Wolves in Sheep's Clothing and Hirelings |
This article presents a critique of the Bible ministry of Robert B. `Bob' Thieme, Jr.—or, as most of his congregation called him from about the year 1980 onward,1 `Colonel' Thieme. Over the latter half of the twentieth century, the teaching of Thieme has been a significant influence upon Christian life in contemporary America. While in some respects the influence of Thieme has been beneficial, in many (if not most) respects the influence has been deleterious; the net effect has been harmful to the Christian Faith.
The impetus for this critique is twofold. On the one hand, there is need to identify and explain a number of serious doctrinal errors in the teaching of Thieme, together with a number of serious blunders in the policy of Thieme regarding conduct of the local assembly, in order to alert Christians, so that they may shun Pulpits and ministries which exhibit the same or similar errors and blunders, and so that evangelists, pastors, and teachers may guard against falling into such errors and blunders. And, on the other hand, there is need to call attention to the soundness of the exegetical approach which Thieme employed, and to the inherent and demonstrated superiority of the exegetical methodology as compared to the sermon-based2 methodology which characterizes the bulk of the teaching of the traditional Protestant Pulpit.
For upward of fifty years, Thieme was privileged to serve as pastor of a devoted and vigorous congregation during a period of American history which, in many respects, was nothing less than idyllic. This period, which spanned the entire latter half of the twentieth century, generally was characterized by domestic tranquility and prosperity, by freedom of expression and unfettered opportunity, by academic integrity and technological advance. It was a rare and felicitous epoch, one in which faithful and accurate teaching of the Word of God from the Christian Pulpit could have had far-reaching and lasting benefit for the body of Christ, the nation, and the world. Regrettably, the Christian Pulpit squandered the opportunity which this marvelous epoch presented it.
In seeking to understand the factors responsible for the senseless dissipation of this grand and singular opportunity by ministries across the land, it is essential to keep in mind the fact that the Scripture portrays the Christian as a sheep, and that the sheep for its very survival is dependent upon the shepherd.3 The shepherd must lead the sheep to green pasture and still water. The shepherd must protect the flock from the predator. The shepherd must seek out the sheep which goes astray, and must rescue the sheep which falls into a pit or ravine. The shepherd must bind up and anoint the wounds of the sheep which is injured.
The latter half of the twentieth century was not a period in which the people went astray for lack of a shepherd; indeed, shepherds were plentiful, Christian ministries abounded, and a church was to be found on almost every street corner. The problem was that the shepherds were unfaithful;4 it was the shepherds who led the sheep into apostasy.
Among the men who occupied the pulpits of the land during the latter half of the twentieth century, faithful and competent shepherds, called of the Lord to the ministry of the Gospel, seldom were to be found. For the most part, the pulpits were filled with hirelings, ranging from the lazy and inept to the ambitious and cunning. And among them were many wolves in sheep's clothing—treacherous men who, having sold themselves to do evil, entered the ministry with the express purpose of subverting the Christian Faith.
To a large degree, the domination of the Christian Pulpit in America by hirelings and wolves is a legacy of a false patriotism—a patriotism which is nothing other than the worship of Caesar5. Whenever Caesar has demanded obedience and sacrifice, Americans generally have bowed the knee, dutifully going forth to serve Caesar on the battlefield. And—often with great pride—generation after generation of Americans has delivered its sons to Caesar, to be sacrificed upon the altar of war; thus have Americans followed the tradition of their fathers in the abominable practice of child sacrifice.6
As the servants7 of Caesar, American soldiers time and time again have invaded the lands of other peoples who posed them no direct threat, there to loot, destroy, maim, and kill at the command of Caesar. Through the personal sacrifice and impoverishment of these loyal servants, Caesar has been enriched, his interests have been furthered, and territories and men have been brought under his dominion. Ironically, Christians typically see no conflict between the demands of Caesar and the demands of Christ Jesus. Indeed, many consider loyalty to Caesar to be a Christian virtue. But the service which Caesar demands, particularly in time of war, often makes a mockery8 of the teaching and the commands of Jesus.
In the wake of the Second World War, Lieutenant Colonel Robert B. `Bob' Thieme, Jr., having served as a staff officer in the Army Air Corps, was but one of many `warriors' of the officer category who, returning to civilian life, had little in the way of useful expertise or practical skills to market, other than the ability to organize and administer an organization. Nonetheless, these returning warriors generally were respected both in society and in the Church, for in the false Christianity which long has characterized American society, military service is considered one of the highest of Christian virtues.9 Many of these ex-officers were hired by business and industry and were placed in positions of management. Not a few of them felt a `call' to the ministry. This seems to have been the case particularly with the `flyboy'10, whose popularity in the pulpit was enhanced by the romance of aviation.
