Remember the story recorded in Acts 12, where Peter is arrested and placed in jail? The story tells of Peter in jail and asleep when an angel of the Lord appears and wakes him. The angel then instructs Peter to get fully dressed and follow the him out of the Roman jail.
During this time some Christians were at the house of John’s mother, Mary, praying specifically for Peter’s miraculous release. In fact, it states that, "prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God." It was to this house that Peter went after the angel of the Lord led him out of the prison walls and into the city. But a funny thing happened when Peter arrived.
Upon coming to the gate of the house, Peter knocked and in response to his knocking a servant-girl named Rhoda went to answer. She heard Peter’s voice and knew it was him so she ran back and told everyone inside, praying, that Peter was at the gate. And their response? Well, let me quote the text:
14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was so. They kept saying, “It is his angel.” 16 But Peter continued knocking; and when they had opened the door, they saw him and were amazed.
Donald Trump and the Prayers of Many
For quite some time many people, Christians in particular, have been praying to God for a new leader for the United States come this election, one who shares many of their values with regard to nationalism and American exceptionalism. However, they know such a modern pioneer is less and less among us in the political class. Additionally, those praying know that America's future Executive must be a man or woman whose values, political motivations and decisions and personal constitution, haven't already been brokered by special interest financiers and backroom deals.
I am not here to tell you with certitude that Donald Trump is, indeed, the answer to many prayers but I do strongly suggest you consider that possibility. We don’t dictate to God how he answers prayers, we ask. We got a Savior born in a manger, God as a baby, hidden yet there he was. Another time we were given the ridiculousness of a river split in two and on another occasion, God gave his people a man named Solomon whose wives and concubines were countless.
And in case I am misunderstood I am using these illustrations, not to equate the United States with the people of God, particularly because the U.S. is not a theocracy but a constitutional republic and God's people are the church. My point, instead, is to demonstrate that God answers the prayers of his people in peculiar ways at times and the United States has a tremendous Christian population who have been praying.
God is as audacious as his wishes. I don’t know who or what you were expecting to arrive on the scene in answer to your prayers but I do know that Donald Trump, with all of his alleged excesses, also has many fundamental qualities that are rather desperately needed today.
Possibly, just possibly, you need believe Rhoda and let Mr. Trump in.
In light of how we separate living and doctrine with so many popular Bible teachers, Pastors and Christian personalities where we use one to justify the other or the other to minimize the one, here is a line from a letter that Ignatius wrote to Polycarp:
Let not those who seem worthy of credit, but teach strange doctrines, fill
thee with apprehension.
Often these days, what is considered worthy of credit (which means by their life and all of its associative properties as well as having a record of soundness, according to Ignatius' writings) wouldn't even get one a handshake with Ignatius in considering many modern Bible teachers. If you were to read his letters and have revealed to you what he, an early church father and disciple of John the Apostle, considered credit worthy, you would immediately understand what I am talking about. However, if you don't have time, let's just say, Ignatius' views would leave many of Evangelicalism's beloved personalities in a rather chilly place.
But notice his conclusion, that such a thing should fill a person with apprehension. Not that we should be a bit apprehensive but filled with apprehension!
As well, he does not say we should take this strange doctrine and somehow compare it to sound things that teacher has taught elsewhere thus, calm ourselves with this knowledge but to be filled with apprehension, even if they seem credit worthy.
Ignatius has in view alarm bells going off like a 99 alarm fire. It doesn't mean, in fact, there is a fire, but you better bring the fire trucks because the smoke is rolling out.
Past soundness, decent or notable morality and ethical living and sincerity of ministry as well as amicable dispositions do not exist to somehow mitigate when Bible teachers begin teaching strange doctrine. And for you to not be filled with apprehension when this occurs in a received Bible teacher, tells others, you, too, have a problem with your discernment.
Well, Christian, who is filling you with apprehension in that they have taught strange doctrines? Or should I ask, who should be filling you with apprehension?
*Another similar question. Go through your list of known Bible teachers whom you believe to live in what might be called a godly manner and has a record of teaching right things but also has taught, now teaches or now associates with thus, approves, strange doctrine?
