When I became a Christian, I heard the gospel through a Cessationist church.  These were people who loved God and were ardent students of the Bible. The lens through which they interpreted the word was, however, Cessationism.  That simply means that the denomination that church aligned itself with believed that the miracles, supernatural interventions by God, and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased to operate around the end of the first century when the last of the apostles died.

The idea is that God performed his miracles through Jesus solely in order to prove that he was the Son of God and the long awaited Messiah.  He performed miracles through the apostles in order to validate them as leaders of the church and to validate their writings as inspired by God. The argument continued that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were also given to validate the early church as the body of Christ and gifts such as prophecy and discernment were needed because the church did not have the complete New Testament canon until the end of the first century. However, once there was enough historical record of miracles in the life of Jesus and his apostles and once the entirety of the New Testament had been penned, the need for the supernatural acts of God and his church were fulfilled and God began to work only through natural means.  Most American mainline churches still hold this view in varying degrees.

Of course, that perspective leaves much unanswered.  For instance, why all the miracles in the Old Testament if miracles were only to validate Jesus?  If miracles were only given to validate the apostles and their writings, then why did Luke gain a place in the New Testament with a gospel and the book of Acts as well as James, the brother of Jesus, not the apostle James? Neither were apostles and we have no evidence that either of them ever performed a miracle to validate the inspiration of their writings.  Why did the church need gifts of miracles, tongues, healings, and the capacity to cast out demons if the miraculous gifts were only to make up for a lack of a complete New Testament?  Those gifts did not fill in the “yet to be written” word of God for the church. If the church needed miracles to validate that it was approved by God, why would the church not need the same validation today in the face of Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism?  In addition, if the biblical record shows that God interceded for his people with miracles from Genesis to Revelation, why would he stop intervening for his people after the Holy Spirit had been given to the church and since God himself does not change?  He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

In addition to those questions, being taught that all of God’s miracles, supernatural interventions, and miraculous gifts were relegated to the past had an unintended side effect, I believe.  As I was taught to read the Bible through that lens, I also came to believe, at least at a subconscious level that we could no longer do great things for the Lord.  The Bible stories of David slaying Goliath, the Red Sea parting, supernatural strength in battle, fire falling from heaven, Philip being transported by the Holy Spirit, and so forth seemed to take on an almost mythological aura in the sense that these heroes of the past were not like you and me.  God would not work through us as he had through them.  I was reading the Word to see what God had once done, not what he would do.

The question becomes why the story of all those people and the story of all those supernatural events were even recorded if we cannot be like the people we are reading about.  God’s mighty works sound like stories that happened long, long ago in a far away galaxy.  And yet, I believe that the stories of David running toward Goliath, Joshua marching around Jericho, Elijah facing the false prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, Gideon routing the enemy of Israel with clay pots and torches, Peter being led from prison by an angel, etc. are to be emulated by us, not just remembered.

I believe that the stories were written to tell us who God’s people were and who they can be again.  They are written to tell us that we can be those people. These were real people with flaws and fears and great misunderstandings who eventually did great things through faith and the supernatural interventions of God.  If we are to be like them…if they are our role models then we cannot be like them without faith and we cannot be like them without the miraculous power of God working in our lives as it did theirs.

To take away the supernatural operation of God in our lives is to take away the possibility that we can be another David, another Gideon, another Esther, another Elijah, another Mary, another Peter, Paul, or John.  In an effort to explain why we personally haven’t seen someone heal the blind or raise the dead, we create a theology that denies the miraculous today and, at the same time, cuts the legs out from under the church and the church’s ability to “turn the world upside down” once again.

The Bible isn’t simply a history book as much as it is a book that demonstrates how men and women have encounters with God and that demonstrates what every believer’s life can look like in fellowship with God. What the Father has been willing to do in the past he is willing to do again because he does not change.  In my first church home, I was taught to run away from the miraculous because I might be deceived and led astray.  Of course we are to test the spirits to see if they are from God, but I believe that scripture actually instructs us to run toward the supernatural because we may just find God there.

I was reading through Matthew the other day and was struck with a paradox. One the one hand, Jesus seems too be telling us that we should think of ourselves as weak and lowly while in other scriptures we are told how significant we are in the kingdom of heaven.   The two thoughts sometimes seems contradictory.   However, throughout the Bible there seem to be numerous scriptures that hold us in a kind of tension between two absolute positions. For instance, we are told, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself “ (Prov. 26:4).  The very next verse says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5). Somewhere in the middle of those two positions we are called to exercise judgment and to be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit in a given situation…one  situation calling for no answer and another calling for an answer to the “fool.”

I find that same kind of tension in the New Testament where we are clearly called to humble ourselves if we desire to be great in the kingdom while at the same time knowing that we have this amazing identity of status and authority in the kingdom of God.  Matthew records a moment when some of Jesus’ apostolic band asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.18:1).  Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

The word humble in the original language means lowly, weak, insignificant, or poor.  So to be great in the kingdom we must see ourselves as lowly, weak, or insignificant.  Yet, at the same time we are told over and over that we are priests, royalty, friends of the Most High King, ambassadors, co-heirs with Christ, sons and daughters of God, saints, and so forth. We seem to be called to see ourselves as insignificant, while, at the same time, knowing how significant we are.  We get the same flavor in James when he directs us to humble ourselves before God and then to resist the devil and he will flee from us. We are to humble ourselves before God but we are to have a very different bearing when we face the devil.