Blinded by their traditional veneration of the military, and ignorant of the teaching of the Scripture concerning the perennial conflict between Christ and Caesar, few Christians in America appear to have questioned the allegiance of the warrior-turned-minister. And few appear to have asked whether, indeed, it is possible for a devoted servant of Caesar to enter the service of Christ Jesus, apart from a repudiation of his former allegiance.11
The true allegiance of a minister is revealed in his teaching. By their advocacy of a false, flag-waving patriotism12, men in pulpits throughout the land proclaim to all that their allegiance is to Caesar, rather than to Christ. And this is true not only of the warrior-turned-minister, but also of the minister who never has seen military service.
Perversely, Christian congregations throughout America display the American flag within the auditorium. And Christian ministers—in an egregious display of ignorance of the Scripture and of contempt for the sacrifice of Christ Jesus—frequently assert that it is to the sacrifices of those in the military that the Christian owes his freedom to worship.13
Foolishly, some Christian parents teach their children at an early age to recite daily the pledge of allegiance to the flag of Caesar, thus indoctrinating in the child a subconscious allegiance to Caesar. Forgotten is the fact that the reign of Christ Jesus commenced two millennia ago, and that Jesus today reigns as king, seated upon the throne of David. The first generation of Christians understood that it is Jesus, and not Caesar, who is king.14
The confusion of the typical Christian regarding patriotism is a consequence of his failure to understand that the fundamental issue of life is that of government. In the Garden, Adam refused to be ruled by the Lord God. By partaking of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil—a tree which represents the function of government—Adam declared his determination to govern himself. But God is not mocked; the rebellion of Adam did not free Adam from the authority of God.
The rebellion of Adam had multiple consequences. One consequence was the imposition of the sentence15 of death upon Adam. Another consequence16 was the introduction of a layer of government between the Lord and the progeny of Adam. This layer of government is comprised of the governments of man, which metaphorically may be termed `Caesar'. In what appears to be an object lesson which runs throughout the course of human history, the Lord placed mankind under the subjection of the governments of man. However, the Lord God himself reigns over the governments of man, and thus every man ultimately is in subjection to the Lord.17
Nonetheless, it appears that, until the epoch when the family of Jacob found haven in Egypt, the Lord God allowed the righteous line (that is, the line of the justified) to live free of the domination of Caesar. The Scripture gives no indication that the descendants of Adam which proceeded through Seth18 were under the subjection of any authority other than the Lord God himself. For example, in the case of Abraham, the exploits19 surrounding the kidnapping of Lot demonstrate that, with respect to government, Abraham functioned on the same level as did the highest of earthly rulers, and with no less authority.20
But even the best of the governments of man are adversarial with respect to their citizens, a fact which is seen in the testimony21 of Samuel to the congregation of Israel regarding the monarchy to which the Lord had acquiesced. Moreover, the Lord gave to the governments of man the power of death over their subjects22. Thus, it is through subjection to Caesar that every generation of the progeny of Adam is taught the great lesson of life, namely, that man is incapable of rightly governing himself. This lesson is inculcated by the enslavement, the robbery, the destruction, the murder, and the general oppression which characterizes the behaviour of every government of man toward its own subjects, as well as by the onerous yoke23 of taxation. To those who are willing to receive instruction, the yoke of Caesar quickly demonstrates that the Lord indeed was wise and loving when he commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Three months after their deliverance from the yoke of Pharaoh, the children of Israel came to the desert of Sinai and encamped at the base of the mountain.24 At Sinai, the children of Israel en masse entered into a covenant with the Lord God. This covenant, which today is called the `Old Covenant', was a covenant of marriage. Moreover, because of the implications of the marriage relationship, it was a covenant which brought into being the Kingdom of Israel, thus making of the children of Israel a national entity. The Lord himself directly governed the nation, being both her husband and her king.
Almost incredibly, the Israelites soon grew dissatisfied with their freedom from the yoke of Caesar. Though the Lord God himself ruled over them—personally and directly—they were unable to perceive him; for, seated upon his throne in Heaven, he was invisible to the eye of the flesh. The Israelites demanded that a visible, earthly king be set over them—a king whose earthy majesty and pomp they could behold with their carnal eyes.25 Stupid, blind, unfeeling, and unappreciative, the Israelites desired their nation to be as all other nations. Even as Adam refused to be governed by the Lord, so also Israel rejected her king26.
The demand of Israel for a physical, earthly king was nothing other than a demand to be brought again under the yoke of Caesar. And the Lord, rejected by the people over whom he had lavished such great love and care—the people whom he had taken as his bride—granted their desire. Not until the resurrection, ascension, and session of Christ Jesus would it be possible again for man to escape the domination of Caesar; even the righteous line27—the line by which title to the throne of David was transmitted to the Incarnate Christ Jesus—was not exempt.
