This is what Dave Black (Friday, April 3, 2009 at 8:47 a.m.) says in the first chapter of The Jesus Paradigm:

What might this kingdom-focused church of the twenty-first century look like? It will be a serving church. Its organizational structure will be simple, unencumbered by bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Its financial priorities will reflect a commitment to missions, local and global. Capital expenditures will be reduced and the savings earmarked for discipleship. Most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help or eliminated. Denominations will make drastic reductions in funds spent on publications that are a waste of the church's money (bulletins, glossy magazines, and Sunday School quarterlies – the Bible will be used instead). Church buildings will be used for primary and secondary Christian education. Believers will gladly work transdenominationally and cooperatively, especially at the local level. The church will proclaim the Good News of the Gospel as its first priority while not neglecting the cultural mandate. A full-fledged lay ministry will replace clericalism. Individual believers will be expected to assume specialized ministries according to their giftedness. Churches will provide regular lay training and build voluntary programs of education into their structures. Worship will no longer be confined to a single time or place. Preoccupation with church buildings will be seen for what it is – idolatry. The church will no longer cling to its prerogatives but take the form of a servant. It will refuse any longer to shun the secular. Trained pastors will become humble assistants to the "ministers" – every member. Disciples will take the going forth as seriously as they do the gathering. New believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement (neighborhood council, PTA, volunteer library staff, nursing home visitation, etc.) in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.

Plus, Henry Neufeld, the publisher, has read the book and responded to it in his blog post here. Here are some of his remarks:

Normally, prospective authors inform me of the tremendous sales possibilities of their manuscript, how many people will love it, and why I ought to be willing to invest substantial sums in bringing it before a soon-to-be adoring public, certain to make them (and me) rich. Generally they’re very wrong.

But Dr. David Alan Black, author of more than 20 books, said: “Nobody will really be happy with my book.”

And that is a book that I choose to publish. This is not because I object to selling books or want to make people unhappy. It’s because for me, Energion Publications is a ministry, and ministry means service.

The bottom line is that I think that every Christian, especially in America, would do well to read this book. I have just made my first complete run through the manuscript, and that conviction grew stronger with every chapter. Do I agree with everything said? No. Did each and every page give me a glowing feeling inside? No. Do I think you’re going to love every minute of the time you spend reading it? I don’t.

The fact is that this book hit the spot for me. Now “hit the spot” is an expression we use to refer to comfort. After a good meal, we might say, “That really hit the spot.” But there’s another kind of spot-the one you find in the center of a target. You know, that big red circle surround by all those concentric rings. The arrow of conviction hit the spot.

There are many reasons that I'm looking forward to this book. The publisher mentions several in his blog post. For me, there's another one: I'm attracted to what I see God doing in Dave Black's life. For those of us who know him, I think this book will be even more important and more challenging. Why? Because, we will read his book and his life.

Music in the Church: How Special Should We Make It?Jim Elliff
You could put the entire teaching about church music in the New Testament in a paragraph or two. Add to this teaching those spirited illustrations of corporate singing in heaven displayed in the last book of the Bible, when angels and throngs of people fill the air with thundering six to eight line choruses. When it comes to intentional instruction about music, however, there are really only four passages in the New Testament:
Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Ephesians 5:19

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise, if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 1 Corinthians 14:13-17

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26

That’s it. For all the millions of dollars spent on buying equipment, paying music leaders, crafting multi-level music programs, training choral leaders, and building buildings that accommodate elaborate musical presentations, these verses comprise a very tiny pedestal upon which to rest such a large elephant as the music program of the church.

With all this going on, you would think that surely under it all you would discover a solid foundation of Scripture to support such massive, expensive and time-intensive behavior. Sadly, however, very few churches think through what the New Testament teaches when forming their music strategy. What did churches of the New Testament, large or small, mature or new-born, do with music under the tutelage of the Apostle Paul?


“I Go Because I Like The Music.”

I’m guessing, but I doubt that anybody joined with the early believers because they liked the music. If they were looking primarily for music and show, perhaps the local temple would have been the better choice. The pagan temple worship that most people knew in those days included plays, dance, singing, and even parades, but the early believers appear to have never thought of emulating their kind of worship in order to attract such people for Christ. Early church music was no match for the extravaganzas temple leaders could put on. Unlike our churches today, early Christians didn’t even compete with them.

The Jewish Temple worship was also highly skilled, choreographed and perhaps exciting to listen to, but, again, the early church seemed to by-pass that approach to winning people to Christ, or for designing their church life together.

In more recent days (yet long before Christian people used the words “Church Growth”), enterprising leaders sought to attract crowds to their churches with music. It was called “special music.” I once made up an entire verse of a well-loved solo piece in a large church which rhymed but didn’t make sense. Perhaps that could be called “special,” but not most of what happens in churches every Sunday. What we do each week in churches might better be called “routine music.” We should say, “Miss Roselle will give the routine music this morning.” It doesn’t matter if Miss Roselle wilts the flowers with her shrill soprano warble, the order of service demands “special music.” It is planned out and pressed into the agenda, even if you have to get the most ungodly church members to do it. How did the apostle Paul ever make it without special music prior to his messages?

