This week’s BlogSwap entry is provided by Joe Missionary and is on the subject of How To Pray For Missionaries. Take it away Joe…

Brothers, pray for us (1 Thes 5:25).

Before Jane and I left the States, we of course spoke before a lot of groups. A common question was, “How can we pray for you guys?” From that, I was motivated to do a little study on how Paul requested prayer, and for what. Below you’ll see every prayer request of Paul (I’m pretty sure), which I have grouped into three general prayer requests. So if you know missionaries but don’t quite know how to pray for them, what better place to start than from the Bible?

1. Pray for boldness (Eph 6:19-20; Col 4:3-4). Paul wanted people to pray that he would clearly and fearlessly preach the Good News. In both verses mentioned here, he reminded his readers of the chains that bound him as a result of his preaching, so he asked that people would pray that he would have the opportunity to preach, and that he wouldn’t miss the opportunities when they arose.
2. Pray for deliverance:
   • from persecution (Rom 15:30-32; 2 Cor 1:8-11; 2 Thes 3:2). In light of the constant harrassment and persecution Paul was receiving, Paul asked the believers to join him in his struggle by praying for him. He was dealing with life-and-death stuff, here, so he asked to be “rescued” and “delivered.”
   • from prison (Phil 1:18b-19; Philemon 22). Paul trusted that the prayers made on his behalf will lead to his being released from prison.
3. Pray for the spread of the gospel (2 Thes 3:1). Paul’s desire was that the gospel would spread rapidly and that it would be honored. You could also add Col 4:3 here, where Paul asked that people pray for open doors.

I hope this short message is helpful to you, as you pray for your brothers and sisters serving God overseas.

You can visit Joe Missionary’s site at joemissionary.blogspot.com.

My entry will be posted at danny.brendoman.com.

¹ Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ²Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. ³Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. ⁴The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ⁶But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. ⁷For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

A Traditional Explanation

This is a well-known passage from the book of Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:1-7 NKJV). Theologians have traditionally interpreted the first two verses of the passage to show that Paul is suggesting celibacy as a higher calling than marriage. The typical explanation we hear in this regard is that celibacy allows people to be freed from the responsibilities of marriage and family, which gives them greater opportunity to dedicate themselves entirely to the Lord. Many Bible translations render the words "touch a woman" as "marry." They believe it shows that Paul is suggesting that since it is good not to marry, therefore celibacy must be better than marriage. However, if a person is unable to control himself because of sexual immorality, he should marry to avoid sinning. It almost seems he should accept a substandard Christian walk because of his lack of self-control. The church fathers taught this view and it impacted the Roman Catholic Church as they forbade their clergy to marry, lest it keep them from their higher calling.

This explanation has always troubled me, for at the beginning of time, while the word was still perfect, God said "it is not good for man to be alone" and in a sinless world instituted marriage. Since then it would seem that marriage has been normative for Christians - unless we have a good reason not to marry, we should get married. I have often struggled with reconciling God's plan that we should marry and Paul's words that we should avoid marriage unless we will not be strong enough to avoid sexual sin.

A New Perspective

I have recently been reading a study of 1 Corinthians by Richard Ganz entitled 20 Controversies That Almost Killed A Church. In his explanation of this chapter he provides an alternative to the traditional view. He suggests that what Paul is telling us to flee is not marriage but sexual immorality. The word that most Bibles translates "marriage" is really synonymous with "sexual intercourse" - a meaning it carries in other places in the New Testament (though he does not tell us where these words appear). Paul's usage, then, should be similar to what we read about in regards to Abimelech not touching Sarah or Boaz who ordered his men not to touch Ruth. The sexual context of these words is clear. So when Paul says not to touch a woman or not to marry, he is actually saying "it is good for a man not to be involved in sexual immorality."

When we view the verses through that understanding, the meaning changes completely! He does not say that because of the dangers of sexual immorality we should marry. Rather than teaching that marriage is a second-rate institution, the passage teaches that:

"In the face of all this sexual immorality, remember that each of you should be having a sexually intimate relationship within marriage." "Each man having his own wife" means, "Each man having this special sexual relationship only with his wife." This, friends, is very different from thinking that this passage teaches that marriage is not good! (20 Controversies - page 100)

Having dispensed with the possibility of sexual immorality within a Christian marriage, Paul explains the importance of a mutually satisfying sexual relationship. He does so with words and explanations that place him far ahead of his time. In an age where women were regarded as second-class citizens, Paul writes about the importance of a husband dedicating himself to his wife and giving to her any rights he might hold back that would keep her from enjoying sexual intimacy with him. And of course the same is true of the wife to her husband.

This passage concludes with the words "For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." In light of the traditional interpretation we would assume that Paul wishes that all Christian men were able to remain unmarried and that the gift he refers to is celibacy. In the interpretation provided by Pastor Ganz we have to change the explanation. Now we see that the gift he has is the gift of self-control. He wishes that all men were able to avoid the temptations of sexual immorality as he does.