Even as the disobedience of Adam brought the progeny of Adam under the yoke of Caesar, so also the obedience of Christ Jesus procured for them release from that yoke. But release from the yoke of Caesar does not make man sovereign. When the Christian is delivered from the yoke of Caesar, he is placed under the yoke of Christ Jesus. The declaration28 of Jesus, that his yoke is easy and that his burden is light, is speaking of the burden which his government—the Kingdom of God—places upon its subjects. Almost every government instituted by man has as one of its primary purposes the extraction of labour and wealth from its subjects. But it is not so with the government of God. The Kingdom of God is a benevolent government which in every way provides liberty and benefit to its subjects while making few demands:
12 And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; 13 to keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and his ordinances, all that I charge thee to-day, that it may be well with thee?– Deuteronomy 10:12–13 (LXX)29
Has it not been told thee, O man, what is good? or what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, and love mercy, and be ready to walk with the Lord thy God?– Micah 6:8 (LXX)
In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul declares30 that God the Father has rescued or delivered31 the Christian from the power or authority32 of darkness33, and has translated34 him into the kingdom of his dear Son, Christ Jesus. The term `authority of darkness' as it is used here by Paul is not a reference to the power of sin. Rather, it is a reference to the authority of human government. Jesus uses35 the same term to designate the authority of the corrupt ruling elite of Judaea, by whose machination and at whose command he was crucified. Paul, testifying before Agrippa, equates36 darkness with the `power of Satan' (Greek, satanas). The term satanas is a transliteration from the Hebrew; it means `adversary'. Contrary to popular notion and traditional Protestant theology, the terms satanas and diabolos (`Devil') never refer to a `fallen angel'; but they often refer to human government as an adversary of the righteous.
Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians37, declares that the citizenship38 of the Christian is in the Kingdom of Heaven.39 Though he has been delivered from the authority of Caesar and no longer is a subject of Caesar, the Christian continues to reside within the physical domain of Caesar, his status being that of an ambassador40.
Thieme, like so many of his colleagues in the ministry, has been a serious detriment to the Christian Faith. The ministry of Thieme, while successful in terms of outreach and influence, was anything but successful in proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, in bringing Christians to maturity, and in promoting the Christian Way of Life. The `gospels' which Thieme and his colleagues proclaimed and taught were false gospels,41 and not the pure and uncorrupted Gospel of the Scripture.
From the pulpits of these treacherous men proceeded a noxious effluent consisting largely of Jewish myth, psychology, and Establishment propaganda. Thieme distinguished himself by adding to this already-lethal concoction the deadly ingredients of pseudo-intellectualism and adulation of the military.
Across the land, the sheep of the Lord, lacking the discernment which comes only through faithful instruction in the Scripture, consumed the poisonous teaching which their unfaithful shepherds offered them, consequently growing weak and becoming ill. Little did they understand that they had been betrayed by the evangelists, the pastors, and the teachers in whom they trusted and to whom they looked for protection, guidance, care, and sustenance.
The product of this treachery on the part of unfaithful shepherds is two or three generations of Christians characterized by ignorance of the Scripture and lack of spiritual understanding. These Christians today are disoriented and scattered, unproductive and easy prey for predators. Many of them are busily engaged in a variety of activities and `ministries', supposing that they are doing the work of the Lord. However, most of the activities and ministries in which these Christians labour have no Scriptural authorization, being directed toward political change or the remedy of social evils, rather than toward edification and sanctification. Moreover, having been indoctrinated by the Pulpit in numerous psychological concepts—in particular, the supposed need for self-esteem—these Christians have become arrogant; they generally refuse instruction, each one doing that which is right in his own eyes.
Thus, awash in confusion and anarchy, contemporary Christianity today exerts little, if any, beneficial influence upon contemporary society.
Confronted with the problem of a false teacher, Christians of the present day generally are unwilling to take action. A majority of them are indifferent to the matter, for the simple reason that they are indifferent to truth. The rest, while concerned, generally are of the notion that it is sinful to criticize or denounce a minister, sinful to point out error in the teaching which proceeds from the Pulpit, and sinful even to listen to criticism or denunciation of a minister or his teaching.
But such attitudes run contrary to the teaching of the Scripture. As it was under the Old Covenant, so also it is under the New: the admonition and the example of the Scripture call for members of the congregation to take action against the false teacher. Whether he is an evangelist, a pastor, or a teacher, he is to be dealt with quickly, publicly, and without mercy; for whatever mercy is extended to the predator comes at the expense of the sheep.
The belief, that it is sinful for members of the local assembly to confront publicly the evangelist, the pastor, or the teacher who is teaching falsehood, is based upon two passages of Scripture. However (and contrary to popular notion), neither of the passages is applicable to the case of the false teacher.
The first passage is familiar to almost every Christian:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.– Matthew 7:1
Contrary to popular notion, this warning by Jesus against judging does not constitute a general prohibition against judgment, nor is it applicable to Christians in general. As the context plainly declares, Jesus here is speaking to the hypocrite42—the self-righteous individual who condemns his brother43 for a minor sin, while he himself is guilty of a gross sin.
