Origen & How Christians Make The Best Soldiers

There was an early Church Father named Origen (184-254 AD). He was a scholar, theologian, and writer in Alexandria. He subscribed to a few notions than the Church does not consider orthodox (such as the pre-existence of souls) but, for the most part, he was highly respected and considered orthodox. He was considered an expert at textual criticism, biblical interpretation, and philosophical theology.

I appreciate a great many of his writings but one that stands out to me lately is how Christians serve the king better than anyone in the king's service. I appreciate this piece because there is a difficult tension in attempting to understand how Christians best serve others, especially the authorities and the nation of which they are a part. I don't believe the Church is to removed from the political sphere but I do believe she plays a unique role that no other entity can take on. 

Origen brings some light on this tension. He writes,

"Our prayers defeat all demons who stir up war. Those demons also lead persons to violate their oaths and to disturb the peace. Accordingly, in this way, we are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs when we join self-denying exercises to our righteous prayers and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures and not to be led away by them. So none fight better for the king than we do. Indeed, we do not fight under him even if he demands it. Yet, we fight on his behalf, forming a special army - an army of godliness - by offering our prayers to God. And if Celsus would have us 'lead armies in defense of our country,' let him know that we do this too. And we do not do it for the purpose of being seen by men or for vainglory. For in secret, and in our own hearts, our prayers ascend on behalf of our fellow-citizens, as from priests. And Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being. And they promote to a divine and heavenly city those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy."

Origen makes clear that the battle Christians fight is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and the like. He makes clear that Christians use prayer as their weapon. In secret and not in fleshly battle, such as war, the Christian fights for others selflessly. 

Seeking the peace and prosperity of one's nation is important to Origen, as it should be, and yet he shows that Christians seek this peace and prosperity not through the expected behaviors of those around them or even in authority over them but rather in a uniquely spiritual way which consists of prayer and various disciplines of worship. 

Origen takes prayer seriously. He believes in it. He believes in demons. He is a Christian above all else and his theology instructs his behavior. This is why he refuses to serve in the military and claims that Christians are better servants than soldiers. In the practicing of being selfless and pure in conduct the Christian serves others well and becomes the model citizen, creating other model citizens. 

I often wonder if I take my disciplines, prayers, nation, authorities, or the demons that inspire war as seriously as I ought. Origen persuades me that I don't. Origen persuades me that I should spend more time praying if I truly desire to see peace and prosperity in the nation I live in and the nations my land is at war with.

When We Are Thieved

The disciples of Jesus compiled their teachings for the Church into a document that is now called The Didache. It's a beautiful work that resembles the Sermon on the Mount in large part while also consisting of liturgical instructions. As I was reading this document once again tonight I could help but meditate upon a short teaching.

"If any man seizes what is yours, do not demand it back, for you cannot anyway. Give to everyone who asks of you and never demand a return, for it is the Father’s will that all should share the gifts we have received."

Jesus, of course, said something quite similar in his teachings. He stated, "Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you" (Matthew 5:42). Luke 6:30 records a near identical teaching, "Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back."

These are pretty bold teachings in our society. We tend to think we are entitled to what we have earned or purchased. We tend to think we alone own what is in our current possession. We are more often concerned with our rights than with our gifts. This is a problem in my eyes.

When we focus too much on rights and worldly justice ("what's mine is mine") then we lose focus of the grace of God. God has gifted us everything we have so that it may be shared with others. He has commanded us to not be the type of people who demand back what is taken from us. This seems a strange and even unjust teaching to some but to those who recognize that all is gift this makes perfect sense.

Many of us need to repent when it comes to our attitudes towards our belongings. too many of us too often are convinced that we are entitled to what we have when we aren't. We forget that ALL is gift and grace from God. If he has rewarded us then we should enjoy the reward whilst we can. f that reward should be taken then we bless those who take from us and do not demand that they return what was once ours, for as the disciples say, we cannot do so anyway.We were meant to share our gifts, and if allowing thieves to keep their booty is a way we can share then we must allow them their spoils with a loving heart.

When I read these words I believe the challenge for many of us is to change our view on our belongings. It is a reminder that we do better to embrace the philosophy of gifts rather than of rights. For Americans this can be a difficult practice but it is a necessary one if we are to love others well.