**I added a prefix to the title of my post, as my readers can see.
Have you ever been in a worship service, concentrating on the exercises of corporate worship only to have stolen from your attention, the possession of fellowship with God via prayer, instruction in the Word and joyful singing and be redirected to someone’s little emperor or empress who cannot and will not control him or herself or worse, refuses to yield to the administration of someone in authority over them? And topping those scenarios is one where such ruckuses are the result of little or no attempt by the child’s parents to intervene and eliminate the selfish distraction by the tot. If your answer is no, your body is dead and in your soul is now in heaven. Congratulations.
For those who worship at the altar of human nascence, where infants up to small children are idolized, I am sure this post will be sacrilege for your Lilliputian-sized demigods. However, it is unavoidable and further, requisite in addressing proper considerations and decorum in corporate worship.
So to our degraded society and more specifically, the Protestant, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian church of self-absorbed baby boomers, x-gens and millennials who, it appears have collectively abandoned command over their children, opting instead for free-range tutelage where their nestlings, with their precious personalities and overflowing social virtues of screaming, whining, grabbing, banging, sassing, crying, fussing and overall clamoring for attention and so on are simply imposed onto the rest of the congregation, we need to have a word with you and your enablers (and if this does not apply to you because I do not assume all are guilty in my general address, enjoy, if you will).
Church or Corporate Worship Exercises are to be respected for their Biblical Objectives
The primary function of corporate worship or what we call “church” is to fulfill Biblical objectives. Anyone or anything disrupting in a manner which defrauds another of spiritual and mental convergence upon the ministry of God in formal corporate ministry (I might even say beyond this, in more relaxed contexts, there are still codes of conduct which must be observed), is subverting the church’s attempt to obey God and serve its members. And this does not exclude disruptive children. One might even view it as a form of hostage taking, though such language may be an overreach to others, I do not think so in some cases.
Imagine, if you will, a couple arguing or some adult having a tantrum in church. You would be stunned that they would permit such a display of themselves, refusing self-control or declining to remove themselves and resolve the dispute out of sight and sound of the congregation so that the corporate worship and concentration on Christ, would go undisturbed.
Parents, your children are under your command, control them or remove them. Thus, let me be clear, your children are not adults, they are under your charge, your authority. You have a choice when your little ones, if you choose to bring them into the auditorium or sanctuary, become a source of distraction to anyone around you; either deliberate and subdue them or remove them altogether if you have not mastered this essential part of parenthood.
The refusal to extricate the social hemorrhage of an antagonistic child in your charge ultimately makes you, the guardian, as the one responsible for the disruption. You, mom, dad and whomever else, are allowing the theft of God’s Word and the prayers of the congregation along with all other corporate exercises, from the hearts and lives of others. Yes, theft. You are consenting to let your child abscond with the corporate and personal spiritual edification of others by your refusal to exercise your God give dominion over your progeny.
Your Children are not Cute, it is not Funny and no one should be Laughing when they Disrupt
As a way to ease the awkwardness of selfish parents who bring their disruptive infants, toddlers and preschoolers (sometimes even early grammar-schoolers) into the sanctuary for corporate worship, often those being disturbed and distracted will respond by smiling and laughing lightly if not even engaging with the pilfering behavior of the family’s miniature potentate so that they might arrest it and help settle the child down for the sake of others and sadly, the irresponsible parents. But of course, egocentric parent, you know and I know that no one should have such a thing imposed upon them. But then I suppose we just don’t understand just how cute your celebrity child is, right? And after all, they don’t have malignant motives, they are just being a cute kid or simply an innocently temperamental child, right?
Wrong.
They are being selfish and worse, so are you. Yes, they are being just a kid but isn’t that the point, mom, dad and enablers? Children don’t have the final say, you do. You lead them to proper conduct. That is precisely why children have guardians. And learning to behave and being considerate of others is exactly one of the primary lessons which must be taught and reinforced in the life of a child until he or she masters it which enables them to mature into a reliable and considerate member of society and in this case, a church.
Compare what you do at a Movie Theater with the way you treat others at Church
If you don’t get it by now I am going to make it very simple. Most of you have either been to a movie or some event which requires the constant regard of others. And I speak to Christians because we are called to the highest order of consideration (yes, I know, God saves all kinds and mostly us of less than noble birth order who may even have very undeveloped social skills but this does not mean we are not obligated to learn higher orders of social reflection and their principles as a way of demonstrating our love for others. And of all things, we, the church, are obligated to teach these things to one another. So as a church, a Pastor or Bible teacher, if you do not pass on things of “excellence” which includes higher orders of social reciprocity, you have cheated your hearers).