Few of those who piously cite Matthew 7:1 are aware that the Bible commands judging:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.– John 7:24
The false teacher almost invariably takes advantage of the misconception of the Christian concerning the propriety of judging. Drilling into his followers the mantra, “Judge not!”, the false teacher repeatedly warns them that the wrath of God is certain to fall upon those who dare criticize, accuse, or otherwise attack `a man of God'. This he does, in the hope that none of his followers shall have the temerity to judge him and expose his false teaching.
The Christian who has received proper instruction in the Scripture is aware that numerous passages of the Scripture command him to judge, and that to judge is nothing other than to exercise discernment with respect to every circumstance of his life. And numerous passages demonstrate the vital necessity of judgment on the part of those who are walking in the Way of Life. To refuse to judge is to be undiscerning and indiscriminate. And to be undiscerning and indiscriminate is to be a fool.
The second passage is not so widely known as is the first:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.– Matthew 18:15–17
It should be clear to anyone who takes the trouble to read the passage carefully in its context and to give it a bit of thought, that the procedure which Jesus here sets forth has to do specifically with the case in which one Christian has trespassed against another Christian, and that by no stretch of the imagination may the procedure be construed as being applicable to the evangelist who declares a false Gospel, or to the pastor or teacher who is guilty of false teaching.
However, many Christians, while quickly committing the procedure to memory, never take the trouble to read the passage in its context and never consider the applicability of the procedure. Instead, they blindly accept the assertion of the Pulpit that the procedure is to followed for any offense which takes place within the local assembly. Accordingly, the false teacher, particularly if he is the pastor of a local assembly, often is able to use this passage to his benefit. Members of the congregation who approach him privately regarding his false teaching immediately find themselves ejected from the congregation, before they are able to proceed to the second and third steps of the procedure.
Many pastors, including Thieme, repeatedly warn that it is sinful to challenge the pastor. They have instructed their congregations that, in the event a member finds himself unable to accept the teaching of the pastor, the member should withdraw from the fellowship, quietly and without creating a stir.
But such a policy of silent withdrawal is contrary to the teaching of the Scripture. While normal classroom decorum and common courtesy forbid challenges which interrupt worship or study of the Scripture, the Scripture exhorts the Christian to inspect critically and prove the things which are being taught:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.– I Thessalonians 5:21
Other passages of the Scripture extend this exhortation, showing that members of the assembly who are spiritually mature have the responsibility to guard the assembly against false teaching from the Pulpit. It is the mature members who are to confront a pastor who departs from the Faith. If necessary, they not only are to evict such a man from the Pulpit, but also to cast him out of the local assembly.
Thus—far from remaining silent or withdrawing from the local assembly—those who possess maturity and discernment in the spiritual realm are to identify, publicly challenge, publicly discredit, and forcibly drive out from the local assembly men who falsely claim to be men of God, together with men who, though called of God, have become traitors to the Faith. This must be done, in order that the immature and those who are new in the Faith may not be misled or caused to stumble.44
Some may argue that Thieme, now permanently and almost totally incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease, no longer poses a threat to anyone—that at this stage, any attempt to discredit his teaching or to challenge the validity of his call to the ministry is pointless, and perhaps vindictive.
But such is not the case, particularly in view of the fact that the teaching of Thieme has been preserved in audio recordings and in printed form, and is being perpetuated and propagated by a private organization which is independently wealthy. Moreover, the teaching of Thieme continues from the same pulpit, in the ministry of his son. Consequently, so long as Thieme generally is accorded respect as a competent theologian and as a faithful man of God having a genuine call to the ministry, his teaching shall continue to ensnare many.
When a man encounters a fraudulent academician, a dishonest merchant, a bungling mechanic, a pettifogging lawyer, or an incompetent physician, it is not vindictiveness or ambition which impels him to expose the rogue; rather, he is motivated by love, lest loss and harm come to his kinsmen, friends, and neighbours. How much more should the Christian be impelled by love for his brethren to expose and warn of the incompetent hireling or the wolf in sheep's clothing who stands in the Pulpit.
Whatever loss or harm may be inflicted by the fraudulent academician, the dishonest merchant, the bungling mechanic, the pettifogging lawyer, or the incompetent physician, how much greater and lasting is the loss and harm which may be wrought by the evangelist, the pastor, or the teacher who is incompetent or treacherous. Consequently, no mature Christian in good conscience can remain silent with respect to error proceeding from an evangelist, a pastor, or a teacher. The Christian who perceives error yet refuses to sound the alarm, thinking it proper to extend mercy to the predator, thereby endangers the flock and displays indifference and contempt toward his fellow sheep.
