actual words–“in the name of Jesus”—as they were spoken. They did not just act in Christ’s authority, for in what other authority would they be acting?  But they said:  Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee: in (Greek 2) the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And, note, that Greek 2is used, not imprecisely, but interchangeably here with “by GREEK 1what name” in Acts 4:7.  In awe and “joy” they recognized that “the devils are subject unto us through (Greek 2) Thy name,” for their understanding of its power came from the Lord Himself. “Ye shall be hated of all nations,” Jesus said, “for (Greek 3, because of) my name’s sake.”

The Hebraic Influence Upon the Greek

The Jewish emphasis upon the name of the Lord, with all of its ramifications and usage, anticipated the New Testament invocation of the name of Jesus characteristic of the Book of Acts and the early church.  Certainly the Hebraic reverence for the name exceeded mere reference to authority: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” has to do with the use of the name, etc. Such an emphasis, upon the use of the name, is intensified in the dynamic of New Testament name theology.

Perhaps it was the theological move away from single formula baptism that hindered the recognition of the obvious—the Apostolic use of the name followed the familiar Hebraic pattern regarding the name of God. This Jewish Christian usage of the Greek, had a determinative effect upon the Greek, the forms, the cases, and the varied prepositions when used with Greek 4 (in the name), as well as the almost interchangeable use of Greek 5and Greek 6.

The New Testament Greek paralleled the Septuagint, which in turn reflected the HebrewGreek 7. Due to this influence, as Bauer notes regarding the use of Greek 2, for example, “no corresponding use has been found in secular Greek.” And note the use of Greek 6 in the dative, which represents a unique Greek usage, as Bauer suggests, a use “only of the name of Jesus.” That usage is the actual invoking of the name Jesus – “in the name.”

The Hebraic, Old Testament influence upon the important issue of the name is seen, not only with respect to “in the name of,” “naming,” etc., but in “calling upon the name” – Greek 8, or varied compounds. “Call” is used “Hebraistically… to call upon by pronouncing the name Jehovah.” In the LXX, it is “used very often for Greek 9.” The New Testament usage of the expression “calling on the name” is often an exact parallel to the Hebraic Old Testament sense of calling out the sacred name – “O, Lord my God.”

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon (Greek 10) God, and saying, Lord Jesus,” Acts 7:59. To “call upon the name of the Lord” often meant to literally call, or speak, or say the name Yahweh, in spite of the fact that centuries later Jews came to regard the name as ineffable. For example, God “proclaimed the name of the Lord” by invoking it over Moses: “The Lord passed by him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God.” “Then called I upon the name of the Lord; O Lord, I beseech Thee.”

The Hebraic Influence in Key Elements Relative to Baptism

The Apostles’ use of “in the name,” with the varied prepositional constructions, reflects the signifying of the actual words and the name spoken in baptism. Thus, “in the name” signified the invoking of the name:

“in (Greek 6) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38); “in (Greek 5) the name of the Lord Jesus (8:16); “in     (Greek 2) the name of the Lord” (10:48); “in (Greek 5) the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5).

Whether in baptism or works of miraculous power, the recurrent use of “in the name” signified both the means by which they used the name, actual invocation, and the power and authority of the One named.

Greek 11…some influence: ‘while naming’ or ‘calling on my name’…. An additional factor, to a degree, may be… ‘with mention of the name’…. Greek 12 of God or Jesus means in the great majority of cases with mention of the name, while naming or calling on the name (LXX no corresponding use has been found in secular Gk.) … Greek 13, and the dat. …when someone’s name is mentioned or called upon, or mentioning someone’s name…. in the NT only of the name of Jesus.