The Discrediting of Scripture

I read/hear a lot of views on scripture. Some views are ones that destroy the credibility of the Bible and Gospel message for the person holding that view. Often, people hold these views and proclaim solely so that they will discredit the scriptures for others they come in contact with. Below are three things I hear a lot.

• A plain reading of scripture trumps understanding the "context" of a passage. More simply, context doesn't matter.
• Scholars hardly ever agree on the meanings and applications of scripture.
• The Bible has been translated so many times that the original message can no longer be known. 

Most of these views come from Atheists I know but that doesn't mean I don't hear the arguments from people of various beliefs, skeptic theists, and even Christians. Some people have heard these ideas so often and for so long that they can't avoid being persuaded by them. I certainly used to believe these views. However, they are unfair blanket statements and they derive from ignorance and/or stubborn disdain. In my case it was both.

I am about to finish my Masters of Arts in Biblical studies (with an emphasis on Koine Greek and the New Testament). My Bachelor of Science is in Pastoral Ministries (which was really just a bunch of bible classes, more specifically inductive bible study method classes). As someone who has spent his last 10 years studying the scriptures and church history (not all in formal schooling), I believe I have a view also worth considering on these matters. It may be more, less, or just as credible as some who make the above stated claims. I can't say rightly and it, of course, depends upon who is speaking. All I can say is that I used to be an Atheist and later an Agnostic. I'm someone who has explored various religions and lived in deep skepticism and disdain for Christianity. The reason I no longer believe the above statements to be true isn't because of divine revelation but because of honest observation and sober reasoning. Even if I abandoned Christianity I couldn't abandon the following views.

1. The plea for context is a fair one when it comes to any type of literature, not just the Christian scriptures. A lot of folks tend to think that Christians pick and choose what they like in the 66 books of the Bible and justify their inconsistency with the argument of context. Sure, people do that. People do a lot of irresponsible things. However, that doesn't discredit the need for context to explain a literary work. Without context ancient words become relative. The more removed one becomes from author's intent, cultural surroundings, ancient literary patterns, and the like, the more difficult it becomes to understand the text.

For instance, I come across many a young minds who know the Shakespearian line, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" and think it means "Romeo, where are you?" This is an improper understanding of the text but without context it'd be hard to know that (Side-note: We need to teach our kids more Shakespeare). If one understand how people spoke in Shakespeare's time and place this confusion wouldn't exist. Also, if people read the surrounding text (literary context) they would see that Juliet's plea is for Romeo to have a different identity for it is that very identity which keeps them apart. Thus, she is asking not "where are you Romeo?" to Romeo himself (whom is hiding under her very nose without her knowledge at the time of the words being presented, which is more context) but rather "Why must you be Romeo?" 

Similarly, in the Christian scriptures, there are 66 different books which came about through a great span of time. They document a story between God and his people through all sorts of different literary forms such as poetry, historic recordings, myth, metaphor, proverbs, prophecy, and more. These literary forms derive from specific times and places, which employed unique and various secondary styles of these forms (Hebrew parallelism for example). The authors and recipients of these works tell the current reader a lot about the actual text just as any other text is better understood when it's author, audience, era, and culture from which it derived are understood. 

When a single text is observed and examined alongside its connected texts it makes more sense (as we just saw with the Shakespeare example). All of this is context. To understand how all these elements affect the text being read dramatically affects the way one understands the meaning and application of a specific text. This is why a person can read through the Bible and understand why certain passages in Leviticus, 2 Samuel, Job, or Isaiah, don't hold a permanent demand for obedience to people living here and now (for instance, stoning homosexuals is proven to be time and covenant locked and thus can't be obeyed in the Christian life). Understanding the literature, it's source, it's original recipients, the author's intent (often seen through their larger message), and the movement of narrative which exists throughout the 66 books, creates space for understanding. 

2. Despite disagreements on several elements of scripture, most Biblical scholars agree on what all deem the important issues. There will always be disgreements. And again, the further removed from the context of a piece of literary work one gets, the more likely it is t see confusion and thus disagreement. This view is often presented in such a way as to communicate that there is near no agreement on the meanings of scripture passages or their applications but church history (written and not) proves this wrong. Besides, disagreement is not grounds for discrediting a piece of literary work. For all my disagreements with Christian siblings, I find ten times as many agreements regarding the scriptures (and I travel is diverse packs of believers). 