But some churches offer more than a shrill solo. Some lay out a feast of music that is close to dazzling. Nobody announces that Miss Roselle will sing. She just does it—maybe with smoke rising up all around her. And many more do it after her. I cannot count the number of times in churches around our nation when I’ve heard music that was so professional, practiced, and polished that it would rival any ticket-only concert. Only the top musicians could be engaged to do it. Everybody else is “audience.” To be more truthful, Miss Roselle wouldn’t have a chance to warble among such musicians.

Often people join churches only when they “like the music.” For many people, that alone is enough to satisfy. Sadly, many churches are so music-driven that the teaching of the word is swallowed up in its ample motherly arms until it is nearly irrelevant. Three weeks without the full production, and the church building would be emptied.

Don’t mistake my concern for a lack of desire for excellence. I once thought I would give my ministry life to music. I know something about it. But it seems to me that we have gone to elaborate extremes before reflecting on what the New Testament has to say.

The New Testament on Music

So how should we integrate moving, meaningful, Christ-exalting music into our church’s life? What should we do or not do? I could suggest a thousand things off the top of my head (beginning with, “Have a talk with Miss Roselle.”). But what we need is not better ideas, but biblical ideas. Let me suggest a few things the Bible teaches. I believe these are among the most critical ideas, because these are all God has chosen to say about music to the New Testament church in the New Covenant. Be prepared for some radical concepts:

First, the verses above indicate that music should be about edification of believers. At least this is the emphasis in Paul’s writing. From John’s Revelation we see music employed for praise, but Paul is straight as an arrow about insisting on edification as his principal directive. Music is not all vertical. It keeps others in view. We are to “speak” to each other with music, and “teach” and “admonish” (warn) each other. It should go without saying that edification is not the same as entertainment, which makes people happy and excited, but often does not deal deeply with the soul in the way that the word “edification” implies. The simple music of a congregation, for instance, when seeking to teach each other through thought-provoking words and music, can be a potent tool for spiritual development. This concept alone might change the content and manner of your music experience.

Second, music is to be a way to “let the word dwell richly among you.” This means that good music is the “word” or the “message” musically presented. It is joined to the testifying word, the preached word, the taught word, the prayed word of God, in such a way that the time spent together becomes a baptism in the word of God. The music of the song carries “the word,” “the message,” or “the truth” of God on its wings.

Third, Christian music is often to be an offering to the congregation from a spiritually-mindedbrother or sister. Paul says “each one has a psalm” as if to say, individuals come prepared and spiritually ready to sing a psalm (or, by extension, a spiritual song or hymn) to the group for their edification; or perhaps they are to suggest their psalm to the group for corporate singing. This does not preclude thinking through a song beforehand as opposed to being entirely spontaneous, but when offered, it often will give the appearance of spontaneity in the meeting itself. I know it is entirely out of range for most of us to consider this idea at all, but I’m only reporting what I’m reading. In the early church, people made contributions of their gifts and talents for the building up of the body. It was part of what it meant to have body-life in the church. The meetings were more or less open to believers’ gifts—orchestrated by God; not chaotic. To think otherwise is to be more a child of the Reformation than the New Testament.

Fourth, by necessary assumption, coordination of the meeting, including all musical gifts, must have been the responsibility of the elders who were in charge of guiding the believers, under the headship of Christ. I don’t think they would have understood an “order of service” as a means of doing this. The people simply brought their gifts and made their contributions under the guidance of the Spirit, looking to the elders as leaders for shaping the meeting as needed. Wise elders may have curbed the excesses of some, or even refused to allow others to offer their supposed gift, but however they worked it out, their meetings were open for the sharing of gifts and talents under their sagacious oversight.

Fifth, though Paul did not rule out ecstatic singing (singing in the spirit without engaging the mind), he admonished the church to “sing with mind also.” The larger point being made is that what is sung must be able to receive the “Amen” from those who are there. He mentions the “ungifted” being among them. It must be, on some level, understandable to them also. Here Paul is not approving what he denies earlier in 1 Corinthians (that those without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God), but is only meaning that people need to hear intelligible words in their singing. I am not going to delve into this debated issue of praying in the spirit and the matter of tongues, or the issue of interpreting such speech, but I am only making the obvious comment: Our singing must be intelligible to have its greatest value. It is what is intelligible that is ultimately most edifying. Understanding is important.

Sixth, a variety of music forms may used. Whatever is meant by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” we may at least note that this was not a “hymns only” church, or a “psalms only” church. I know there are arguments about these words from those who practice exclusive psalmody. Even so, I take the view that these represent varying forms of music found in the church. Who would argue that an emotive Scripture praise song done by memory is usually more appropriate during a heartfelt prayer-time, than the singing of even such a great hymn as “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”? We need variety.

Seventh, no music directors are seen in the early church pattern of worship. Paul highlighted in Ephesians 4 the human gifts to the church Christ left us: “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.” Surprisingly, he did not mention “music directors.” When spiritual gifts are listed in 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Peter, nothing about a music gift is mentioned there either. Though I owe a lot to those music directors I enjoyed as a boy, and though there are some godly ones that I sincerely appreciate, the absence of such a staff position in the local churches of the New Testament documents is glaring. This is not to say that pastors who have musical gifts cannot do some wonderful things with music related to the church, but they should be pastors (elders, overseers) in every sense of the word. At the same time, musical gifts are not a requirement of pastoral ministry.