Without question, the hallmark of Thieme was the teaching methodology which he employed until about the year 1980. This methodology is radically different from the traditional Protestant methodology, which is the sermon. Whereas the sermon focuses upon a particular subject and seeks to convey to the congregation merely the teaching of the Scripture regarding that subject, the teaching methodology employed by Thieme focuses upon a particular passage and seeks to convey to the congregation not only the teaching found in the passage, but also the constitution45 of the passage and the doctrines which are pertinent to the passage. Accordingly, the teaching methodology employed by traditional Protestantism may be termed `subject-based', whereas the methodology employed by Thieme may be termed `passage-based'.
The Canon of Scripture is composed or constituted of a number of documents, each of which is comprised of a number of sentences, each of which is comprised of a number of words. The structure and organization of these elements—as they stand in the Greek—together with the historical context of the documents, the words, and the phraseology (that is, the idioms), may be termed the `constitution' of the Scripture. A translation of the Scripture is but a representation of the constitution of the Scripture; it generally does not accurately reflect the constitution of the original. And, because of the influence of tradition, together with the problems of mistranslation and anachronism, virtually every translation conceals or obscures truth.
In view of the problems of tradition, mistranslation, and anachronism, it should be apparent that anyone who aspires to ascertain the true meaning of a word or the proper interpretation of a phrase, a sentence, or a passage must give due consideration to the constitution of the Scripture. This giving of due consideration is the task of exegesis. Exegesis is the analysis of the Scripture from the standpoint of the Greek46, taking into account the context—the textual context, the historical context, and the doctrinal context47.
Regrettably, it is all too common today to find in the pulpits of the land men who lack the academic background necessary to make a proper exegesis of the Scripture. The man whose sole tool for Biblical research is a concordance is incompetent as an exegete, and has no business in the Pulpit; rarely are the sermons, doctrines, and teaching proceeding from such a man worthy of a hearing.
Since the time of the Reformers, traditional Protestantism has employed the sermon as one of four principal devices by which truth is communicated from the Pulpit to the Pew. The other devices are the doctrine, the `confession of faith'48, and the catechism. In modern times, a fifth device, called `Sunday School', has arisen as an adjunct to the Pulpit.
The sermon is a public discourse which, ostensibly, provides instruction in the teaching of the Scripture.49 But the sermon is not a `running commentary' upon the Scripture. Rather, by nature and by tradition, a sermon has a thesis, and the object or purpose of the sermon is to convince the hearers of the validity of the thesis. In the preparation of a sermon, the Scripture (together with possibly other sources) is searched in order to provide support for the thesis, as opposed to being studied in order to extract fully the teaching residing within a particular passage. Thus, while the sermon typically makes reference to the Scripture, it is not the object of the sermon to present to the hearers a detailed exegesis of the Scripture. The sermon focuses upon the teaching of the Scripture, rather than upon the Scripture itself.
The so-called `doctrine' is a variant of the sermon. Instead of a thesis, the doctrine has a subject. The object or purpose of the doctrine is to summarize accurately the teaching of the Scripture regarding the subject.
The preparation of a doctrine begins with a thorough search of the Scripture, the goal being to discover and compile every passage which addresses or is applicable to a particular subject. The search generally is made with the aid of a concordance. Inasmuch as the concordance catalogues only words, rather than meanings, it is necessary to inspect the constitution of each passage in the compilation, first, to prune from the compilation passages which are not applicable to the chosen subject, and then, to ascertain the precise meaning or interpretation of passages which are applicable to the subject. Once the interpretation of each of the applicable passages has been determined, the truths contained in the passages are collated50. From the collation, the overall teaching of the Scripture regarding the subject becomes apparent.51 Finally, the findings of the analysis are summarized. The resulting summary is termed a doctrine.
Doctrines thusly derived are essential to a proper understanding of the Scripture, for they provide an orderly framework52 for the assimilation and categorization of knowledge obtained from the Scripture. Apart from such a framework, the acquisition of knowledge cannot contribute to one's understanding. Knowledge cannot be utilized apart from a frame of reference. While the lack of knowledge is ignorance, knowledge apart from understanding is confusion.
Not every doctrine which is proclaimed from the Pulpit is true. A great many of the doctrines which have been embraced by traditional Protestantism are false. Indeed, objective analysis demonstrates even some of the most ancient and fundamental of Protestant doctrines to be contradictory to the teaching of the Scripture.
The validity of a doctrine is dependent upon the competence, the diligence, the spiritual insight, and the faithfulness of the man or men by whom it has been formulated. A faithful evangelist or pastor-teacher, having ascertained the teaching of the Scripture regarding a particular matter, declares the teaching, fully and accurately, irrespective of the popularity or `political correctness' of the teaching. But the hireling or the wolf, bowing to the god of political correctness or else seeking to deceive, conceals and distorts the teaching of the Scripture and adulterates it with falsehood.