Analysis

As one who has long been dissatisfied with the standard explanation of these verses, I was intrigued by Pastor Ganz's new take. He seems to provide adequate Scriptural support and takes into account other passages of Scripture.

There is one thing that continues to trouble me, and that is in the verses immediately following the passage I outlined above. Verses 8 and 9 of the same chapter read "⁸But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; ⁹but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." It seems that these verses may be easier to understand in light of a traditional interpretation of the first 7 verses.

It is first important to note that the "unmarried" Paul is referring to are people who have been previously married but have gone through a legitimate divorce. Paul places himself in the group of people who are either previously married or divorced (we do not know which, but it is likely that Paul was married and perhaps his wife left him when he became a Christian). To these people he says that it is good for them to remain unmarried but if they are unable to exercise self-control, they should marry instead of burning with passion.

In light of the traditional interpretation, we would assume that Paul is instructing these people to place a priority on the Lord's work - dedicating themselves to that task - freed from the need to dedicate themselves to a marriage. However, if they feel they will be unable to contain themselves sexually, they should marry to avoid sin.

By the time Ganz reaches verses 8 and 9 he has begun a new chapter and looks at the verses under a different topical heading. He does not directly show how these verses apply to the preceding ones in light of his new explanation. I can assume, though, that he would provide the same explanation as before - though it may be good for them to remain unmarried, this does not make it the best or necessary decision, and certainly does not insinuate that remarriage is a lesser calling than remaining single. Or perhaps since they have already been married, they have in a sense fulfilled their obligation in that regard and are no longer normatively required to marry. I do not want to put words in his mouth, so will leave it at that.

Conclusions

I generally get a bit nervous (justifiably, I think) when I read words such as "I have already presented my interpretation, which is substantially different from that of my fellow Christian theologians." (page 103). Though I hesitate to accept explanations that differ from what the majority of Christian theologians have believed, they cannot be summarily disposed simply because they are new. In the case of this one I do find it satisfying, and more satisfying than the standard explanation. But that, of course, does not make it right. Sorry to defer a decision, but I am going to reserve judgment on this one for the time being while I see what other Christians have to say on the matter.

Got something to say? Why not drop into the forum and let us know what you think!

I often find Amazon is an interesting place to get a guage on how people feel about books. Anybody is free to post a review there so popular books often compile several hundreds reviews. The Purpose Driven Life, which places 47th on the Amazon sales list, currently has a whopping 561 reviews with several more appearing every day. For what it’s worth, the average review is 4 out of 5 stars.

Buried near the middle of all those reviews is one I wrote at the end of January. One feature of Amazon is that people are allowed to give a “yes” or “no” answer to whether each of the reviews was helpful. I have found thus far that whenever I review a book negatively I get more “no” than “yes” answers and when I review one positively I get more “yes” than “no” answers. My review of PDL is a case in point. Of the 165 people who have answered the question, a mere 35 have indicated that they thought the review was helpful. If you are interested in seeing my review, you should be able to get to it via this link. You will need to scroll down to near the bottom fo the page.

I do not mean to boast but I thought my review was very helpful. As Christians were are called to be Bereans - to examine everything in the light of the Scriptures, and that is exactly what I did. I merely held the book up to the Bible and found it lacking. Compare my review with this one which had 46 of 49 positive responses:

With all of the crime going on in the world, I would think that this book is more valuable now than ever. Don’t just read it, apply it. Don’t just read it, live it.

The Purpose Driven Life was recommended to me by one of the elders in our church. I don’t know of anyone with a legitimate religious background who has not read and is impressed with The Purpose Driven Life.

Highly recommended. This book can change your life.

Now please tell me, which is more helpful? The review that really says nothing except that the author enjoyed it or the one that compares it to Scripture?

Or how about this one which scored 149 out of 155.

The Purpose Driven Life inspired me to make several changes in my personal and business life. For one, I am now more active in my church and in regard to family, I am now spending more time with family where previously I was a workaholic going for the money, spending way too much time at work and giving whatever was left (which wasn’t much) to my family.

The Purpose Driven Life is an OUTSTANDING book that will impact your life. This is truly a must read.

You should note that the other people who reviewed the book negatively also had a great imbalance of “yes” to “no” votes.

I guess this just goes to show that people are not actually indicating whether or not they find a review helpful, but whether they agree with the reviewer’s conclusions. Whether you love a book or hate it, you should be able to differentiate between helpfulness and agreement. I would like to think that Christians would have this ability and see the importance of it. Amazon seems to prove me wrong.

Today I am going to carry on the discussion of baptism that I began yesterday. Or more correctly, I will begin it again. Yesterday I asked some questions that were of a rambling nature rather than being presented logically. Today I am going to try to bring a more systematic approach to the different views of baptism. Time does not allow me to do so exhaustively, but at the same time I will try to avoid painting a mere caricature of the different approaches.

