Introduction
This section of Paul's letter is about meetings. As Paul deals with problems
they were having in this area, he touches on a lot of the same issues
we deal with today.
Beginning in chapter 12, Paul instructs them on the use spiritual gifts
in Christian meetings. But before getting into this, he lays down an important
rule (read vs 1-3). This is difficult to understand at first glance, isn't
it?
It sounds like Paul is saying the litmus test for being a Christian
and/or spiritual is simply to utter the phrase "Jesus is Lord."
But common sense tells us people can mouth these words without being
Christians at all, let alone spiritual. This objection is confirmed
by passages like Mt. 7:21 and Titus 1:16.
The clue to understanding this passage is vs 2, because vs 3 is a conclusion
based on vs 2 ("therefore"). Paul reminds them that before
they came to Christ, many of them were "led astray to the dumb
idols"—they had been seduced into false religious cults.
How did this happen? How does this fit into their present situation?
We know that many of these cults emphasized "inspired utterances"
as evidence of spirituality. [1] The Corinthian
Christians were evidently emphasizing such utterances (especially
TONGUES) and saw them as proof that they were Spirit-filled. Because
of this, their meetings were an unruly cacophony of noise and chaos.
But did this prove that God's Spirit was really in charge?
Paul's answer is "Not necessarily." His point is: "If
religious experience is your main evidence for spirituality, haven't
you forgotten where that led you last time? It led you into what you
now realize were false gods!! Realize, then, that the key evidence
God's Spirit is not the experiences people have while speaking,
but rather the theological content of their speech."
So Paul is addressing the relationship between truth and experience
as they relate to Christian spirituality. This issue is so important and
so timely that I want to spend the rest of our time today explaining and
applying it before we go on to the rest of what Paul teaches. We can distill
his perspective on this subject into two statements that temper each other . . .
Experience must be subordinated to truth
Paul is saying we should look to doctrinal content more than to
religious experience as evidence of authentic spirituality. Both have
a place, but the two are not equal. One must be in priority over the other.
Religious experience is good, but it must be subordinate to truth.
What a timely reminder! American society has accepted the antithesis
with regard to religion: truth must be subordinate to experience. Having
rejected the notion of revealed absolute truth, experience is the bottom
line for religion. Doctrinal content is unnecessary at best and destructive
at worst. Consider these culturally mainstream statements:
MASLOW: "The experience of surrender, of reverence, . . . of
awe and the feeling of smallness—these experiences which organized
religions have always tried to make possible—are also common enough
in the peak experiences (of non-religious people) . . . To
the extent that all mystical or peak experiences are the same in their
essence and have always been the same, all religions are the same in
their essence and have always been the same. They should, therefore,
come to agree in principle on teaching that which is common to all of
them. Whatever is different about these (religions) . . . are
therefore peripheral, expendable, not essential." [2] Of course, one of these "expendable"
issues is Jesus Christ as Lord, the only Savior of the human race.
CARMODY: "In an ideal study (of world religions), however, one
finally verges upon the center of the other people's experiences and
finds that it can virtually coincide with one's own . . .
In this book we shall try to build our descriptions (of world religions)
into a climactic presentation of the sort of peak experience, vivid
and peaceful, that gives their world a center. Thus, we shall try to
present the world religions as various "Ways to the Center." [3] In other words, all religions are simply
expressions different ways of experiencing the same thing. How does
this square with Jesus in Jn. 14:6? Or Paul in Gal. 1:8?
It is undeniable that advocates of antithetical propositions report
identical religious experiences (tongues;
visions; trance states; slain in spirit). Our culture concludes
from this that all religions are equally true ("for you").
But the Bible says spiritual experiences can come from different sources
(GOD; SATAN; SELF; GROUP HYSTERIA), and for this reason stresses that
doctrinal content must take precedence over religious experience in
discerning truth from error (Deut. 13:1-3; 1 Jn. 4:1-3
>> WARNING TO "DABBLERS")
Tragically, at a time when Christians should be emphasizing the importance
of truth over experience, many are more than ever conforming to the primacy
of experience over truth. Superficially, they may appear different because
they proclaim Jesus as Savior, but in key areas they evidence conformity.
How else can we explain why Christians are such easy prey for hucksters
(LEROY JENKINS; "MARJO" >> "But I can sense God's
presence!" "If you'd have experienced what I experienced,
you'd know that it is of God.").
How else can we explain the fact that a majority of American evangelicals
say they don't believe in absolute truth? (STATS FROM VEITH'S BOOK &
BARNA)
How else can we explain the increasing appeal to experience as the
basis for biblical interpretation? I wish I could say this is rare—but
it is common!