You wouldn’t dare go to a cinematic presentation with say, one-hundred others in attendance and leave your child free to disrupt others, now would you (again, I am speaking to those who accept the responsibility of a social conscience and consideration toward others as a Christian order for living)? In fact, I dare say you would immediately remove your infant, your toddler and your early school-aged child, if not adolescent, if he or she attempted to impose their Heckle and Jeckle demand for attention onto others.
So if you are willing to exercise such great control and command over your children at an event such as movie entertainment where silence and non-disruption of patrons is expected, tell me again this free-range church conduct philosophy of yours as a parent which permits the unceasing or intermittent rattling and loss of composition by your child at the expense of others when in a far more serious setting, where fellow believers are seeking spiritual food for their edification that they may be transformed and become more Christ-like and further directed into a more God glorifying way of life? Because if you can explain it with Biblical principles, I am all ears, friend.
Suggestions Anyone?
Does this mean I believe no infants, toddlers or children should ever be present in a corporate worship? No, but more often, yes, they should not be present. Why? It’s simple. Most children are unable to restrain themselves in a considerate manner until ages three or four and even then it is not the rule, rather the exception. Once a child enters into first grade they begin receiving comprehensive formal training related to the practice of having regard for others. This is one of the many wonderful things which school brings. Children get grades for their behavior with a set of expectations and ultimatums to be enforced.
Children learn to sit still, by enforced humility, via classroom behavior codes, even if their parents have done a poor job of teaching this at home (with some extreme exceptions for wholly unruly children). And with respect to children who are behind the curve, they may simply require delayed graduation into corporate worship until they demonstrate sufficient mastery over self.
But this is squarely the reason why we have nurseries and childcare for infants, toddlers and small children at a church, out of respect not only for those in corporate worship but out of regard for these young ones. Children who are not capable of restraining themselves appropriately or have parents that cannot (sometimes, will not) control them, still have the need for instruction and ministry. It simply must be at their level and in a setting in which they are not guilty of offending others with their immature outbursts and childish fidgetiness (and again, their parents share a far greater culpability here in such offenses).
It is not fair to those in the congregation nor the children when we impose on the majority, the impulsive insistence of a child. In a more intimate and fitting setting, we are able to give deference to the needs of ministry for both parties.
Ideally, even when children are introduced to corporate worship, they aren't going to be perfect gentlemen and ladies. It is like riding a bicycle. I suggest, during this period, you sit toward the rear of the sanctuary so that you may remove them if they begin to struggle with their composure.
Final Thoughts
Finally, consider what many possibly do teach little children in corporate worship by bringing them and licensing them to either exist as a distraction or permit their children to draw, color and play quiet games during the corporate worship (which is still a distraction to the parents and anyone in the immediate vicinity). You aren’t really teaching them much more than to subordinate worship to their own personal interests.
The reason they cannot sit still and pay attention is because they lack capacity either for sufficient self-control or to appreciate what is going on. Making them be present and then allowing them to be preoccupied with childish activities might make you feel good as a parent, as if you are teaching your offspring to get used to “church” or something, but you aren’t actually teaching them that. Instead, they are learning to endure church. It is likely what you are doing, at best, is neutral and in many cases, harmful in the habits it forms but worse and the point of this essay, think again about what it potentially steals from others.
Children will develop capacity at some point in life to manage themselves and participate in the corporate worship in a benevolent and mindful manner or at least sit and not distract others. And this should be the expectation of your children when bringing them to corporate worship. And if this threshold is not met by your child, the parents/guardians need to act as thoughtful patrons of God’s people and remove the little one until otherwise.
We live in a world of narcissists. Possibly it has always been this way but public decorum and the respect for others and the worship of all things nascence has accelerated since the late 1940’s, even in the Christian church. I and others, have great concern for this unhealthy emphasis. Thus, it is no doubt to many I am mean and hate kids. I won’t defend myself against such accusations, they would be ridiculous from the start and nothing I have written could reasonably lead to such conclusions.
And in case you wish to pull the “forbid them not” card - Teaching your children it is acceptable to intrude into the worship of others, impose their immature conduct onto others or to endure church with personal preoccupations which only serve to distract themselves and others, isn't "permitting" them to come to Christ with such personal policies and practices but you may be preventing others.
