www.cg: Is WWJD D.O.A.?

IS "W.W.J.D." D.O.A.?

by Richard Burkard

When historians consider the biggest trends in Christianity in the 1990s, two things probably will top the list: the "Promise Keepers" movement to renew male relationships with God and family - and the phenomenon known as "WWJD?" or "What Would Jesus Do?"

That question and the souvenirs associated with it didn't really originate in the 1990s, you know. Its roots are in the classic Christian book, "In His Steps," which Charles Sheldon wrote around 1900. I first became acquainted with the concept at a Worldwide Church of God service in Kansas City in 1996. The Assistant Pastor giving the sermon passed out a set of about 20 questions with modern-day "moral dilemmas," and passages from the life of Jesus to help answer what He would do about them. The questions proved to be great springboards for small group studies that I facilitated.

Yet a careful check of the WCG record over the last few years will show that even though Jesus is mentioned a lot more in the Church today, the Church has NOT really embraced the "WWJD" campaign. In fact, recent articles practically reject that way of thinking completely -- as if the concept is "DOA": Dead On Arrival!

The most recent example came in a July addition to the "publications" section of the WCG web site. The title asks, "What About Divorce and Remarriage?" Longtime followers of the Church know the official opinion on these topics has changed several times over the years. The latest article quietly revises a position read in all congregations in 1993 (and in some cases read several times). That policy is not my issue here - although I could share some personal tales about "living single" nearly my entire adult life in the WCG. What concerned me most about this article was how several direct statements of Jesus in the New Testament were summarily dismissed.

Here's a section of the article:

"...how do we understand Jesus' words in Matthew 5:32? There, Jesus said: 'Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulterous, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.' Obviously, we cannot apply Jesus' words in a literal manner, because then the apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 would contradict Jesus."

In years past, the WCG tended to look at the writings of Paul through what might be called the "magnifying glass" of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:20, KJV) Now it seems the opposite is true - the WCG claims we must understand what Jesus said in light of Paul's writings.

If we accept Paul's statement to Timothy that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," (II Tim. 3:16, KJV) and believe it applies to the New Testament as well as the Old, then neither the words of Jesus nor Paul should be ignored. But Jesus was (and still is) God - the Word who "became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:14) Do we ignore to our peril His direct words as He walked this earth?

The verse on divorce cited above comes from the "Sermon on the Mount," and is essentially repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:9. The WCG article goes on to say:

"We also wouldn't want to take literally many of Jesus' words in the other sayings in this section. We wouldn't, for example, gouge out our right eye if we lust when we see a woman (verse 29)."

We agree on the interpretation of this verse. But we sharply disagree on how to understand verse 32 - because the WCG approach opens the door for believers to ignore many other statements Jesus made in this sermon:

Is it now OK to swear in court, instead of "affirming?" (vs. 33-37) You might think the Church would turn to James 5:12 and say no -- but the July 2000 Worldwide News calls that approach "nitpicking," and declares such oaths are allowed! (pg. 28).
Is it now permissible to call your brother a fool? (v. 22) No later New Testament writer comments on this.
Are we off the hook from fasting? (Mt. 6:16-18) We would look so odd by fasting today - and perhaps even harm parts of the economy.
Is it OK for believers to judge others after all? (Mt. 7:1-2) If so, today's WCG would have to make a serious turnaround -- returning to a position it held some years ago!

The standard for New Testament interpretation in today's WCG appears to be that an apostle such as Paul or James must reinforce what Jesus said or did, or else Jesus's words and actions are not binding on us. A short article in the August 1999 Worldwide News stated: "The example of Jesus carries no weight on its own.... other biblical evidence is needed to see whether his example is something we should follow, whether it is commanded for us today." ("Why Not Follow Jesus' Example?", pg. 9)

Yet there are problems with this standard:

1. The "In His Steps" problem - Charles Sheldon's book title is taken somewhat from I Peter 2:21: "....Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." (NIV unless noted) Is this an example merely of suffering? Or does this also relate to verse 22: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (Some might argue the "example" applies to an entire section, from verses 13-23.)

Paul agrees with Peter about following Jesus, in the very book cited by the WCG for a change in divorce policy: "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (I Cor. 11:1) The NASB uses the word "imitators." (See also I Cor. 4:16, I Thes. 1:6) For decades the WCG taught Christ was "the head of the church." (Eph. 5:23) If we put the apostles in a position where they can seemingly override the head, does that not put the cart before the horse?

But wait, some would say - Jesus said that what apostles "bind on heaven will be bound in heaven...." (Mt. 16:19, 18:18) Sadly, this verse has been abused by some ministers - everyone from"Word of Faith" TV preachers, who want you to "name and claim" a car or house, to even some "Church of God" Pastors. BUT: "....Most commentators.... believe that the keys represent internal authority in the church.... things done according to the will of Christ will have binding validity." (New Bible Commentary, 1970, pg. 837, emphasis ours) Revelation 3:7 reminds us that we do NOT control Jesus like a puppet on a string: "These are the words of him who is holy and true.... What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." All that happens in our lives occurs according to God's perfect will -- and we can't really override Him.

2. The "early church" problem - The WCG increasingly justifies positions on doctrinal issues by turning to books from second-century Christian leaders. (Sunday worship is a good recent example of this.) For a Church that long has said the Bible is the "final court of authority," this takes the standard of authority outside the Bible - so that not even New Testament apostles might be good enough to set doctrine, much less Jesus. And these "early church" books are items that the average lay member might have trouble finding; one District Superintendent told of discovering a copy at a used bookstore! My city has no real open "Christian college" with a library to check what the WCG quotes.

3. The "time and culture" problem - The WCG makes a good point when it notes that some of Jesus's statements were for specific groups of people at specific times in history. Quoting from the divorce article again:

"During his ministry Jesus told people to offer the sacrifices specified in the Mosaic law (Matthew 8:4). But it's clear that after his death and resurrection ---- and the coming in of the new covenant ---- such religious regulations are not commanded."

In fact, I presented a sermonette in 1996 that cited this example and others, using them to refute the statement, "Every word Christ spoke is a command" - a quote I had on tape from Joseph Tkach, Sr.! (We may post that message at a later time.) But if we take this reasoning too far, we run the risk of disqualifying all of Jesus's comments. If He says something you don't like, you simply discard it as being for another group in another era. Sad to say, this sounds similar to what the much-maligned "Jesus Seminar" tries to do! How do you follow a Lord and Savior if you don't really believe that anything He says applies to you?

The "bottom line" question seems to be how far a believer in Jesus goes to follow the example of his Lord. Look around a variety of denominations and you'll see many different standards. Some are more Bible-based than others. Some are based more on history and tradition. Some obey His spoken words, while others imitate His words and actions -- to both greater and lesser degrees. Some follow "WWJD" to the n'th degree - while others seem prepared to have you check your WWJD bracelets and notebooks at the door.

Whatever standard you're using in your Christian walk today, may I suggest you not become embedded like concrete in it. Be open to new instruction and guidance, because it might help you "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (II Pet. 3:18) But don't forget as you consider that instruction that we should "test everything. Hold on to the good." (I Thes. 5:21)

To reply to this article, e-mail: wwwcg

< back to www.cg main page