Finally

All I’m really saying is that, like a child in the park, we have run off in all directions related to music without consulting our Father for His wishes. For 60 years my uncle faithfully and lovingly brought his sister chocolate-covered cherries for Christmas. Only in her late 80s did she tell me privately that she never liked chocolate-covered cherries. He had never consulted her, but assumed his taste was hers. What if we like what we do for God, but God doesn’t like it at all? When our practice, as sincere as it might be, almost totally disregards the body-life design of God for the church spelled out for us in great detail in the New Testament, we surely are working against His intentions. Even if arriving at His view of the church means that we make major structural changes, would it not be right to do so?

The main lesson, summarized, is that early New Testament believers purposefully abandoned choreographed, professional and elaborate musical presentations to the shadowlands of the temple age, and moved forward into the simpler, more fluid and flexible, leadership of the Spirit. Although I’m not sure exactly how all of this is accomplished, I would rather be attempting to go His direction than assuming I know better than God what He likes. With careful attention to the body language of the New Testament, and authentic trust in God, surely we can take steps, gradually if necessary, to return to this glorious simplicity, beauty and balance.

Copyright © 2009 Jim Elliff

Ex Mormon

Yes, I’m an ex-Mormon who is now a Christian. My family goes back to the beginnings of the Mormon church, and about 10 years ago I went from being a temple going, active Mormon to knowing Christ, and the power of His work in my life (and attending Christian churches)–and honestly the contrast couldn’t be bigger.

While I was LDS the focus of my life was on myself, on what I could do, and what I had to do to “please” God. I loved Jesus Christ, or thought I did anyway but didn’t really know the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus I knew was a far different character, a man who was better behaved than I, and further along in his progression towards becoming God. He was my older brother (as [is] Satan), and as such that’s kind of what I thought of him–like you would an older brother whose somewhat of a hero to you. And, my relationship to him was always based on my performance–had I done some good thing to please him (like wearing my sacred underwear faithfully, going to the temple, fulfilling my calling or job in the church, not smoking, drinking, etc., and more).

Since becoming a Christian I’ve come to know Jesus who IS God and is so amazing and awesome that I’m left without words when I think about Him. I honestly can’t describe Him–not that He can’t be described, but that my words seem puny and insignificant when I try. And, my relationship to Him is on such a different basis–it’s on the basis of a God who did all that needs to be done for my salvation, and who I am eternally grateful to, but not just grateful, but who I owe my very life to–in fact, He IS my life. And, of course because He is my life I do certain things–many things like I did as a Mormon–and many more things I wouldn’t have even considered as a Mormon, like giving up all the world has to offer to become a full-time missionary–devoting my life to reaching the lost.

But, my focus is far, far different. My focus is on the God of the Universe, and not on myself and what I can accomplish (I’m afraid if that was my focus I’d have gone home by now! :{ ). . . and what a difference that makes. I no longer serve a God who was once a man, and who wants me to learn to be a God myself, but instead serve a God who ALWAYS was God, and who loved me enough to do everything necessary for me to come to Him in faith, be adopted as His own dear daughter, and have free access to Him, and not only free access, but the right and priveledge to come into His awesome presence anytime–even when I’ve really messed up and to have the confidence that He’ll forgive me because He loves me, and loved me enough to die for me while I was STILL His enemy. . .

So, in the end, for me, I can see so clearly that there’s a wide, vast gap between us and them, and it’s not just in doctrine, it’s the difference between life, the Vinelife, or the life of a Christian who’s walking in a faith relationship with God–doing as He says, learning from Him, being corrected by Him, and walking in faith day by day as opposed to a religion that’s focused on man, on what man has to do, on what he has to achieve, and on what man can become with help from god of course. . .

It’s my sincere desire that people can see that difference. In my opinion it’s the difference between life and death. Feel free to write me if you have any further questions. I’d love to help you see, from an insiders perspective what it’s really like.

Head coverings Bibical

Exposition Of I Corinthians 11:1-16

The first sixteen verses of the eleventh chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth has been the subject of much controversy. The verses themselves are not difficult to understand, and the controversy has not been so much over the meaning as it has been over their application. On the one hand it is taught that the passage has to do with customs of a people long since dead, and thus the passage is not binding today. On the other hand it is taught that the verses deal not simply with custom of days gone by, but rather constitute a command to be observed throughout the Christian era. As we study the passage let us keep some things clearly in mind:

1. This is a discussion concerning men and women as they pray and prophesy. The discussion does not concern men and women in their everyday activities of life nor how they ordinarily appear in public, but only how they appear as they pray or prophesy. It may be true, as some contend, that women of Paul’s day wen appearing in public always wore a veil, but this is not the subject the apostle discusses in these verses! His discussion concerns praying and prophesying. Hence, any reference to what men and women did or did not do in their ordinary activities of life is completely beside the point and a reference to such is not pertinent to the issue. This passage discusses worship-life, not every-day life.
2. Furthermore to say that women who appeared in public with their faces unveiled were branded as harlots and thus brought reproach upon the church is to make an assertion that is lacking in conclusive proof. Note this comment in Smith’s Bible Dictionary: "Veil. With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient times as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect to the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran" (Article on the Veil). Thus this eminent authority shows that the wearing of the veil was not nearly so prevalent as some seem to think.
3. All we know about the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying and prophesying is found in these sixteen verses. It may be that other passages deal with the headship of Christ, the relationship of man and woman, the wearing of veils, and numerous other things, but no other passage in the Bible deals with the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying and prophesying except I Corinthians 11:1-16. Hence to this passage we must go to find the truth on the subject.