Perhaps people buy into this idea because Church history is filled with debates, discussions, and even some bloodshed. What people forget is that much of these debates, discussion, and even bloodshed, ended in agreements, creeds, doctrines, and unity of proclamation and application. Sift through different creeds and statements of faith, and baptismal teachings of churches worldwide and you'll find that scholars agree on a plethora of issues. Sure, there are still disagreements but they don't outweigh the agreements by any means. Most denominations can agree on the big tenants of the faith and of the scriptural proclamations. Most disagreements are on small matters that can be looked at with the attitude of "agree to disagree." I'm an Anabaptist Protestant (redundant I know) yet I affirm most of what the Catholic Church teaches, and where we differ, healthy discussion exists.

3. The Bible has been translated more than any other book in history but this does not discredit the translation's legitimacy. The Bible was written in 3 different languages. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament is written in Koine Greek (now a dead language). Early manuscripts (like ones on papyri) are available to humanity. It's remarkable how much witness exists for the texts, proving the original material to be heavily agreed upon. Part of my New Testament Greek studies have included textual analysis work which demands I investigate the translations made by the committees who have put together what is called the UBS4 (The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition). At the bottom of each page are footnotes providing a grade for verses with debatable translations due to the evidence of original or early manuscripts. Most of the verses are graded as highly agreed upon but some are debatable. However, these debates are over a few letters, a word, or a phrase, that often have very little affect on the meaning or application of the text. Really, it shows that the greek scholars are just fans of semantics. 

People have worked hard to study the original languages so that they can properly translate the early manuscripts into the desired language. My point here is that these scholars aren't translating a translation that came from a translation that came from a translation that came from a translation that came from a translation that came from a translation that... you get the idea. Any solid scholar (like the ones who make Bibles) translates directly from the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, into their desired language. If you have an NASB, ESV, or NIV Bible, odds are you'll find a few differences in them but not enough to legitimately claim the Bible isn't credible as though it was the 17th version of a xeroxed document which can't be read. If you think the English Bible you have isn't credible then learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so you can read the original words. They are available. 

So if people try to tell you that we can't know what the Bible really says because of translations, or that nobody can ever agree on what the Bible says or means, or that a plain and uneducated reading is the most honest and helpful way to understand the Bible, don't give them too much of your ear. The Bible is big, multifaceted, ancient, and beautiful. We ought to approach it knowing all this and treating it as we would treat any large, multifaceted, ancient text; with humility. 

Tertullian on Military Service & Weapons

Tertullian (160-225 AD) is an early Christian church father from Carthage. He wrote many great works that were embraced by the Church. He is most known for being the first Christian to create a plethora of Christian writings in Latin and was given the title Father of Latin Christianity as a result. He is also well known for his apologies, writings against heresies, and his teachings on the trinity. As a result of all this he was given the title Founder of Western Theology. Though he was first rejected as a heretic the church later admitted his teachings to be orthodox.

In his writing entitled On Idolatry, Tertullian spends time discussing what type of clothing is appropriate for Christians. He teaches that certain adornments (or uniforms) that are connected to the state authorities are not appropriate for Christians because of their connection with idolatry. From this discussion he moves into the subject of military service. 

"But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action."

What is most interesting about this quote is not the disapproval of military service for Christians, for this was a position shared by several influential early church leaders, but the reasoning for such a position. It is often taught that these leaders did not approve of military service for only two reasons. The first is it's connection to idolatry (sacrifices). The second is the demand for murderous action (capital punishments). However, Tertullian mentions that military service is forbidden for Christians even if they are serving in the military in such a way as to be disconnected from the idolatrous practices and the commands for killing. Tertullian does not allow these two factors to be his sole foundation for the teaching that military service is off limits to Christ followers.

Instead, the Founder of Western Theology states that there is more reason to abstain from military service. His central point in this exert is that a person must serve God and not Caesar. A result of this siding with God over Caesar is that a Christian can not pick up the sword for Caesar and thus military service is not appropriate. More interesting is that he assumes the arguments against his case and points them out. 

Tertullian points out the argument that Moses carried a rod, Aaron wore a buckle, John the Baptizer wore leather, Joshua led a military command, and Israel went to war several times. In other words, there is violence and military action by God's people throughout the Old Testament. Tertullian admits this is true and says it's a line of argument if one really wants it to be but then he goes on to make little of it by stating that a Christian can not war or serve in military, even for the sake of peace, because Christians are not allowed weapons according to Christ. This is the third reasoning for Tertullian; Christians can't use weapons. 