One question that arose in the discussion was whether baptism is a sacrament or an ordinance. Therein lies one of the main differences between Reformed baptism and the “baptist” form of baptism that most evangelical churches practice. Reformed churches consider baptism to be a sacrament whereas Baptist churches regard it as an ordinance. The same holds true of the Lord’s Supper. I am going to present a couple of definitions for each of those terms. The first is from Miriam-Websters and the second from Dictionary.com.

Ordinance:

1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament

1. An authoritative command or order.
2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
3. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.

Sacrament:

1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony

Christianity. A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:

• In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
• In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
• A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning.

The significant difference between the two terms is God’s role in the act. When viewed as sacramental, baptism is more than an act of man - it is a means by which God conveys grace. When viewed as an ordinance, baptism is the testimony of the person being baptized. While it points back to an act of God in the person’s life, God plays no role in the baptism - it is an act by a man (usually a pastor) performed on a man (the person being baptized).

I will look briefly at the different views of baptism, first discussing the Reformed view and then turning to the Baptist view.

Signs & Seals

We can get a Reformed perspective on the word sacrament through the Westminster Confession which reads “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.”

Two important things we need to notice here. First, sacraments are signs. This means that they point to something other than themselves. Think of an exit sign that points towards a door. The sign itself is not the exit - it merely points the way to the exit. Similarly a sacrament points to something greater. Sacraments are also seals which means that God signifies that the person receiving the sacrament has the quality it signifies. So the seal points back to the sign. An illustration of a seal is a diploma. I will quote from Bob Burridge:

When someone receives a diploma upon graduation, the diploma certifies that he has completed the course of instruction as recognized by the faculty and board of the institution granting the degree. If a person forges a diploma or has misrepresented himself to the institution, the certificate does not make him qualified in the field it represents. It would be a serious crime and offense to the institution to make such a false claim. Similarly, someone who wrongly receives a sacrament offends God and does not bring the blessings promised upon himself. Instead he calls down the wrath of God upon himself for his false claim. But when a child of God receives the sacrament rightly administered by God’s prescription he receives that blessing which is represented by the sign upon the authority of God who instituted it.

In this sense we say that a sacrament is a means of grace. It does not convey the grace by its outward application. But God uses the sacrament, when rightly applied and received, as a means by which he dispenses his grace to the recipient.

Big Words

Let’s turn back to the Westminster Confession.

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

I am going to introduce two words that describe two different views on the sacraments.

Sacerdotalism - This is the view that the Roman Catholic Church holds to. In this view the sacraments have the power to actually convey the blessings they signify. So the sacrament has the power to confer the grace which it signifies. This is the view the Reformers fought against.

Memorialism - This is the view of the vast majority of Protestant churches, including most Baptist and evangelical churches. In this view the sacraments have no real power, but are merely memorials, object lessons, which teach something about God. This view arose in opposition to the Catholic view.

The Reformed Position

The Reformed position stands apart from these two views. As the Confession said, there is a sacramental union (or spiritual relationship) between the sign and the thing signified. So when a sacrament is properly administered, there is a real and effectual promise attached to it. The effect that will be derived from the act will be from God alone. This is not to say that baptism removes sin or conveys salvation, but it is to say that there is some spiritual advantage to being baptized. Similarly, there is a spiritual advantage to participating in the Lord’s Supper. More than merely signifying something, baptism actually conveys something.

Because of the sacramental nature of baptism and Lord’s Supper, Reformed churches traditionally try to ensure that they are properly administered. This means that, based on the Biblical example, only church officials (pastors and elders) may administer the sacraments. They strive to ensure that only those who Biblically qualify for them are included. Improper administration of the sacraments is considered blasphemous.

The Baptist View

Having briefly examined the Reformed view of baptism, let’s take a quick look at the Baptist view. As we have stated already, Reformed theology refers to baptism as a sacrament where Baptist theology refers to it as an ordinance.

Here is a typical statement of what Baptist churches believe about baptism (as found at the Web site for the Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists):

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified buried and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin the burial of the old life and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

Baptism, then, is not a means by which God conveys grace, but is a testimony of a person who has believed. It is a sign, but not a seal. Where sacraments revolve around what God does, ordinances revolve around what man does and what God did. I am going to quote David Heddle who studied this topic just a few weeks ago: “When reduced to merely an ordinance, baptism and communion are no longer about what God does, but what man does. There is nothing supernatural occurring, as if the supernatural realm were off limits to the Creator of the universe, God merely observes as we commemorate His work. An ordinance is actor-centered.”

My View

So where do my beliefs lie? I guess since I have taken the time to write all of this I should identify what I believe. So here goes. As a Reformed believer attending a Baptist church I struggle with this on an on-going basis. I have trouble viewing baptism as a mere ordinance. It may come from the Word or even from the way I was raised, but reducing baptism to anything less than a sacrament, a means of grace, just does not seem right. But I continue to struggle with it. At this time I cannot definitively say what I believe.