Purpose

The purpose of this article is to think about how Christians should understand the authority God has set up in the church by the original apostles. The role of men and women is one area that is under attack in the modern church. We will consider the order and authority that should exist and we will consider the question of authority that men and women should exercise in the church and toward each other. We will review the encouragements, character, and limitations of God-given authority in the church, both in church meetings and in other aspects of life. We want to respect God as the ultimate authority and consider how we should exercise authority. God has placed the original apostles as the supreme authority in the church under one chief shepherd, Christ. The scriptures are inspired by God, but written by these original apostles. They have the authority to tell us how to do church and how to be the church. But how do we relate to each other in these modern days? We will consider 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 and other key texts. This 1 Corinthians passage is good for getting us started because it deals with authority and the primary church meeting in more clarity than any other passage. It encourages men and women to behave in particular ways that many in our culture may find offensive. So this passage becomes a good test for modern Christians. We don't want to waste any time getting to the heart of the matter and we don't want to hide the modern church offense toward the apostolic teachings in the Bible.

Introduction

This article was created after reviewing D.A. Carson's sermon from 2008, "Order and Authority." ^1.carson   We have also been considering Tom Wadsworth's videos on "worship." Finally, we have observed the modern trends of many to question the plain reading of the Bible. At the age of 8-10, we became convinced of the truth of God, the power of God and the authority of his holy scriptures. We understood the authority that God places in the writings of the apostles whom he appointed to establish the church. Today, many teachers and preachers seem very willing to undermine some of the more "difficult" texts of the Bible. Even though D.A. Carson is a well-known evangelical scholar, even he sometimes appears to fail to submit to the authority of the scriptures (unless we misunderstand him). We wonder about the casual abandoning of the clear teaching of the Bible (as we understand it). Why would anyone buy into the modern egalitarian views or confuse important passages about "tongues?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_egalitarianism? We learned the New Testament teachings from a KJV bible in the 1970s. Our understanding was certainly not perfect, but we accepted the plain teaching of the scriptures which we believe includes complementarianism. We still believe these simple plain teachings of the Bible.

The point of disagreement that we bring up next was not an issue that we recall from our 1970s readings. This is only an issue because of the tongues controversy. We hold to a cessationist view based on 1 Corinthians 14:21, but it seems like D.A. Carson is trying to rule out our simple understanding with a more sophisticated and complicated explanation. He sometimes does this. We however are concerned that a sophisticated explanation is true and not dismissive of reasonable thinking. This is an important verse showing that the gift of tongues does not appear to be something God has meant for these modern days (based on our understanding of 1 Cor 14:21). We understand the important passage of 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 to be undermined if God does not intend tongues for today but we go ahead and assume it is for today. If tongues is not meant for today, but we insist on allowing it to be legitimate, even though it may be contrary to God's intention for these modern days, then many Christians will avoid and dismiss 1 Corinthians 14:26-33. These Christians do not want to deal with the complexity of such a "divisive" issue because they are not sure what to think. But, if we are correct, and tongues have ceased to be important in our time (because 1 Corinthians 14:21 indicates they are for "this people", meaning Israel/Jews), then we should be able to focus on 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 without the confusing tongues "issue" adding to the confusion. And even if tongues were still open to be applicable to "this people" meaning Israel/Jews alive today, the text can be understood without tongues confusion for Gentiles. But we think that "this people" may also possibly refer to the people of that time (Jews living at the time or that 1st century era, subject to God's purposes that only he knows fully). If that is the case, then the text can be understood without "tongues" confusion for Jews and Gentiles today.

We are not resisting D.A. Carson for his sophisticated way of speaking, but rather for dismissing some interpreters who seem to make a reasonable interpretation. D.A. Carson's dismissive way of speaking is the problem. We would be ok with a clear explanation. We are concerned with his "put down" dismissal of a significant interpretive camp with his very short expression calling this view, "naive." If you are going to call a very reasonable interpretation "naive", then there should be an extensive explanation. Then we can test the extensive explanation and see if we agree with the idea. This also is part of the fundamental process described in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 that is missing. What we have here, rather, is an expert expressing his offense at a reasonable view with no opportunity for dialog. The New Testament church model shows a completely different way.