In concept, a confession of faith is nothing other than a compilation of the doctrines of the Scripture. However, in practicality, no confession of faith is so simple and so objective. In the first place, the confession of faith typically is not comprehensive; rather, it addresses only those doctrines which are of a fundamental nature. In the second place, the confession of faith almost always is the work of a committee. No matter how devout the members of the committee, virtually never is there perfect unanimity regarding the interpretation of the Scripture. Consequently, the doctrines which are incorporated into the confession of faith almost always are compromised. And the larger the committee, the greater the diversity of opinion regarding interpretation, and thus, the greater the compromise. Compromise regarding a controversial matter typically is reached by refraining from addressing the matter, or else by affirming the traditional teaching on the matter. In the third place, the confession of faith reflects the theology of the men who formulated it. In this sense, the confession of faith is like a translation of the Scripture; neither can be free of theological bias. In the fourth place, the object or purpose of the confession of faith is to define for the congregant the elements of the Christian Faith, with the implied understanding that any teaching which is contrary to the confession is heretical. Accordingly, once adopted, the confession of faith becomes for evermore a filter for the interpretation of the Scripture. Thus, Christians who adopt a confession of faith thereby elevate the confession to a level of authority above that of the Scripture.53
The catechism is an ancillary of the confession of faith, being a document in which doctrines contained in the confession are presented in the form of questions and answers. The object or purpose of the catechism is to inculcate into the mind of the congregant the content of the confession.54
The institution called `Sunday School' is a curious phenomenon. Though the concept of Sunday School is not seen in the Scripture,55 contemporary Christians generally view Sunday School as an essential adjunct to the Protestant Pulpit. The explanation for Sunday School is that it has arisen out of necessity, in order to supply a deficiency of the sermon-based teaching methodology.
It is possible to know the things which the Scripture teaches without knowing the Scripture itself, in the sense of knowing and understanding the logical organization, the historical context, and the physical structure and wording. And therein lies a grave danger: the Christian who personally is unfamiliar with the constitution of the Scripture has no sure and ready means of ascertaining whether he has been instructed accurately in the things which the Scripture teaches.
Neither the sermon nor the doctrine addresses the matter of familiarizing the congregation with the constitution of the Scripture. The confession of faith and the catechism likewise fail to address the matter. The simple fact of the matter is that traditional Protestantism has no specific or adequate mechanism for imparting to the congregation a knowledge and understanding of the constitution of the Scripture.
Having no sure and ready means of verifying for himself the validity of the things which they are being taught, the Christian time and time again has been led into error. Over the centuries, his thinking has been channeled by subjection to countless sermons having a false thesis, and his foundational beliefs have been molded by inculcation of innumerable false doctrines. Much of this error has been ensconced in the body of Protestant Tradition.
The lack of a proper mechanism for imparting to the congregation a knowledge and understanding of the constitution of the Scripture has given rise to the contemporary institution called `Sunday school'. It is in Sunday school that most Protestants gain familiarity with the Scripture. Indeed, one of the most widely-known and respected scholarly commentaries on the Scripture, Barnes' Notes56, has as its intended audience Sunday school teachers whose task it is to teach children.57
But, despite its ubiquity, Sunday school is not a good solution to the problem. Whereas the sermon is delivered in an auditorium which—in terms of inspiration and beauty, illumination and comfort, and freedom from distraction—typically is the best which the congregation can provide, the Sunday school class often is taught in a cramped, dingy, poorly-illuminated, and poorly-ventilated space which is little more than a closet.
Whereas the sermon is delivered by the pastor of the congregation—a man who is well-paid58, well-educated, and ostensibly has a genuine calling of God to the ministry of the Gospel, the teacher of a Sunday school class is uncompensated and may have no qualifications other than a willingness to teach. Rare is the Sunday school teacher who, from the academic standpoint, is equipped to identify and rectify error which is the result of tradition, mistranslation, or anachronism. And even if a man possesses the requisite academic background, how shall he manage, without compensation, to spend hours each week in order to prepare adequately for a class?
The contrast between Sunday school and the sermon—in terms of the setting and in terms of the compensation and the qualifications of the teacher—speak volumes regarding the valuation which traditional Protestantism places upon instruction in the constitution of the Scripture. Much better it were for the congregation, to have the Sunday school teacher deliver the sermon, and the pastor teach the Sunday school class.
The ministry of Thieme demonstrated a teaching methodology which is superior to the methodology which traditionally has been employed by Protestantism. If in no other respect, the superiority lies in the fact that, in the methodology employed by Thieme, the pastor of the local assembly is directly responsible for instructing the congregation in the constitution of the Scripture.
It is the considered opinion of the author that the remarkable influence of Thieme is due to the teaching methodology which he employed, more than to any other factor. The author firmly is convinced that one of the greatest needs of the present day is for evangelists, pastors, and teachers to adopt the same teaching methodology, in lieu of the sermon-based methodology which traditionally has been employed by Protestants.