Part 1, here
Part 2, here
Part 3, here
My Observations and Considerations
My hope, here, is to more effectively qualify a response to this issue for my readers. I have no doubt that numerous believers face, to some degree, the dilemma of sexual sins of thought, word and/or deed and having read the kind of counsel offered by Dr. Russell Moore, they instinctively come away from his prescription knowing that something isn’t quite right but have not been able to identify and articulate their concerns.
However, permit me to add that I am certain Russell Moore is both earnest and genuine in his guidance. As well, I believe he demonstrates a seriousness in his desire to orient people toward what he believes is Godly thinking and acting, though I regularly find myself at odds with his theological products and certainly here. Hence, I do not want anyone thinking my objective is a caricaturization of Moore. Nevertheless, his advice on the matter reflects a commonly sloppy and overly pious approach which has inflicted needless collateral damage to the lives of faltering humans and particularly Christians.
Marital infidelity
God is absolute and clear in his Word. Marriage is intended to be that of a man and woman being faithful in every manner possible, to one another. This, especially, includes sexual fidelity. Adultery is shameful and sinful. Proverbs 6:29 states regarding the one that goes to his neighbor's wife and commits adultery:
29 So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
Whoever touches her will not go unpunished.
That passage has in view two kinds of suffering from this level of transgressing, both human and divine. Thus, it is clear that not only are there human consequences but divine ones as well. Of course not every single person and every single violation are equal and God deals with each one of us in particular (as do humans). But even so, we will be corrected and reproved by God, even if human disclosure does not occur. Proverbs 3:11-12 states:
11 My son, do not reject the discipline of the Lord
Or loathe His reproof,
12 For whom the Lord loves He reproves,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.
Therefore, let me be clear. In no way am I minimizing deleterious effects of this sin and its violation before God. However, how it is resolved with respect to human relationships and to whom we own a confession has an extended Biblical consideration and is not left up to our rationalizations which seem sanctified and spiritual but which may be, in fact, creating further and gratuitous conflict and injury in a marriage.
Prudence
First and foremost, when you commit marital infidelity where the other spouse does not share such knowledge, there is no absolute counsel from the Scriptures or practical Biblical wisdom which demands and treats as the highest order of conduct, the disclosure of such a sin. The book of Proverbs contains a very weighty principle regarding our sins. Proverbs 12:23 share this wisdom:
23 The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves, but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.
Now it is true that revealing an offense is not necessarily equal to blurting it out but the Proverb treats keeping knowledge of something to one’s self as “prudent”. Prudence is the practice of perspicacity regarding what we reveal to others and what we do not. We use forethought and consider how it will affect the person(s) with whom the information is revealed.
When we accept Dr. Moore’s prescription, that we are always obligated to confess infidelity, we do so in the absence of prudence. Prudence considers the damage to the relationship and the spouse, who at the moment may be very contented and who, through this knowledge, may receive an injury from which he or she cannot recover, which brings me to my next point.
Exacerbating the damage through confessing to a spouse
When someone is unfaithful they have damaged themselves. As well, their marriage will experience some by-products of unfaithfulness such as the offending spouse having created an appetite for intimacy with foreign parties. However, the faithful spouse has not received a personal offense. The integrity has failed on one end and needs resolved on that end.
So when a spouse has been unfaithful but repented and returned as a faithful party, while there may be by-product(s), the re-invested spouse will, as time increases, regain matrimonial momentum in their repentance and renewed faithfulness. Thus, the institutional effects may be minor, if noticeable at all to the innocent party.
Why, then, would there be a compelling interest in revealing the episode of infidelity to the innocent spouse, particularly if one has confessed their offense to God and returned to fidelity with the marriage developing positively as it should?
The truth is, we often are only furthering the damage of our offense when we confess it to the unknowing party. We are, in effect, generating a greater problem where one need not be. There is no default Biblical mandate to confess our sins of thought, word and/or deed to our spouses, even infidelity, only to God.
This is not to say disclosure is never necessary but it unquestionably should not be assumed as essential any time a Christian is unfaithful. What benefit comes from pulling a spouse into such a matter, particularly when there is no real threat of disclosure by other parties? You actually rend the marriage further and enlarge the bruise which I dare say may be a sin, in and of itself.