Baptism “In The Name” and the Question of Formula

The Oneness contention is that New Testament baptism was administered exclusively in the name of Jesus—signifying the original and the fixed formula, and that any alteration in the Apostolic mode and form of baptism for any reason is unwarranted and without biblical justification. Quite telling is the fact that the common recurrence of the “in the name” is used with respect to baptism, but without a single reference substituting “in the authority of.”  This attests to the fact that “in the name of Jesus” signifies the words of the actual form (or formula) used in the waters of baptism, always and exclusively with reference to the singular name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The history of creedal development also suggests the originality of the single-name form as over against the tripartite form. Of course, the use of “in the name” in Matthew 28:19 reflects the singular form, but not the later claim to the originality of repeating the Matthean words. Calvin’s claim that the tripartite form is original, rejecting the preponderance of single form passages, represents the classic belief in the superiority of a Triune form: I maintain that Peter is not speaking in this passage [Acts 2:38] of the form of baptism. . . It is not a fixed formula of baptism that is being dealt with here.

A discrepancy does not exist between the Matthean text and the preponderance of texts relative to the Jesus’ name formula or between Jesus and His Apostles (Mt 16:13-20; Jn 17:30; Acts 2:37, 4).  The Apostles, in full agreement, invoked the name in baptism intended by the Matthean phrase—by invoking the name Jesus. Signifying a single reference (Mt 28:19) as the solitary formula—on the basis of divine titles or a corroboration of Triune dogma—ignores the preponderance of texts evidencing the single form.

A Triune form was simply not in use in the early church. Any later development, the alteration of the baptismal practice of the Apostles, and the supplanting and excluding the Jesus’ name formula, constitute unwarranted violations of Apostolic authority and cannot stand on par with Scriptural baptism.

Historical Evidence for the Originality of the Jesus’ Name Formula

Indeed, strong evidence and wide support for the acknowledgement of the originality of Jesus’ name baptism include the exclusive reference to Jesus in the earliest creeds, or kerygma, as noted by historians such as C. H. Dodd, J. N. D. Kelly, and others. The earliest creeds were clearly non-Triune, such as Greek 14, “Jesus is Lord.”

It will be noticed that the confessions which crop up most frequently in the New Testament are the single-clause christological ones. On the basis of this it has been argued that the single-clause creeds represent the authentic faith of the primitive Church.

In 1520, Luther wrote: Others, again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words, ‘I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ’ —Although it is certain that the Apostles used this formula in baptizing.

This is precisely the crux of the matter: “It is certain that the Apostles used this formula.”  Why, then, any debate, why any other mode or formula? “There is little doubt,” writes Lars Hartman, “that baptism was practiced by the first Christians… given ‘into the name of Jesus… If this be so, then the combination of baptism and the formula just quoted brings us down to a very primitive phase of the life of the early church.”

And, in his A History of Christian Thought, Heich stated: While this perfectly Trinitarian faith may be taken as a matrix from which a recognized formula . . . eventually issued, it does not mean that baptism was being administered in the name of the triune God at that time.  At first baptism was in the name of Christ.

A Consideration of the Textual Construction of Some Key Passages (The Name Above Every Name:  Phil 2:9-10)

One of the most significant passages concerning the name is Philippians 2:9-10. Some, including my own Greek language degree advisor, Gerald Hawthorne, have taken issue with “Jesus” being the name “above every name,” due to the use of the genitive. “At (Greek 2) the name of Jesus” (2:10) renders Greek 15 as a typical possessive genitive, implying that Jesus possesses an exalted name, other than “Jesus” itself, most probably “lord”(Greek 16).

But the Hebraic influence prevailed, so that “in the name of,” without the need for a specific dative, borrowing from the Hebrew sense, carried the force of the Greek dative.  Therefore, Jesus is used in the identical construction Greek 17 in which the name of Yahweh, or Lord, often meant the name Yahweh itself. This is apparent, for example, in the matter of fact usage of the genitive with the names Jesus Greek 18, Lord Greek 19, and Christ Greek 20, with no possessive intent. This is the obvious understanding in the Acts accounts of the name Jesus. If the dative were required, as with “for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (each genitive), the implication would be that He possessed yet another name than Jesus, Lord, or Christ—for which they hazarded their lives!

The exalted name is Jesus, and not His title Lord Greek 19 or Christ Greek 20.  “Lord” is Who He is, but Jesus is His name. His name was so exalted, honored, and specific, that it could even be referred to simply as “the name” or “that worthy name.”