With this brief introduction in mind, please read in your Bible I Corinthians 11:1-16 and then read the following comments:

VERSE ONE:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

In all probability this verse belongs as the last verse to the argument in chapter 10 and the American Standard Version so places it.

VERSE TWO:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I have delivered them to you."

The ordinances here spoken of are "the particular injunctions of Paul’s instructions" (Thayer), hence the will of God as expressed through the inspired apostle. Obviously those who keep such should be "praised."

VERSE THREE:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

The relationships described are as unchangeable as God Himself and as old as the race. They are not based on "custom" nor upon anything else except the Word of God Almighty. Christ is not man’s head because custom made it so, but because God made it so. Man is not woman’s head because custom so ordered, but because God so ordered. This is the divine order and has nothing to do with custom. Custom did not make these relationships, and custom cannot change them with God. Yet it is upon the high doctrine here asserted that the rest of the argument is based. This is the very foundation of the apostle’s argument and without it the rest is meaningless. Since then the very foundation transcends custom, would it not be passing strange if all the rest is completely custom?

VERSE FOUR:

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."

This verse grows out of and is based upon the relationship laid down in verse 3, viz. "Christ is head of man". But verse three is not founded on custom and therefore neither is this verse. Just as long as Christ remains the head of man, just that long man will dishonor Christ by praying with his head covered. Since man has no head between him and Christ, for a man to cover his physical head while praying or prophesying would be to dishonor his spiritual head, Christ. The covering under consideration is an artificial one such as a veil, a hat, etc., otherwise only bald headed men or men with shaven heads could pray acceptably! Man may not cover his head either with long hair, a hat or a veil when he prays to God. He may have it covered at other times but not when he prays or prophesies for if he does he "dishonors his head." Whatever covering this verse forbids a man wearing, verse five commands a woman to wear; and since this covering is an artificial one then the one a woman is to wear is likewise an artificial one. Whatever covering a man must leave off, a woman must put on.

VERSE FIVE:

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

He who denies this denies the Bible! But this verse also grows out of and is based upon verse three, and since the relationship described there is not simply custom neither is the statement made here. And as long as man remains "head of woman" just that long will woman dishonor man when she prays with her head uncovered! And not only so but in dishonoring her "head" (man), woman dishonors herself and God who made man the head of woman. Thus the woman who "prays or prophesies with her head uncovered" dishonors herself, man, and God as well.

The covering here spoken of cannot have reference to a woman’s hair for the apostle says that for a woman to be uncovered is "as if she were shaven" which shows plainly that she is not shaven (though her condition has the same effect). But since the woman is not shaven, she must have hair, yet the apostle says she is uncovered. So the woman herein described is one that is without covering but with hair, hence the hair cannot be the covering under consideration. Thus the covering is an artificial one such as a shawl, a veil, a hat, etc. Sometimes, however, the question is asked, "What size covering?" God no more designates the size than He does the color and I wonder sometimes if such questions are asked to learn the will of God or to set aside the teaching here given. As a matter of fact God doesn’t even tell what the covering is to be other than the obvious fact that it is to be an artificial one, such as already suggested. So then let none be guilty of accusing others of teaching that a woman must wear a hat. I know of no one who so teaches. We do teach that a woman must have her head covered and that a hat will do the job, but the covering does not have to be a hat. A shawl will do, or a kerchief. Any of these can make a covering.

Thus this verse shows plainly that a woman today when praying to God must cover her head with an artificial covering such as a veil, a shawl or a hat, etc. For her to refuse to do so is to bring dishonor upon her head, man, because a covered head on her part is a sign of her subjection to man (vs. 10). A refusal to have this covering is to show she is not in subjection to man nor God …hence the dishonor not only to man but God as well.

VERSE SIX:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

In other words, if a woman will not cover her head with an artificial covering, let her carry her defiance to its ultimate conclusion, let her save her head. But since a shaven head is a shame to a woman, she should do neither, but rather she should cover her head. The covering here spoken of cannot be the woman’s hair for this reason: The woman under consideration in this verse is "not covered" or without covering. Now if the covering and the hair are one and the same, we may substitute the word hair for the word covering in this verse and the meaning will be unchanged. Notice: "If the woman is without covering, let her also be shorn." "If the woman is without hair, let her also be shorn." See the absurdity in the last statement? How can a woman who is "without hair" "also be shorn? How can a woman without any hari, get her hair cut off? The word also in this verse shows plainly once and for all that the covering is not the woman’s hair but must be an artificial one as already described.

The word shear means "cut off" (Weymouth), "cut short" (Thayer), or "crop" (Expositor’s Greek Testament).

VERSE SEVEN:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Please observe the God-given reason for a man not to cover his head, viz. he is the "image and glory of God". Paul does not say nor even hint that a man ought not to cover his head because os some custom of the day. Notice this contrast between what man says and what God says is the reason "a man ought not to cover his head". Man says: "Forasmuch as it is a custom". God says: "Forasmuch as man is the image and glory of God"

See the difference in the two statements? Now which will you accept, man’s statement or God’s? Since Paul did not base his statement on "custom" why should men today do what Paul did not and say what Paul said not? Was man’s being in the "image and glory of God" simply a custom? Is not man still, today, in the "image and glory of God"? If he is, he ought not to "cover" his head when praying or prophesying or worshiping God. So says the inspired apostle.