At this point in his argument Tertullian has not yet made clear how the Lord has taken away weapons from the Christians. He shall revisit this with detailed support momentarily. 

Having entertained the argument that God's people have taken up arms before, Tertullian then enters the second argument that is often given in such a discussion. He points out the argument that John and Jesus both encountered military personnel and did not command them to step down from their office. To conquer this argument he states, while this is a true historic fact, another true historic fact is that Christ disarmed Peter after those encounters and in so doing he disarmed all believers. One could say that this argument could be teaching that it wasn't yet time for such disarming commands when all of these above mentioned things occurred in scripture. This is why violence existed in the Old Testament; the time had not yet come for God's followers to be fully disarmed outright.

While Tertullian is not necessarily arguing what I've presented above, that there was an appointed time for God's people to lay down arms, he has unmistakably argued that the rebuke of Peter came about after the interactions with the military personnel and thus there is more merit in this rebuke than in the lack thereof in the previous interactions and Christians would be wise to follow under this rebuke. 

Though there are many arguments in this discussion as to why the lack of such a command to step down from military office exists, Tertullian simply rests upon the fact that Jesus' words to Peter are to be held higher than the instances in scripture which show a different attitude or strategy, for they came after the other interactions. Perhaps, within this reasoning  exists the notion that Jesus is speaking to one of his followers and not a Gentile or someone who was not a serious disciple of Christ. If this is the case then Tertullian's argument gains weight.

Regardless, Tertullian is arguing , it would seem, that the later the teaching from God, the more relevant it is to the believer. This line of argument would say that if something is commanded in the Old Testament but is taught differently by Jesus then one must side with Jesus since he is the most recent revelation of God. Perhaps Tertullian is working in this vein and if this is true then it is also possible he is attempting to argue that if Jesus seems to have made room for a certain action at one point in his ministry and then taken away the room for that action later in his ministry, due to a late teaching, then one must side with the result of the later teaching.

In the mentioning of Peter being rebuked by Jesus, Tertullian has given evidence to when the Lord took the weapons away from his people. Weapons were removed from God's people in the very rebuke of Peter upon the arrest of Jesus. Tertullian writes, ". . .still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." Clearly, Tertullian believes that this is a command not only aimed at Peter but at all believers.  This is not a time or situation locked rebuke in the eyes of Tertullian but an instruction to be lived out from this moment forward by Peter and all who seek to follow the Christ who allows himself to be taken to the cross.

Even though the Father of Latin Christianity does not refer to any other scripture in this argument for his position it is difficult to see his argument clearly and not simultaneously connect it to the scriptures John 18:36 and  2 Corinthians 10:3-4. 

In John 18:36 it is written, "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'” This scripture seems like a strong connection solely because it, like the passage out of the Gospels being referenced by Tertullian, is also within the context of Jesus needing to be arrested. Jesus' rebuke of Peter is largely existent because Peter was stopping Jesus from drinking the cup that had been given him by the Father.

Both of these passages can be viewed in the light that shows the purpose in the original context as well as the purpose for future context. Both can be read as true in there initial and limited context and meaning as well as in their ongoing and permanent context and meaning. In other words, what was true for Peter in that moment is also true for all believers for the rest of time. All this is grounded in the power of Christ's revelation.This is not an uncommon practice to see Old Testament scriptures used in a new light, taken from their original context and applied to an ongoing context, by the New Testament authors. It makes sense then that other early church leaders would point to teachings of Jesus and his Apostles and do the same. It seems that Tertullian may be employing this very practice.

The passage in John is worthwhile, as shall be mentioned later, but it is more plausible that Tertullian is referencing the account given in Luke's Gospel which shows Jesus boldly rebuking Peter without mention of the cup out of which he must drink. Luke 22:49-51 states, "And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, 'No more of this!' And he touched his ear and healed him." This is a high possibility since Tertullian says the Lord disarmed Peter and this passage reveals Jesus vehemently stating "No more of this!" 

For Tertullian, it seems, this statement is not a command that is only momentarily relevant or applicable to Peter alone but rather a cosmic declaration for all believers. This church father is making the case that such a rebuke is for any person who would seek to arm themselves with a weapon in order to come against another person. It may be that Tertullian also had the account found in Matthew in his mind when writing these words since it records the same happening.