The tremendous Oneness implications should be noted in the fact that every knee bows to the Lord (Yahweh, Isa 45:23) God Himself “at the name of Jesus,” which is “to the glory of” Greek 21 the Father. The theology of the name was in direct keeping with the Old Testament: “Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless His holy name; O Lord our Lord, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth,” (Psalm 8:1; 103:1). And, indeed, the name upon the lips of the impassioned first church was not Buddha, nor Allah, nor any other name than—the name Jesus itself.

Salvation Is In The Name:  Ac 4:12; Eph 1:21; 1 Pet 3:20-21

The Acts account places enormous emphasis upon the saving implications of the name, using a rare triple negative for stress: “Neither Greek 22 is there salvation in any Greek 23.PNGother: for there is none Greek 24 other.” This is hardly soft-peddling their stress on Jesus’ name. Rather, it precludes any name or salvation apart from Jesus, for His name is “above” all, and “far above” “every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” The use of the neuter, Greek 23, emphasizes that reference is to the name itself, which is stressed twice, “none other name” Greek 25. And “whereby” Greek 26 shows the agency of the name, or ‘by which’ salvation “must” come    Greek 27. Literally, ‘by which it is necessary for us to be saved.”

Strong language indeed, especially when taken with the baptismal references in Acts and the stress, elsewhere, upon the essentiality of the water. Peter places such strong emphasis upon the saving aspect of baptism that he refers to the “water,” not the Ark, as the element by which “eight souls were saved.” And the Flood and baptism are not both figures or types, but only one is a “like figure” Greek 28, or, literally, ‘which is even a figure.’ Noah’s salvation prefigured the reality that “baptism doth also now save us.”

Remission Of Sins Is In The Name:  1 Pet 3:20-21; Ac 2:38; Jn 3:5

The parallel elsewhere concerning the washing, cleansing, and remitting elements of baptism is consistent with Peter’s parenthetical statement that baptism is not an outward “putting away of the filth of the flesh” (contrasted with the inward washing). Rather than outwardly removing Greek 29, or dirt, baptism affects the inward man, as the “answer of a good conscience toward God.” Literally, ‘a plea Greek 30 to God for a good conscience,’ with the objective genitive.

Baptism, therefore, is not merely some outward symbol, but is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and, thus, an integral element in the New Birth experience of salvation. The use of the Greek preposition conjoined with remission, Greek 31.PNG, is the strongest statement as to the efficacy of baptism in the name of Jesus. “For” (Greek 5), with its forward directional implications, such as ‘to, into, toward,’ means ‘in order to (access)’ remission (i.e. the blood was shed “for the remission of sins,” Mt 26:28).  But Greek 5 never means ‘because of’ remission already received.

Jesus stated: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”  And, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The lack of the article (or anarthrous use, Greek 32) with either “water” or “Spirit” is consistent with reference to one new birth, with related elements of water and Spirit. The typical manner of indicating separate items joined with Greek 33, that is, two separate, unrelated births, one flesh, and the other Spirit, would be articular.

Invoking the Name of Jesus In Baptism:  Ac 22:16 and Ja 2:7

Every significant element regarding the relationship of baptism and the name of Jesus are highlighted in Acts 22:16: “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Most significant is the use of Greek 34 in the specific aorist middle participle Greek 35: invoke, call upon, call by name, appeal to, etc. The use of the middle, rather than the usual passive, parallels the two prior middles, Greek 36 and Greek 37, both aorist middle imperatives. The middles stress here the subject’s participatory role: not ‘baptize yourself,’ or ‘wash your own sins away,’ but ‘get yourself baptized and have your sins washed away.’ Therefore, the participle follows similarly: ‘have the name called over yourself!” Powerful wording in any language.

Clearly, “calling on the name,” has reference to the actual name used in baptism, in parallel to calling and invoking the name of God in the Old Testament. The power of the name rests in the power of the One so named. James could simply refer to it as “that worthy name,” even as Paul knew his hearers would know Who was crucified for them, and, thus, in Whose name they were baptized. Interestingly, unbelievers even tried to imitate calling Greek 38 of “the name of the Lord Jesus” overGREEK 1people.