VERSE EIGHT:

"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman is of the man."

In the creation God made woman from man’s rib, not vice versa.

VERSES NINE AND TEN:

"Neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels…"

For what cause? Does the apostle say, "Because of custom?" He does not! He says because of the situation that obtained when God created man and woman that a woman ought to have "power on her head" or "a sign of authority" (American Standard Version). Again notice the contrast between what man says and what God says about why women ought to have a "sign of authority" on her head: Man says: "Because of custom." God says: "Because woman was created for man."

See the difference between the two statements? One of them is based upon a figment of man’s imagination; the other is based upon a plain and positive statement in the word of God. Which will you accept? Which will you practice?

The expression "power on her head" is translated as "sign of authority" in the American Standard Version. Goodspeed renders it, "That is why she ought to wear upon her head something to symbolize her subjection." Women who understand the Bible also understand why they cover their heads. Not simply because a hat, or shawl, or whatever is used as a covering is pretty nor to impress somebody, but as a "sign" of her God-given subjection to man.

"Because of the angels": While one may not know everything connected with this particular statement, it is given nonetheless as an inducement for woman to cover her head when "praying or prophesying". It may be, as some suggest, that angels who "minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14) are interested in the affairs of this life and are offended at any breach of the ordinance. Another explanation, and one that seems plausible is this: The apostle has been urging man to respect his proper place. And in connection with people keeping their proper places, notice Jude 6, "And the angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." When the angels left their proper place the got into trouble, and when man or woman leaves his or her proper place, they too, will get into trouble. A "sign" that woman has left her proper place is for her to pray uncovered, for by so doing she shows she is not in subjection to man. If this is not what "because of the angels" means this explanation certainly does no violence to the context.

VERSES ELEVEN AND TWELVE:

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man by the woman; but all things are of God."

Neither man or woman should think of themselves too highly nor become egotistical. God deems one just as important as the other and they are mutually dependent upon each other for existence and sustenance. There is "neither male nor female" in Christ (Galatians. 3:28). God took a rib from the side of man to make woman (Genesis 2:21,22), hence woman is "of man"; but now in the natural order of things man is "born of woman" (Job 14:1), hence he is "by the woman". Thus both are mutually dependent on the other and indeed "all things are of God".

VERSE THIRTEEN:

"Judge ye: is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?"

This is a rhetorical question: to ask it is to answer it. It is not comely (or befitting) for a woman to pray uncovered; this is the obvious answer to the question. Yet there are brethren who teach that it is comely for a woman to pray uncovered, and there are women who practice such, but they are not comely in God’s sight!

VERSES FOURTEEN AND FIFTEEN:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering."

Nature is the native sense of propriety (Thayer) or of what is right. Paul does not say that the woman’s hair is her only covering, but that it is a covering. The fact that her hair is a covering should serve to show her that she should be covered. Thus when he teaches what is contained in these verses, woman should not be startled by them because her hair has already shown her the propriety of a covering in her case. A consideration of verses 4-6 clearly shows that two coverings are under consideration in them.

(Just as an incidental matter, I am sure that the pictures one so often sees of Christ is patently wrong because they all show Him with long hair. But the apostle says that long hair is a shame to a man. Would Christ "shame" Himself?).

VERSE SIXTEEN:

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

The Revised Standard Version renders this passage: "If any one is disposed to be contentious we recognize no other practice, neither the churches of God." This should make it clear what is meant by the expression "contentious", is to contend for other than what is being taught herein. In other words, if, in view of all that the apostle has said, there are still some who would "contend" for the right of men to pray with covered heads or women with uncovered heads, let him know that he who so "contends" is alone in so doing. No apostle or church of God so taught. Since none of the apostles or churches of God taught that it would be permissible for women to pray with uncovered heads and men with covered heads, why in the name of reason will men teach it today?

OBJECTIONS:

Objections are often made against any Bible teaching and this one is no exception. We here notice a few of the ones we have heard:

1. OBJECTION:

   A hat does not mean to women today what a veil meant to women when Paul wrote these lines.

   ANSWER:

   We have already pointed out that nobody teaches that a woman must wear a hat but that something else will do as well as a hat. In the second place, the statement is true that it does not have the meaning today as it once did, but the reason is that preachers have failed to teach what the covering should mean! The fault does not lie in changing times but in the failure of preachers to faithfully teach God’s Word on the subject. By this same argument we could set aside the teaching of the Bible on the subject of marriage. Marriage does not mean today what it meant in Jesus’ day. Shall we, therefore, set aside His teaching simply because people ignore what the Bible says? Of course not. Neither should we set aside what I Corinthians 11:1-16 teaches just because preachers will not teach the truth on it. This objection then comes to naught.

2. OBJECTION:

   I Corinthians 11:1-16 pertains to the customs of Paul’s day and are not bound on us today.

   ANSWER:

   The comments on verses 4,7,9, and 16 show this to be an invalid objection. Please read those comments.

3. OBJECTION:

   I Corinthians 11:15 says that "woman’s hair is given her for a covering", hence the only covering spoken of is the woman’s hair.