Matthew 26:51-53 states, "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?" This account also contains within it a rebuke in the form of a teaching. Jesus tells Peter to put his sword back in it's sheath because everyone who takes up the sword will perish by it. This sounds close to what Tertullian is communicating. 

The notion that Jesus' statement "No more of this" is a cosmic command gains legitimacy with this account from Matthew for this account contains within it a teaching that is specifically against the use of weapons. It can be debated whether Jesus is delivering a mere proverb (words of wisdom) or an actual reasoning for a cosmic command but both are plausible. This helps Tertullian's position a great, deal for now Jesus is seen to rebuke Peter's violent action by healing the enemy, saying "no more of this!", and teaching that those who take up the sword shall perish by it. By adding this final teaching, which is aimed at all humanity and not Peter and his situation alone, the Gospel's provide fertile ground for a position such as Tertullian's.

The final words of this passage are intriguing for in them Jesus mentions his lack of need for earthly weapons due to the fact that he has at his disposal a heavenly legion of angels. If it is true that Jesus has no need for earthly weapons then perhaps it is true that his followers have no true need for earthly weapons. It is possible that this is a part of Tertullian's thinking as well even though he never makes it a part of his short argument.

Tertullian makes the case that the kingdom of Caesar and the Kingdom of Christ are in opposition. In the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest it can be seen that the Roman soldiers who have come for Jesus came with earthly weapons in hand, to which Jesus rebukes them as well since the weapons are unnecessary.

It may be that Tertullian is trying to create a contrast in his argument that is seen in the gospel narrative but never given an explanation. In the narratives, Jesus rebukes weapons and heals while Caesar's men bring weapons. The contrast is present though not pointed out. The way of Jesus seems to be one that is weapon free while the way of Caesar seems to be to carry weapons even if they are not needed. Tertullian seems to be using this unspoken contrast in his argument. This leads to the conclusion that the entire episode of Jesus' arrest is vital to Tertullian's line of thinking, as opposed to Jesus' short rebukes alone being important to Tertullian's reasoning.

Along with this line of thinking which comes out of the gGospel witness is a statement made by Paul. 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 states, "For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" 

Just as Jesus mentions his lack of need for earthly weapons due to his legion of angels, ready to fight for his cause, so now Paul makes a similar contrast by teaching that the war being fought by Christians is not a fleshly one. Since the war is not fleshly the weapons are also not fleshly but rather they are divine. The parallelism is nigh impossible to miss, which is why it seems possible that Tertullian had this type of teaching in mind when penning his words.

It would make sense for Tertullian to say that Jesus disarmed Peter, in part, because Peter's mind was unable to grasp what the real war looked like and thus found himself using the wrong weapons in his ignorance. Jesus had previously commanded him to pray in the garden so that he would not be seduced by temptation later. Paul goes on to mention prayer as a spiritual weapon. It's not at all far fetched to think that Peter should have been waging war in the garden with prayer as opposed to against the soldiers with his blade. Tertullian never gives this explanation for his position but it seems highly likely that, had he desired to give a more in depth teaching on the matter of disarmament, he would have included this sort of thought-train since it matches his contrasts.

These scripture (Matthew 26:53 and 2 Corinthians 10:3-4) match up well with John 18:36 which was mentioned earlier. John records Jesus claiming, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." While this speaks volumes to the fact that Jesus needed to be arrested it also speaks volumes to the fact that there is a deep contrast between the ways of the world and the ways of Christ's kingdom and the way that both engage in battle. This theme of contrast in regards to war, weapons, and kingdoms is hard to overlook when one takes a strong look at Tertullian's argument and the thread in the Gospels which contain the rebuke he references for his argument.

In conclusion, for Tertullian, it seems that military office is not off limits solely because of idolatry and murderous action but because it is an organization that supports armed service and Christ has commanded his people to fall into a disarmed service of love. The two are therefore in opposition to one another for one is fighting a fleshly war with fleshly weapons and one recognizes that such a war and such means are misguided. This makes sense as to why Tertullian uses such strong contrasts in his writing between Caesar's kingdom and Christ's kingdom; the two are truly opposites. 

To even be involved in an organization such as the military is not acceptable for that ties a person to Caesar's kingdom and Caesar's ways instead of Christ's kingdom and ways. In the eyes of the founder of Western Theology, either one is supporting Christ's kingdom or one is supporting Caesar's kingdom in their decision to align or abstain from aligning themselves with armed state organizations such as the military. 