How else can we explain the disturbing trend to appeal primarily or
exclusively to religious experience in evangelism? Since such experiences
are part of every other religion, we can expect experience-evangelism
to be increasingly ineffective.
CHRISTIAN APPLICATION: This is why we should emphasize content, content,
content!!! This is why we should emphasize objective evidence as well
as experience in evangelism. This is why we should have a healthy skepticism
about experiences which are contradictory to or devoid of biblical content.
But this statement must be tempered by another statement . . .
Truth should not eliminate experience
Just as religious experience must be subordinated to truth, truth
should not eliminate experience.
The desire to avoid experiential extremism can be a sufficient motive
to resist even biblically valid spiritual experiences.
Some churches here in town will kick you out for speaking in tongues—quicker
than if you were committing sexual immorality. They have come up with
the unscriptural position that God has removed all such gifts from the
church (HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM).
I can understand the desire to do this. Experience-orientation can
be terrifically divisive, as we have witnessed in our own church over
the last two years. It is definitely easier to just say "We'll
have none of that here."
That certainly would have been the cleanest way for Paul to handle
the Corinthians. In spite of all the Corinthian's excesses in this area,
however, Paul didn't do this. He introduced strict controls, he emphasized
the primacy of truth and love—but he also said "Do not forbid
to speak in tongues" (14:39-40; see also 1 Thess. 5:19-22).
This over-reaction produces another form of extremism that is every bit
as ugly and destructive as experiential extremism. The cold-hearted Christian
deist is a spiritual prune (scholar or activist) who is no better
off than the raving fanatic (VERWER QUOTE: “It's easier to cool down
a fanatic than to warm up a corpse")! What we need is balance . . .
Questions that promote balance
"Are you able to evaluate religious experiences objectively in
light of scriptural truth—but without becoming suspicious of all
experience?"
Are you offended when people question experience-based guidance? When
they ask for objective evidence of healings? When they insist on rules
of order for meetings (TONGUES W/OUT INTERPRETATION; PROPHECY UNJUDGED
>> "God's presence was so real!")? When they disagree
with and correct statements that are unbiblical or imbalanced? This
is what God says we must do (1 Thess. 5:21-22; 1 Cor. 14:29).
Unless we are comfortable with this, we're going to get into trouble.
On the other hand, many of us can objectively evaluate experience,
but are unenthusiastic in our own personal walks. We can get super-excited
about a FOOTBALL GAME, but mock people who get excited about Christ
at a meeting. We can weep over a SOAP OPERA, but never weep over our
sins and God's grace. If this is the case, we shouldn't use others'
experiential excesses to rationalize our own experiential poverty. We
should ask God to soften our hearts!!
"Are you ready to welcome and cultivate spiritual experience—but
without making it the focal point of your Christian life?"
If you feel you must have dramatic experiences to keep walking with
Christ (F.M.: "I felt like I needed to have it again."), or
when that's all you want to talk about, or when a meeting is a boring
unless you were knocked off your feet, or when you view this as the
key evidence of a Spirit-filled life, something is seriously wrong.
But there is nothing spiritual about a dead meeting, or a Christian
walk void of all experiential vitality! We should affirm that the experiential
aspect of Christianity is real and important. We should cultivate it
ourselves and urge others to do the same.
Many of you may be surprised to know how important this is to me
and how important I think this is for people I work with. I want them
exposed to people who are excited about Christ, expressing their true
feelings to him, thanking God, praising him, etc. How can we cultivate
fun, wholesome spiritual experience without going off the deep end?
Using your spiritual gifts to serve others is exciting
Personal prayer (individual & corporate): we are restored to
his perspective, sense his guidance, reminded of & experience
his love (Acts 4; THURSDAY NIGHT PRAYER)
Studying scripture: wisdom and insight breaking in upon you is
a real buzz
Listening to &/or singing Christian songs: NEW FORMAT FOR ONE
OF THE SUNDAY CENTRAL TEACHINGS—DON'T JUDGE ONE ANOTHER OVER
PREFERENCES!!!
Sharing Christ with non-Christians (Acts 1:8)
GOSPEL: You can't cultivate something you haven't received . . . (Rev. 3:20)
NEXT: spiritual gifts, ministries, effects; principles of Christian
fellowship . . .
Footnotes
[1] "In classical literature,
Apollo was particularly renowned as the source of ecstatic utterances,
as on the lips of Cassander of Troy, the priestess of Delphi or the
Sibyl of Cumae (whose frenzy as she prophesied under the god's control
is vividly described by Virgil)." F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2
Corinthians, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,
1971).
[2] Abraham Maslow, Religions,
Values, and Peak Experiences
[3] Denise L. and John T. Carmody,
Ways to the Center (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
1984), p. 11.