The teaching methodology which Thieme employed is straightforward, consisting of little more than a verse-by-verse analysis of the Scripture from the standpoint of the Greek59, taking into account the context, both textual60 and historical. As the study progresses through a passage, the exegesis is halted from time to time for the presentation of a pertinent doctrine or for an exhortation based upon the passage, and after which the exegesis is resumed. This methodology leads the class, step by step, through the analytical process which one must follow if he is to ascertain the correct interpretation of a particular passage of the Scripture.
With the methodology employed by Thieme, as the pastor proceeds verse-by-verse and word-by-word through the passage, those who have assembled to hear the teaching of the Word receive, incrementally, a corrected translation of the passage of Scripture being taught. An important benefit of this approach is that it renders of no consequence the oft-debated matter of selection of a translation.61
And with this approach, in which the teaching of the doctrines of the Faith is integrated with the exegesis of the Scripture, rather than treated as a separate matter, the congregation naturally and routinely gains familiarity with the doctrines of the Faith, being shown the manner in which a doctrine of necessity comes into view in the course of a passage, and how the doctrine applies to the matter at hand.
In the Scripture are found a great many truths which, for centuries, have been hidden by tradition, mistranslation, and anachronism. When, on occasion, these truths are brought to light, it generally is the case that they immediately and almost universally are rejected as heretical by Protestants. And, indeed, the rejection of such truth has been institutionalized in the document which forms the very basis of traditional Protestant theology, namely, the Westminster Confession.62 Consequently, the sermon-based approach of traditional Protestantism turns a blind eye toward these truths, for that which is contradictory to the Westminster Confession is, by definition, heresy.
In contrast, the exegetical approach practiced by Thieme, having been designed to ascertain the correct interpretation of a passage, excels at the discovery and disclosure of truth which is hidden or obscure. While the Westminster Confession is `carved into stone', doctrines presented in the course of exegesis, being less formal, may be revised whenever they are discovered to be in error or incomplete. Thus, the exegetical approach employed by Thieme minimizes the influence of theological bias and makes it difficult for truth to be ignored or set aside, but only if the exegetical approach is diligently applied by a competent and faithful pastor.
Regrettably, Thieme did not exploit the potential of the exegetical approach which he practiced. Time and time again, the teaching of Thieme reflects the traditional interpretation of a passage, whereas a diligent application of the exegetical approach to the passage would have brought to light truths hidden by tradition, mistranslation, or anachronism.
The root of the failure may have been an unwillingness on the part of Thieme to break with the fundamental tenets of traditional Protestant theology, together with an unwillingness to repudiate the Jewish myth upon which much of Protestant theology is based. If so, this would explain the characteristic myopia of Thieme with respect to context; for it generally is the case that the context of a passage cannot bear the traditional interpretation of the passage. Another possibility, discussed later in this article, is that Thieme may have been devoid of spiritual insight.
Whatever the reason, Thieme in the course of his ministry brought to light few hidden truths, despite the power of the exegetical approach which he employed.
The charge most-often leveled against Thieme is that of heresy. The charge typically has to do with the teaching of Thieme regarding the blood of Christ or regarding the inception of life. But upon an objective consideration of the matter, it is seen that the charge almost always is hypocritical, with those making the charge being mired in their own bog of heresy. Moreover, with regard to the blood of Christ and the inception of life, the position of Thieme typically is more closely in agreement with the teaching of the Scripture than is the position of his accusers.
The teaching of Thieme, like the teaching which proceeds from other Christian pulpits across the land, is full of theological error, much of it quite serious. But only in a few matters is the theological error of Thieme remarkable; for the most part the theology of Thieme differs insignificantly from that of any other traditional Protestant pulpit.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that traditional Protestant theology itself is deeply flawed. For the most part, the flaws are the result of tradition which has been passed from generation to generation. Some of the error dates from the time of the Protestant Reformation, but much of it originated in the two or three centuries immediately following the close of the apostolic era. Perspective on the matter is provided by a curious parallel which exists between the theology of traditional Protestantism and the theology of Talmudic Judaism.
The theology of Talmudic Judaism is contained in the so-called `Tradition of the Elders'. Originally passed from generation to generation in oral form, the Tradition was codified (that is, reduced to written form) sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, and today is known as the Babylonian Talmud. Jesus repeatedly condemned the Tradition of the Elders, for the Jews had set aside63 the Scripture in order to follow the Tradition.
The theology of traditional Protestantism is contained in a combination of three documents, which were drafted not long after publication of the King James Version of the Bible, circa A. D. 1611. These are The Westminster Confession, The Larger Westminster Catechism, and The Short Westminster Catechism. Even as the Talmudic Jew rejects teaching which is not in accord with the Talmud, so also the traditional Protestant generally rejects teaching which is not in accord with the Westminster Confession. In each case, the respective tradition is venerated above the teaching of the Scripture.64. For many Protestants, no amount of Scriptural evidence is sufficient to warrant setting aside a doctrine which is codified in the Westminster Confession. These Protestants, like the Talmudic Jew, have set aside the Scripture in order to follow their own tradition.