   ANSWER:

   The comments on verses 5 and 6 show that two coverings are in the apostle’s mind, the hair being one covering and an artificial covering such as a shawl, a veil, a hat, etc., making two. Please read the comments on these verses.

4. OBJECTION:
   Paul said "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom" and by that he meant that if anybody tries to cause trouble about this question we don’t have any such practice as woman praying with her head covered and a man with his head uncovered. It all just a custom anyway.
   ANSWER:
   This construction on what the apostle said in verse 16 is to to make him stultify himself with a vengeance! After showing that a woman should cover her head when she prays and that a man should not, and taking up or rather wasting fourteen verses to do it, the apostle now takes it all back simply because he is afraid somebody might argue about it! Believe it, who can? The Revised Standard Version evidently gives the true explanation of the text. See the comments on verse sixteen.
5. OBJECTION:
   If you are going to insist on "covering the head of woman" then the woman will have to cover her face for that is a part of her head.
   ANSWER:
   Jesus said in Matthew 6:17, "When thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face…" recognizing a difference between the two.
6. OBJECTION:
   The word "prophesy" in verses 4 and 5 means to speak by inspiration, and since no man or woman today speaks by inspiration the rules laid down in I Corinthians 11:1-16 has passed away too.
   ANSWER:
   It is true that men today do not prophesy in the sense of speaking by inspiration, but I Corinthians 11:4 mentions "praying" as well as prophesying. The passage concerns prayer, too. Has prayer passed away? If it has not, then the rules laid down in 1 Corinthians 11 have not passed away. Not only so but while it is true that one does not speak by inspiration he speaks what inspiration revealed when he faithfully teaches the Scriptures. Hence I Corinthians 11 is still in effect.

These are some of the objections one usually hears concerning the teaching of the scripture in I Corinthians 11:1-16. These are not the only ones but the ones I have heard most frequently. None of them suffice to offset the teaching here given. Please study these things in your Bible and above all things, let us "keep the ordinances" that Paul therein "delivered" that we might "be praised" in the great day.

Additional Comments

Jim Sasser

The tract that you have just read, is one of if not the finest tract or teaching that I have been privileged to read upon this subject. I will say here and now that it is what I believe Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I have requested and received permission to reproduce this tract from Hiram himself. I desire that you read it and meditate upon it in light of the Scriptures involved. If you have been holding a view contrary to the teaching herein, I trust that this will cause you to give up such view and accept the true teaching of the passage involved. I personally do not believe that there is anything in the New Testament scriptures concerning Christians that will give a man a contrary view to the one presented so well in this well-written tract. So, therefore, if a man has a contrary view, I am persuaded that he has received it from other sources than the New Testament.

I have had this passage under the deepest type of scrutiny in my 52 years of preaching, studying it with the help of sixty translations and twelve commentaries, but I have yet to see within the framework or context of the passage itself anything that would cause me to take any other stand or position on the passage than the one that I now hold and have held all of my preaching life. I have never heard a truly good argument against the position that Paul holds in these verses. I feel, as I believe Hiram feels, that I and he are espousing the same teaching that Paul has so able revealed and recorded for us with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I wish to make a comment of two here, not to change or detract from Hiram’s fine work but maybe to add some little thoughts that might be helpful. In verse 2, we have, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you." These traditions were from God and inspired. They are in contrast with the inspired traditions of men. I feel that this is borne out in such scriptures as II Thessalonians 2:15. Remember that Jesus Himself rebuked the Pharisees for holding to their man-made traditions to the detriment of the Word of God, Matthew 15:6. In verse 4, we read, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." Barry’s Greek-English Interlinear of the New Testament says, "Having anything on his head," referring to an artificial covering. In verse 5, we have, "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." The Amplified Version and the Philips’ Translation along with many others say, bareheaded."

Brethren, sisters and friends, there are many more things that could be brought to bare that would help to clinch the position that has been taken by both Hiram and myself, along with many, many others, but these will more than suffice to show the honest and sincere seeker of truth the true meaning of I Corinthians 11:1-16. If you will study this with an open mind, I truly believe that you will reach the right conclusion concerning the teaching of the passage. May God help us all to "study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." (II Timothy 2:15).

Is the King James Bible too difficult to understand?

ANSWER:

1. THE KJV DOES HAVE SOME ANTIQUATED WORDS AND FORMS OF SPEECH, BUT THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY OF THESE.

The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a list of 618 antiquated words. It is called Bible Word List. That is not very many, and most of them can be understood by considering the context. There are only about 300 antiquated words in the KJV that are so difficult that you really need a dictionary to understand them.

2. THE OVERALL READING LEVEL OF THE KJV IS NOT VERY HIGH.

The KJV is written on an 8th to 10th grade level. This has been proven from computer analysis made by Dr. Donald Waite. He ran several books of the KJV through the Right Writer program and found that Genesis 1, Exodus 1, and Romans 8 are on the 8th grade level; Romans 1 and Jude are on the 10th grade level; and Romans 3:1-23 is on the 6th grade level.

In the book The Art of Plain Talk (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946), Dr. Rudolf Flesch analyzed the reading level of various documents and rated them on a scale from Very Easy to Very Difficult. He testified, "The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 200 words) is the King James Version of the Bible..." Dr. Flesch became famous with the publication of his book Why Johnny Can't Read.