Getting Drunk Off the Spirit

I've been blessed to be surrounded by Christians of all different types over the last decade. Some of my siblings have been charismatic and pentecostal while some others have been hardline southern baptist fundamentalists. They all are members of Christ's body and bring something unique and profitable (for edification) to the table. Too often the (Protestant) Church finds herself splitting up based not upon theological differences but upon comfort and sameness. That is, too much of the time people who speak in tongues and prophecy find a corner all to themselves while those who care about social justice find a corner they like and those who teach well and are hospitable find their own corners to isolate themselves within. The problem with this is that we forsake unity when we seek to dwell only with those who share the same passions, emphases, or spiritual gifts as ourselves. It's a shame.

As a result of this cutting off from other body members we tend to get lost in ourselves. Just as a hermit slowly becomes insane, only having himself to dialogue and grow with, so we as groups go insane. After too much time alone, without the blessings and sober challenges of those different from us who are meant to be among us, we turn into caricatures of ourselves. Like a piece of iron attempting to sharpen itself, bending with all it's might, we eventually break and find ourselves no longer being good for much. Left to our own theology we will create the god we want for ourselves and the God of the Bible is not the God anyone wants for themselves before he has completed their salvation. Let's be honest, if we all had the god we wanted we'd all end up with some pretty flawed gods. The True God transcends all types of people for he designed them all in his image.

When our only source of correction, our only anchor, is our own theology, teachings, ideas, opinions, passions, leanings, then we inevitably find ourselves leading ourselves astray. We don't need a wolf to devour us for we become self-devouring werewolves. Eventually the moon gets full and we turn on ourself without ever meaning to do so. No one can guide themselves through a forest they have not been through. A person may survive the forest alone but they will not come out as sanely as they went in.

Every 'faction' does this in some way if they cut themselves off from the diverse beauty of Christ's body. However, with this article I want to focus on one particular problem I've seen. One way I see this happening in the charismatic circles is the trend of "Getting drunk/high off the Spirit."

Emotional highs are normal. I'm not against that (though I am against the abuse of that phenomenon). I don't want anyone to think I'm speaking against joy or the embracing of blessings. Sometimes we groan and laugh and react to good things in strange ways. Sometimes we don't know what to do so we just do whatever our body does in reaction to something wonderful (or terrible). That's fine of course. What I'm discussing here is the notion that God's Spirit actively intoxicates those whom he dwells within, for whatever reason, to the point that they actually show symptoms of being drunk, can't control themselves, and cause confusion. Below is an extreme example.

Below is yet another example, slightly less extreme.

To some these videos seem like people are (1) Lying/acting (probably for money), (2) brain-washed by either crazy or power-hungry people, (3) legitimately drunk or high (though anyone who has been either knows better), (4) misguided, or (5) in the pinnacle of worship.

I find the fifth option problematic. This trend of getting drunk in the spirit doesn't seem to make sense when one reads the scripture references that such practices derive inspiration from. Even though many will say it's simply the activity of the spirit and nothing contrived by man, I question the legitimacy of that claim.

First off, the Spirit can do whatever he wants. God does what he wants. God does things I don't understand. Sometimes I'll be wrong about what is and is not God's doing, and that's fine. If I'm wrong, may God reveal it to me and fill me with truth so I can boldly live as would please him. But in this matter, I think we can observe scripture and these examples and make a pretty worthwhile conclusion about how God's Spirit works, or perhaps doesn't work, in this world among the people of God. We're not going to learn anything exhaustive but we can get some pretty large clues.

The first thing to take notice of is the terminology being used. The folks who fall into these practices often use the words "getting drunk/high on/off the Spirit" but this isn't biblical terminology. No where in the scriptures are people described as being made drunk by the Spirit or even being filled with the feeling of being intoxicated/inebriated by the Spirit of God. So where does this language come from? It comes from scripture but it's a rewording. Let's look at the clearest examples.