The Purpose of Confession and using your Spouse as your Personal Priest
While I may be pressing this point with multiple references, I believe it warrants emphasis. What is the ultimate purpose for confessing marital infidelity to a spouse who does not know about it and likely will not know about it? It surely cannot be for their sake, particularly if they are happily invested in the marriage. As Russell Moore suggests, it is to somehow restore integrity to the relationship (my paraphrase) and to complete one’s repentance. However, the truth is, the irreconciliation only failed one way and only needs corrected on the end where it failed. I believe that frequently, such a confession is a selfish act to relieve a person of guilt by using their spouse as a personal priest instead of turning to God for absolution.
Moore refers to the removal of the guilt which is present when one is unfaithful. His view is that this guilt cannot be relieved unless the innocent spouse is informed and offers forgiveness. Your spouse cannot forgive you unless they know about your infidelity and unless they know about it, they are not injured. In other words, until you disclose your infidelity your spouse is not offended, they are innocent. Only you are the injured party, injured by your own sin. Your remedy is repentance before God and a re-commitment to your marriage.
Bearing your own Burdens
As Christians we ought to learn to bear our own burdens. We should not draw others into our internal and private failures and demand absolution and unconditional love as if they are God. In my view, the selfishness of this kind of approach is understated.
It is the child who uses other people to assuage their guilt when disclosure of personal failures and a guilty conscience are not needed. It is the adult who accepts the conscience which comes when they commit offenses and it is the adult Christian who believes God’s promise of forgiveness (when they name their sins) and moves on in life.
Are you saying there never is a time to confess to others, particularly marital infidelity, to your spouse?
I am not suggesting that we never have to confess our sins to others; this would violate what I pointed to in James. However, context and its variables are part of the consideration and as we see in James, Matthew and in the passage in 1 Corinthians, these have to do with people denying sins of which they are being confronted by others. For a few specific cases, but not limited to these, I offer two concrete occasions where I believe it would be unprincipled to fail to disclose infidelity to your spouse.
First, in the case that the innocent party is very likely to have this information shared to them by a party outside of the marriage. This is when we should use wisdom and control the event of the disclosure to the innocent party and offer whatever information is necessary. This is a prudent confession and cares for the innocent party so that they are not blindsided by the information from transient parties and humiliated.
Secondly, we must confess our offenses if our actions produce consequences of which our spouse needs to know because it will directly affect the marriage such as getting another person pregnant, getting an STD or an affair which will cost the offender his or her employment and so on. Again, this keeps the innocent spouse from being blindsided, humiliated and even further injured.
Concluding Comments
In most cases of marital infidelity I believe there to be few absolutes which can be broadly prescribed when it comes to admitting unfaithfulness to a spouse. Some spouses can handle such admissions, forgive in a timely manner and move on to a renewed and healthy marriage. Others, however, would be crushed and permanently debilitated by such a discovery, even though it may have been a single and isolated event and many years ago.
Treating your spouse with the assumption that he or she can deal with this information, will be willing to forgive you and that your marriage will become stronger and healthier than before is an assumption no one, particularly a Christian, can afford to make. Every case has its own set of variables and everyone is different. This may seem like obvious advice but it appears to me that the obvious escaped Dr. Russell Moore in his broad and indiscriminate prescription of confessing infidelity to an unknowing spouse.
Qualifier - I do wish to be emphatic here. I have no desire to prescribe to anyone's conscience before God the idea that it is foolish and weak to offer such a disclosure to your spouse. It can be, in some of the instances I have pointed out, but if your conscience is inconsolably torn and you find yourself with no sufficient remedy to your betrayal other than confessing this to your spouse, forbid me from being the dictate of your conscience.
However, this is precisely why I have written this four-part response, because sometimes a person's conscience is fraught with guilt based on false concepts. My encouragement and instruction is a biblically perspicacious handling of such failures and a conscience which is strengthened by truth, not weakened by errant absolutes.
Maybe you believe it is noble to make such confessions but you may do more damage than good and there is nothing noble about that. It may end up being a greater act of love to keep such indiscretions to yourself and bearing this privately, before God, as a failure but one in which God has forgiven you instead of dumping this onto your spouse to deal with. Keeping them innocent may be the greater virtue.