3. THE KJV HAS A SMALL VOCABULARY AND USES SIMPLE WORDS THROUGHOUT. MOST ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO SYLLABLES.

"While Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 37,000 English words, the King James Bible used only 8,000" (John Wesley Sawyer, The Newe Testament by William Tindale, p. 10, quoting BBC TV, "The Story of English," copyright 1986).

4. THE KJV USES SIMPLE WORDS; MOST ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO SYLLABLES.
Consider Psalm 23, for example:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the
still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for
his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Of the 119 words in this Psalm, only 24 are more than two syllables; 19 of those 24 words are two syllables and only 5 are three syllables.

This Psalm illustrates why the King James Bible is called "peerless among literary masterpieces," "unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world," "the noblest monument of English prose," "incomparably the best English translation in its rhythm," "the touchstone of affective power," "matchless in its literary qualities among all English translations," "the supremely literary English translation," "the touchstone of literary excellence," "stylistically the greatest English Bible translation ever produced." These quotes from various men are from the book The Word of God
in English by Leland Ryken (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002, pp. 270, 267, 258, 259, 206, 188, 163, 62, 51).

5. ACCURACY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SIMPLICITY IN A BIBLE VERSION.
The most important thing in a Bible translation is not simple language but faithfulness to the original. Dr. Waite made the following excellent comment in a recent edition of his newsletter:

"The Bible is not a first grade primer. It is God's book. It is a book that must be diligently read. It is only by 'searching the Scriptures' that we find what pertains to life and death. It tells of creation, of the mighty universe, of the future or the past, of the Mighty God and His wonders, of the Holy Spirit's ministry among Christians, of the Son of God's great sacrifice for sin, of home in Heaven for the believer, and of a fiery hell for the unsaved. How dare we assume that His Word can be capsulated in a comic book [or a version that reads 'like the morning newspaper']."

Also consider this statement by Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College:

"An English Bible translation should strive for maximum readability only within the parameters of accurately expressing what the original actually says, including the difficulty inherent in the original text. The crucial question that should govern translation is what the original authors actually wrote, not our speculations over how they would express themselves
today or how we would express the content of the Bible. The fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek should not lead translators to translate the Bible in a uniformly colloquial style. Finally, a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience" (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 100, 101).

6. PREVIOUS GENERATIONS EDUCATED THE PEOPLE UP TO THE BIBLE, AND THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO TODAY.

"Instead of lowering the Bible to a lowest common denominator, why should we not educate people to rise to the level required to experience the Bible in its full richness and exaltation? Instead of expecting the least from Bible readers, we should expect the most from them. The greatness of the Bible requires the best, not the least. ... The most difficult of modern English translations -- the King James -- is used most by segments of our society that are relatively uneducated as defined by formal education. ...
research has shown repeatedly that people are capable of rising to surprising and even amazing abilities to read and master a subject that is important to them. ... Previous generations did not find the King James Bible, with its theological heaviness, beyond their comprehension. Nor do readers and congregations who continue to use the King James translation find it incomprehensible. Neither of my parents finished grade school, and they learned to understand the King James Bible from their reading of it and the preaching they heard based on it. We do not need to assume a
theologically inept readership for the Bible. Furthermore, if modern readers are less adept at theology than they can and should be, it is the task of the church to educate them, not to give them Bible translations that will permanently deprive them of the theological content that is really present in the Bible." (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 107, 109)

7. THERE ARE MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE KJV.

Following are a few of these:
The Bible Word List from the Trinitarian Bible Society.

The Concise King James Bible Dictionary, available from Way of Life Literature.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity.

The Defined King James Bible available from Bible for Today, 800 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.

"If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine: and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. . . . If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8.31, 32, 38

"DUSTY BIBLES LEAD TO DIRTY LIVES"

All the following verses are the evangelist's choice of the top 50 verses for memorizing: (Two verses together are considered one.) Every believer should know these verses by heart.

Gen. 3:15, Lev. 17:11, Joshua 24:15, 1 Sam.16:7, Job 19:25-27, Ps.9:17, 40:2,3, 51:4, 139:23,24; Prov. 3:5,6, 14:12; Isa. 1:18, 9:6, 26:3, 40:31, 45:22, 53:5, 55:8,9; 11, 59:2, 64:6; Jer. 13:23; Ezek. 3:18;
Matt. 10:28, 11:28-30; Mk. 8:36; Jn. 1:12, 1:29, 3:3, 3:16, 14:6, 15:13; Acts 4:12, 16:30b,31; Rom. 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:8,9; Ph. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:15, 2:5; 2 Tim. 2:15; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 9:22, 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 1:20,21, 3:8; 1 Jn. 1:9; Rev. 3:20

EVANGELICAL DILEMMA

By William MacDonald

There is a CURIOUS PROBLEM today in the evangelical world---one that poses sobering questions for the church and for the individual believer. The PROBLEM in brief is this: a great army of personal soul-winners has been mobilized to reach the populace for Christ. They are EARNEST, ZEALOUS, ENTHUSIASTIC and PERSUASIVE. To their credit it must be said, that they are on the job. And it is one of the phenomena of our times, that they rack up an astounding number of conversions. Everything so far seems to be on the plus side.

But the PROBLEM is this: The CONVERSIONS DO NOT STICK. The fruit does not remain. Six months later there is nothing to be seen for all the aggressive evangelism. The capsule technique of soul winning has produced stillbirths (ie FALSE PROFESSIONS).