If you are willing to listen to D.A. Carson's sermon (above), we would like to point out the complicated and dismissive tone of D.A. Carson that we think is not helpful. We generally appreciate D.A. Carson, but we churn with discomfort at how he sometimes undermines a reasonable interpretation of the Bible with his "put down" way. In one particular case, around minute 8:30, based on 1 Corinthians 14:21, he considers Hodges's view to show staggering "naivete." ^2.carson   This way of talking is not helpful. Why sneer at the "naivete" of another notable scholar with such a terse and unhelpful explanation? A lot is riding on the proper interpretation of this verse because it shows the reason for tongues. It is set in the most expansive and clear picture of the Christian assembly. We wish he was more clear and we are left unsure of what this means for understanding the passage.

Tom Wadsworth, was also a trigger for doing a study of "worship" that seems to expose a fundamental flaw in D.A. Carson's thinking. D.A. Carson is one of the best, and we love him for his careful study of God's Word. But at the same time, we are deeply saddened by his obsession with certain arguments. We wonder at the looking for a sophisticated explanation when we would expect that God would also target the simple plain reading of the text because he cares about being clear. Could it be that there is something to do with the fear of man in the sophisticated arguments with one of the best minds and top leaders in scholarship? We may be wrong, but we have to speak. The authority of the apostle Paul is our highest standard. We respect the apostle Paul who has written most of the New Testament.

The Main Issue

The main issues we raise in this article are the egalitarian compromise in 1 Corinthians 14 and the confusion of corporate worship in the New Testament. We will discuss these ideas with a focus on 1 Corinthians 14 and the clear implications for the gathered assembly (ekklesia). The topics of the egalitarian compromise and the confusion of corporate worship are discussed in more detailed articles so we will not focus on these topics here. The main issue is that the confusion of corporate worship seems to be so pervasive that it appears to affect the foundational thinking of even one so studied as D. A. Carson. His concluding remarks in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 show he his more concerned with the continuation of traditionalism over the clear message of the text. The reason seems to be an idea of corporate worship that is more tradition than real. Tom Wadsworth and others have started to expose the "worship anomaly" and perhaps that was not clear to D. A. Carson at the time of his 1 Corinthians 14 study. Or perhaps it was his personal investment in the traditional system (being a pastor himself for a while). Or perhaps he is a bit intimidated by the great force of reviewers who will be reviewing his books. We don't know. What we do know is something is fishy. There is a slant and a "painting" of the story that does not square with the simple reading of the text.

We are not saying that we think D. A. Carson is way off. We actually greatly appreciate the works of D. A. Carson and think quite highly of his scholarship. We might even say he is one of our favorite scholars who grew to have international respect by most of the evangelical church in recent years.

But no one alive today is anything like the 1st apostles who were instructed by Jesus to lay the foundation for the church. No one alive today has the authority of the 1st century apostles. They were guided by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. We need to respect and honor what they have written. Anyone who teaches and tries to interpret what they said had better be careful. We are not trying to be a teacher in this article, but rather a tester. We are only testing what the teachers are saying. We are called to test everything that is said. If we have convictions based on reading God's Word, we should evaluate what the best teachers are saying to the church.

The other thing that must be said is that there really is a need for interpreting in the modern church days we live because we are so distant from the early church days. Some things have changed. We know and realize that it is not immediately obvious how to interpret some things even in the New Testament. Understanding how the Old Testament applies to the New Testament Christian is also something that takes wisdom. We have been pondering the Bible for 50 years, so we are not quick to jump into these ideas. Some professors in seminaries have gone from non Christian to teaching others in less than 10 years and they are accepted. But we believe "eldership" has to do with years "in the Lord", not just academic credentials! We are not claiming to be anything, but we have a duty in scripture to test what we hear. That is our motivation.

So in summary, we know God's Word from years of meditation, we have read some of the top scholars on an important text (1 Corinthians 14:26-40), and we have learned some interesting things about New Testament "worship" that have been hidden by our Bible translations.

This article is somewhat advanced. We don't know how to explain these ideas in simple terms at this point. We assume you must do some research if you are not already familiar with the topics. This article is incomplete. We hope to work on it... But the background material is on other links or you can look into it... I am being urgently called... I must stop. I am being "so bad" by writing this... I must go.

FOOTNOTES