James’ reference to “that worthy name,” certainly, is with respect to the name of Jesus, honored and reverenced, as well as invoked in water baptism. “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?” Again, the use of Greek 39, call or invoke, in the aorist passive participle form,  signifies the naming or speaking the actual name. But James adds Greek 40, actually stressing the idea of the invoking as being over or upon someone.

The idea is weakened, and misses the point of the prepositional construction, if the supposition is that one is named ‘by’ the name ‘Christ,’ as when called a Christian. Not ‘by you,’ but ‘over or upon you.’ The name “by GREEK 1the which ye are called” (Ja 2:7) is, literally, “which has been called over you!” Of course, a Christianity which no longer invoked the name over believers, nor was attentive to the significance of the name of Jesus, especially regarding baptism, would have missed the significance of James’ statement as well.

Addendum

From “A Response to Ockham’s Razor With A Vengeance”

The Significance of ‘In the Name of Jesus’ As a Formula.  “Ockham’s Razor” indicts Oneness Pentecostals for accepting the formula for baptism ‘in the name of Jesus’ by con-tending that, undoubtedly, there is no formula for baptism, or at least not a fixed formula. In order to sustain this conclusion two crucial assertions are advanced: (1) the form ‘in the name’ does not represent an invoking of the name ‘Jesus’ and (2) the term ‘in the name’ is to be comprehended as merely idiomatic. The Greek text, it is asserted, validates both propositions.

First, the essence of the meaning of ‘formula’, if it can be applied to baptism (and in-deed it has been and is so applied), implies a fixity. That is to say, if baptism has a form, that essential form is therefore not open to alteration. And, scholarship concerning creedal development indicates, decidedly, that the form of baptism with reference to Jesus, ‘in the name of Jesus,’ came to be replaced by baptism in the name of the Trinity.

Therefore, it appears that the shift occurred toward a Trinitarian emphasis and away from the christological emphasis. The evidence of the patristics and the long history of Christianity itself reveal considerable development of dogma and creed. But what is fundamental here is the development of baptismal formulae, and especially the tripartite formula. Schlink suggests that the triune development was “an important supplement to the name of Jesus” and “this unfolding of the name of Jesus became all the more necessary with the more the Gospel advanced beyond Palestine to other areas where faith in the one God was unknown.”

“Most probably Baptism was originally performed upon (in) the name of Christ and this was later expanded, as in the expansion of the Christological confession into the tripartite creeds.” Bousset, in Kyrios Christos, and H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, state concurring conclusions, with Wolfson adding: “Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.”

As to the question of the Greek text relevant to baptism ‘in the name’ and the invoking of the name Jesus, again, the issue is two-fold. First, does the use of ‘in the name’ in the baptism statements intend to represent instructions for the actual words that were to be called over the baptismal candidate? Or, does it represent only idiomatic phraseology referring to authority, a synecdoche simply meaning Jesus Himself ownership, and/or other linguistic meanings?

The idiomatic significance and connotation apropos to the understanding and translation of the text is very important, allowing insight into meanings and nuances intended by the original writer. And Oneness writers adequately take this into consideration, for a wealth of scholarship exists with respect to the Greek language, idiomatic aspects included. But idiomatic nuances with respect to the baptismal statements are neither sufficient explanations of the repeated use of the form ‘in the name,’ nor are they taken to represent the primary meaning of the use of ‘in the name’.

Idiomatic understanding of the phrase is inadequate to explain the total import of the baptism rite as described in the New Testament. Rather, the significant, primary under-standing of ‘in the name’ is that it represents the form of that which was spoken in the rite of baptism.  Such a conclusion is consistent with the witness of the New Testament.

This article originally appeared in the Journal of the Apostolic Theological Forum published by the Apostolic Theological Forum in 2006, click here if you would like to purchase the journal. The article in its original form contains a wealth of footnotes, far too complicated and numerous for this blog’s format. I am happy to pass those on to anyone who is interested. My father, Dr. Talmadge French, has also written a wonderfully helpful, best-selling, and concise tract on Jesus’ name baptism as well as several other great works. I have included a link for those here. Please note, if you Greek scholars find any discrepencies in the Greek text it is likely an error on my part, transitioning the text into this blog format was tedious to say the least.