So do we see ourselves as insignificant or highly significant?  Do we see ourselves as weak or strong enough to send the devil to flight? Do we see ourselves as lowly or highly favored and established in heaven?  The answer seems to be “yes” to all of that.  The key seems to be in knowing that our significance, strength, and standing in heaven has all come to us as a gift, rather than as something we possess apart from Christ.

Our humility comes from knowing that apart from Christ we are weak, insignificant, powerless and lost.  He has given us value, significance and position but on the basis of his inherent greatness not ours.  We walk in strength, authority and confidence because it is his strength and authority operating in us.  To feel less than we are in Christ is to take away from what he has done and who he is, but at the same time we walk in humility knowing that all we have has come from him.

Paul put it this way,  “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10). Knowing that we have no strength, power, authority, or glory of our own allows Christ’s glory to shine through us.  We actually are not self-confident but Christ-confident so that we can walk both in humility and glory at the same time.

Jesus modeled the tension between these truths as he walked the earth knowing he was the Son of God who could call twelve legions of angels at any time, yet at the same time totally submitting himself to the Father.  The Son of God simply made a decision to only do what he saw the Father doing and only speak what he heard the Father speaking.  That was God himself operating in humility.  Ultimately, humility is a mindset of total dependence on another for our needs.  Jesus was humble in that he chose to be totally dependent on the Father in every circumstance even though he knew heaven would come running at his call.  When we walk with that mindset, both humble and significant,  we can be great in the kingdom of God.

I have noticed a lot of social media comments this week about the half-time show at the Super Bowl.  I watched the game but not the half-time show.  Of course, the objections were for the over-sexualized production at half time that has been described as disgusting, shocking, perverse, and so forth. This was just the latest addition of such half-time shows going back to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction and Beyonce channeling her spirit (demon) in a hypersexual way.  The debate over the production reminded me of an article that our pastoral staff discussed only a week or so before the Super Bowl.  I thought you might be interested in some takeaways from the article related to a sexualized culture.  The article was written by Kirk Durston and was based on a book entitled Sex and Culture written by J.D. Unwin, a Cambridge social anthropologist. He studies a number of cultures contemporary and historic based on several criteria – one of which was a cultures level of sexual restraint.  It is a highly academic book so I will try to keep the quote brief.

Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought

A few days ago I finished studying Sex and Culture for the second time. It is a remarkable book summarizing a lifetime of research by Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin.  The 600+ page book is, in Unwin’s words, only a “summary” of his research—seven volumes would be required to lay it all out. His writings suggest he was a rationalist, believing that science is our ultimate tool of inquiry (it appears he was not a religious man). As I went through what he found, I was repeatedly reminded of the thought I had as a philosophy student: some moral laws may be designed to minimize human suffering and maximize human flourishing long term.

Unwin examines the data from 86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures. What makes the book especially interesting is that we in the West underwent a sexual revolution in the late 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s and are now in a position to test the conclusions he arrived at more than 40 years earlier.  

Unwin’s degrees of sexual restraint

Degrees of sexual restraint were divided into two major categories—prenuptial (pre-marital) and postnuptial (married). Prenuptial categories were:

1. Complete sexual freedom—no prenuptial restraints at all
2. Irregular or occasional restraint— cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence
3. Strict Chastity —remain a virgin until married

Postnuptial categories were:

1. Modified monogamy: one spouse at a time, but association can be terminated by either party.
2. Modified polygamy: men can have more than one wife, but a wife is free to leave her husband.
3. Absolute monogamy: only one spouse permitted for life (or until death in some cultures) 
4. Absolute polygamy:  men can have more than one wife, but wives must “confine their sexual qualities (i.e., activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”

So what did he find?

Here are a few of his most significant findings:

1. Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later. 
2. Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
3. Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
4. Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism (a culture in which considerations about God shape the culture, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
5. Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
6. Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.

The conclusions of the writer were that America is far along the path (Super Bowl) and that we hit the self-destruct button, which began our countdown back in the 60’s.  The Cambridge scholar did not try to determine why cultures that showed sexual restraint flourished while those that did not began to circle the drain, but he thought maybe the energy that would have been expended on sexual pursuits were actually channeled intoscience, technology, the arts, etc.

I have another thought on that:  Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34 ). God created sexuality to be a holy thing shared by one man and one woman in the covenant of marriage. He designed it to knit hearts and emotions together in a way that would strengthen the bond of marriage more than almost anything else.  It is such a holy thing that adultery was a capital offense under the Old Covenant.  Satan has made sexuality a prime target since the Garden of Eden.  In our time, a lack of sexual restraint has created a generation of fatherless children, a bevy of sexually transmitted diseases, a world haunted by gender confusion, an inability to bond properly with a spouse because of multiple sexual partners before marriage, a epidemic of brutal sex trafficking – both boys and girls, an additional epidemic of pornography, and most importantly, the removal of God’s blessing from nations.

So does the Super Bowl half time show really matter?  In one sense, it is just one more expression of a culture that has become sexualized to the point of shamelessness.  But more importantly, it is a probable indicator of the impending collapse of a great nation once blessed and used by God.  The good news is that there are still many who find such expressions objectionable.  We should.  The church must be the conscience of a nation for who else will speak out for righteousness?  Of course, speaking out is only part of the battle.  The only true solution is to evangelize the nation with the good news of Jesus Christ and the true freedom found in Him.  There are so many things the enemy has stolen from our culture that need to reclaimed and taken back by the church. A holy sexuality is one of those things and we must be in the fight…beginning with our own personal purity based on the Lord’s standard not the standard of our culture.