"I am like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine, because of the Lord and because of his holy words." (Jeremiah 23:9b). Even out of context it can be well observed how this has been twisted. This passage is concerning the prophets (v. 9a) and right before these words the author states, "My heart is broken within me; all my bones shake;" (v. 9a) The formatting of this passage in scripture shows it to be a poetic writing. This is not a historical document but an artistic piece (that doesn't mean it's not full of historic truth though). The author is painting a picture, giving an illustration, to express something within himself. His heart is not literally broken (he'd be dying or dead), his bones are not all shaking (think of the trauma on the body), and he is not literally drunk because of the Lord. He is like a drunken man, like a man overcome by wine. This is him using illustration to express how he feels. This is not a description of how he is acting. This illustration is used several times in scripture and it always carries a sense of negativity with it (Job 12:25, Isaiah 24:20, Nahum 1:10).

Even if this was a description of literal effects one must remember this is a negative situation. This is not a result of joy or blessing. The declaration of the Lord, which precedes this writing in the chapter, has deeply struck the prophet and this is his reaction to those words. God's words did not send him into a drunken like state of behavior but rather a pain and delirious type of state of feeling. The words of God were intense and metaphorically broke his heart. When someone has a broken heart what do they do? They drink. They get drunk in their pain so the pain will not exist (Proverbs 31:6-7). Perhaps that is a reason for the author using this type of imagery. At the end of the day, this is imagery and nothing more.

But there is a far better passage in scripture used to discuss being drunk in the Spirit. Acts 2, a more historical document, records what happened at Pentecost. The chapter starts, "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" (vv. 1-4). Next is the account of what happened in regards to the tongues.

"Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? . . .we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.' And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?' But others mocking said, 'They are filled with new wine.' But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: 'Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day'" (vv. 5-15).

In short, the disciples spoke as the Spirit decided, people from different origins heard in their own languages what was being preached and they were amazed. Mockingly, some folks called those preaching drunk (to be filled with new wine is to

be drunk) because of the phenomenon. Peter said they weren't drunk because it's too early in the day for that sort of thing.

Pentecost is a very unique happening. I'm not saying this sort of tongues activity doesn't still occur but in this fashion it's very unique. God was doing something new and unique after the ascension of Christ. This was a heavenly declaration that the Spirit of God had arrived and many people were being brought into the Church as she began to enter this new phase. We have to take note that the claim that the activity seemed like drunkard activity is from mockers. This isn't a legitimate observation but an ill-willed proclamation.

When groups of people are drunk it can be loud and sound like blathering because (1) there are so many people talking and (2) drunks blather. In this case, there are many people talking in many languages at the same time. It sounds like blathering. It sounds like drunk people talking. Thus, the mockers say what they say. The commentary doesn't exist because the disciples are acting drunk, feeling drunk, or calling themselves drunk. There is no misrepresentation by the disciples here. The Spirit hasn't manipulated anyone into intoxication of any kind. The Spirit has spoken in several languages through a group of people. That's the only activity of the Spirit being sensed here. Nobody is "drunk on the Spirit" as in the videos above. The disciples are accused of being drunk because mockers can't make sense of what sounds like blathering to them. They don't believe the miracle before them. They mock in order to deny.

Simply because mockers said the disciples were drunk doesn't mean that the disciples were actually exhibiting behavior of drunkards. When one is mocking someone they don't always stick to the truth of the situation or person they are against. The mockers may be confused and they may be trying to deny the miracle happening at the moment but they aren't giving legitimate commentary on what they are observing. They're trying to discredit what the Spirit is doing through the disciples.

This is why Peter corrects them; not because the Spirit confuses people by making God's people act drunk (to which Peter would have to give an explanation for the Spirit) but because he is fighting the lies being brought up about the Spirit's activity in the public square. Peter is preaching the Gospel and demanding people not listen to lies but to truth. This is why he goes on to mention prophecy. The people aren't acting drunk but rather prophesying because the Spirit is upon them and with the Spirit comes the gift of prophecy, visions, dreams, etc. Drunken behavior is not a gift of the Spirit, at least not according to the Apostles or their writings in scripture.

If Peter had said the people were not drunk on wine but rather on the Spirit then there'd be more of a case for such interpretations but the fact is that Peter dismisses the notion that any kind of drunkenness or behavior belonging to drunkenness is occurring. The only thing occurring is the preaching of the Gospel by the Spirit through the gift of tongues. Paul wants that to be made clear, that's partly why a sermon follows this reaction to the mockers.