What lies at the back of all this MALPRACTICE in bringing souls to birth? Strangely enough, it begins with the valid determination to preach the PURE gospel of the grace of God. We want to keep the message SIMPLE – uncluttered by any suggestion that man can ever earn or deserve eternal life. Justification by faith alone, apart from the deeds of the law. Therefore the message is “ONLY BELIEVE>”

From there we reduce the message to a CONCISE FORMULA. For instance, the evangelical process is cut down to a few basic questions, and answers, as follows:

“Do you BELIEVE you are a sinner?”

“Yes”

“Do you BELIEVE Christ died for sinners?”

“Yes”

“Will you RECEIVE him as your saviour?”

“Yes”

“Then you ARE SAVED!”

“I am?”

“Yes, the Bible says you ARE SAVED.”

At first blush the method and the message might seem above criticism. But on closer study we are forced to have second thoughts and to conclude that – we have OVERSIMPLIFIED the gospel.

The FIRST FATAL FLAW --- is the missing emphasis on REPENTANCE. There can be NO true conversion without CONVICTION OF SIN. It is one thing to agree that I am a sinner; it is quite another thing to experience the convicting ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT in my life. Unless I have a Spirit-wrought consciousness of my utterly LOST CONDITION, I can never exercise saving faith. It is useless to tell unconvicted sinners to believe on Jesus---that message is only for those who KNOW they are lost. We sugar-coat the gospel when we de-emphasize man’s lost condition. With that kind of watered-down message people receive the Word with joy instead of deep contrition. They do not have deep roots, and though they might endure for a while, they soon give up all profession when persecution or trouble comes (Matthew 13 v 21). We have forgotten that the message is REPENTANCE TOWARD GOD as well as FAITH IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

A SECOND SERIOUS OMISSION --- is a missing emphasis on the LORDSHIP OF CHRIST. A light, jovial mental assent that Jesus is Saviour misses the point. Jesus is FIRST LORD, then Saviour. The New Testament always places His LORDSHIP before His Saviourhood. Do we present the full implications of His LORDSHIP to the people? HE ALWAYS DID.

A THIRD DEFECT in our message is our tendency to keep the terms of DISCIPLESHIP hidden until a decision has been made for Jesus. Our Lord never did this. The message He preached included the CROSS as well as the CROWN. “HE never hid His scars to win disciples.” He revealed the worst along with the best, then told His listeners to COUNT THE COST. We popularize the message and promise fun.

THE RESULT OF ALL THIS is that we have people believing without knowing what they believe. In many cases they have NO DOCTRINAL BASIS for their decision. They do not know the IMPLICATIONS of commitment to Christ. They have never experienced the mysterious, miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

And of course we have others who are TALKED INTO A PROFESSION because of the slick salesmanship techniques of the soul-winner. Or some who want to please the affable. Personable young man with the winning smile. And some who only want to get id of this religious interloper who intruded on their privacy. Satan laughs when their conversions are announced on earth.

I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE SEVERAL QUESTIONS that might lead us to some changes in our STRATEGY of evangelism.

The FIRST QUESTION: Can we generally expect people to make an intelligent commitment to Christ, the first time they hear the gospel? Certainly, there is the exceptional case where a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit. But generally speaking, the process involves sowing the seed, watering it, then sometime later reaping the harvest. In our mania for instant conversion, we have forgotten that conception, gestation, and birth do not occur on the same day.

The SECOND QUESTION: Can capsule presentation of the gospel really do justice to so great a message? As one who has written several gospel tracts, I confess to a certain sense of misgiving in even attempting to condense the good news into four small pages. Would we not be wiser to give people the full presentation as it is found in the gospels, or in the New Testament?

The THIRD QUESTION: Is all this pressure for decisions really Scriptural? Where in the New Testament were people ever pressured into making a profession? We justify our practise by saying that if only one out of ten is genuine, it is worth it. But what about the other nine---DISILLUSIONED, BITTER, perhaps DECEIVED enroute to Hell by a FALSE PROFESSION?

The FOURTH QUESTION: Is all this boasting about conversions really accurate? You’ve met the of the man who solemnly tells you of ten people he contacted that day and all of them were saved. A young doctor testified that every he goes to a new city, he looks in the phone book for people with his last name. Then he calls them one by one and leads them through the 4 steps to salvation. Amazingly enough, every one of them opens the door of his heart to Jesus. I don’t want to doubt the honesty of people like this, but am I wrong in thinking that they are extremely naïve? WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAVED? They cannot be found.

In CONCLUSION: What it all means is that we should SERIOUSLY RE-EXAMINE our streamlined CAPSULE EVANGELISM. We should be willing to spend time preaching the gospel, laying a SOLID FOUNDATION doctrinally for faith to rest on. We should stress the NECESSITY -FOR REPENTANCE – a complete about-face with regard to sin. We should stress the FULL IMPLICATIONS of the LORDSHIP OF CHRIST and the CONDITIONS of TRUE DISCPLESHIP. We should explain what belief really involves. We should be willing to wait for the Holy Spirit produce genuine conviction of sin. Then we should be ready to lead the person to saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we do this, we’ll have less astronomical figures of so-called conversions, but more genuine cases of spiritual rebirth.

[Reprinted from “HELP and FOOD” Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune NJ]