God does not desire his Spirit to create confusion. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul teaches on spiritual gifts such as tongues and prophecy. He teaches on these issues so as to communicate the importance of clarity in the use of tongues. If people don't understand what is being communicated then damage is being caused. He basically references Pentecost when writes "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church" (vv. 10-12).

Paul continues this teaching by discussing the importance of orderly worship. In verses 16-17 he is clear about the importance of others being able to understand what is going on in worship, especially with the use of tongues. ". . .if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up."

At the end of the day, tongues can be confusing but the Spirit will bring interpretation and it seems believers can choose to harness this gift in such a way as to cause confusion or build others up. Paul speaks against this confusion and demands that gifts be used for building others up through orderly worship. People acting drunk and high isn't a part of orderly worship but rather a part of confusing behavior which doesn't communicate a whole lot of truth to people for the sake of their being built up.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Nothing in the scriptures give the idea that an indwelling of the Spirit causes feelings or behaviors of being drunk or high. In fact, there is a contrast between being drunk and being filled with the Spirit made by Paul in Ephesians 5:18 which gives support to the notion that to act drunk wouldn't help out the sake of one's witness.

In Galatians 5, Paul again has the work of the Spirit and drunkenness contrasted. He writes, "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit" (vv. 19-25).

Drunkenness is a work of the flesh whereas self-control is a fruit/work of the Spirit. If this is true, and if we are, as Paul teaches, to "live by the Spirit" and "keep in step with the Spirit" while not walking in the flesh which "is against the Spirit" (v. 17), then how do we reconcile acting or becoming drunk by the Spirit? Leviticus 10:9-10 teaches that drunkenness makes one unable to distinguish between holy and unholy, clean and unclean. That's not the same as the wisdom and self-control that comes from the Spirit.

There is a place in scripture which records God bringing about drunkenness in others though. In Jeremiah 51:54 God brings forth a judgment on Bablyon saying, "I will make drunk her officials and her wise men, her governors, her commanders, and her warriors; they shall sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake, declares the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts." If God does indeed bring about drunkenness in people, it's certainly not something that coincides with blessing. 1 Peter 4:7 connects sober-mindeness with valuable prayers stating "...be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers." A prayer is hindered by a lack of self control and an intoxicated mind. If such a soberness is required for prayers then why would we match up our worship with a type of spiritual drunkenness which doesn't seem to differ from fleshly drunkenness in it's effects? Is it not the same outside of source? The videos above seem to portray such a similarity in effect.

What could be the purpose of the Spirit bringing about works that seem to be according to the flesh and in opposition to his fruit? After all, if being drunk is not an activity God desires for his people and an activity which is taught to be in opposition to God's working in someone then why would he want his people acting as though they were drunk? That is of the same logic which would say that even though God does not desire for his people to be thieves, liars, gossips, or adulterers, he has chosen to make them appear as thieves, liars, gossips, and adulterers by the indwelling of his Spirit. The Spirit was given to us so that he may convict us of sin not that he may imitate it (John 18:4).

A drunkenness by the Spirit would certainly not be the same as being drunk by alcohol according to source but if the drunkenness appears to be the same then how do we reconcile this decision of God to make his people appear as though they've been sinful with the fruit of the Spirit, the contrast in Ephesians, the teachings for orderly worship in 1 Corinthians, the knowledge that God is not a God of confusion but of peace, and the preaching of Peter in Acts 2? If this drunkenness in the Spirit is legitimate then shouldn't it make sense with scripture's witness?

So what do we say of the people in these videos and the people who behave in like manner? I certainly won't deny these people legitimately have encountered God in a loving and joyous way and certainly won't deny the work of the Spirit in their life but I can say that scripture doesn't portray the Spirit as a being that causes confusion by creating an intoxicated effect on those upon whom he dwells. I can't speak on the heart of the individual, so I won't, but I can speak on what scripture teaches about the Spirit and that is what I've attempted to do here.

There are emotional highs in life and God brings great joy at times into our lives and that can be unexplainable, but perhaps it is best to leave it at that in those times. To lead people into the notion that the Spirit will make them act foolishly, as though they were intoxicated, is to lead them into a false teaching about the Spirit. The scriptures do not teach such a thing and neither should we. We should encourage people to walk in the joy of the Lord but in a manner that builds others up in peace. Let us fully embrace God's blessings with joy and preach his truth as a result of learning it and experiencing it. Let us be bold and charismatic! But, let us also be in agreement with scripture.