It is apparent that Thieme, like most of his colleagues, simply learned and accepted the tenets of traditional Protestant theology as categorized by Chafer and Scofield, giving little, if any, critical thought to those tenets. Only in a very few matters does the teaching of Thieme indicate critical thinking with respect to the theology upon which his ministry is based. Thieme by no means is a theologian. Thus, neither the notoriety of Thieme nor the impact of Thieme upon his generation may be attributed to uniqueness in the theology of Thieme. From the standpoint of theology, Thieme is a traditional Protestant, despite his eccentricities. The theology of Thieme, like the theology of most traditional Protestants, essentially is in agreement with the Westminster Confession. Accordingly, this article shall not focus upon the theology of Thieme, except in those areas in which that theology differs radically from the theology of traditional Protestantism.65
In general, the teaching of Thieme is based upon so-called `systematic theology'. In particular, it is based upon the theological scheme which was codified by Lewis Sperry Chafer66, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer organized the teaching of the Scripture by means of a comprehensive scheme of categorization. A key element in this scheme is a set of `doctrines', each of which treats a specific subject.
The categorical scheme of Chafer is based upon the dispensational system67 which was devised and implemented by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield68; the system is set forth in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible69. It is the Scofield Reference Bible which gave rise to the contemporary concept of Dispensationalism. Scofield views history as a series of epochs or `dispensations', each dispensation being “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” In the scheme of Scofield there are seven dispensations: Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and Kingdom. The dispensational scheme of Chafer essentially is the same as that of Scofield.
Because of a number of factors, not the least of which was the First World War, the Scofield Reference Bible has exerted a major influence upon contemporary Christianity. The inclusion of dates from the chronology of James Ussher helps the reader relate the events recorded in the Scripture to the overall course of history. An explanatory note appears at every chapter break and at logical breaks within a chapter. Additional explanatory notes (which appear at the foot of various pages) provide a detailed presentation of Scofield's concept of Dispensationalism, as well as commentary on many details and events recorded in the Scripture. These features combined to give the Christian both a guide and a frame of reference for his personal study of the Scripture—something which the traditional Protestant Pulpit generally has failed to do.
Thieme expanded and modified the system of Chafer in a number of areas. Thieme defines a dispensation as “a period of time expressing the divine viewpoint of human history”. Thieme asserts that, “in every dispensation, God puts someone in charge of making the truth of the Word of God clear. … In each dispensation, God appoints stewards or human administrators to fulfill his purposes.” In the scheme of Thieme there are only four dispensations: Gentile, Jew, Church, and Christ; but Thieme divides the dispensation `Gentile' into three epochs: Innocence, Knowledge of Good & Evil, and Human Government.
By popularizing the theological system of Chafer, the ministry of Thieme in no small measure has contributed to the present almost-universal embrace of Dispensationalism.
As the ministry of Thieme grew beyond the congregation of Berachah Church, it popularized both the dispensation scheme of Scofield and the systematic theology and doctrines of Chafer. To those accustomed to the `preaching' of the traditional Christian Pulpit, the teaching which resulted from the synergistic contributions of Scofield, Chafer, and Thieme was both novel and compelling.
Aside from instances in which the context demands the literal meaning, the Scripture uses the term `blood' to represent the physical life of a creature, whether animal or human. Accordingly, to shed blood is to kill a being or creature, irrespective of whether physical blood literally is shed. While this metaphorical usage of the term `blood' is common to virtually all societies and all ages of history, a surprisingly large number of Christians70 are of the opinion that the term always is to be taken literally, particularly in the case of the blood of Christ.
Thieme recognized the fact that Scriptural references to the blood of Christ do not have in view the literal, physical blood which resided in the body of the Incarnate Christ. Thieme says of the blood of Christ, that it is “part of a representative analogy relating the physical death of animals in the Old Testament to the spiritual death of Christ on the cross.”71 But tradition has shrouded the term `the blood of Christ' with unwarranted mystical connotation, and Thieme often is denounced as a heretic for his teaching on this matter.
While the teaching of Thieme regarding the blood of Christ is flawed72, it nonetheless has done much to tear away the veil of tradition which surrounds the subject, thus facilitating proper interpretation of numerous passages which long have been obscure.
Regarding the nature of life and the inception of life, the position of Thieme, while controversial, was somewhat closer to the teaching of the Scripture than is traditional Protestantism. But Thieme, starting from a false assumption and bound by tradition and Jewish myth, failed to perceive the fundamental truths of the matter.
According to both common notion and contemporary theology, the essence of man is an immortal, spiritual entity73 which resides temporarily in a body of flesh; this entity is termed the `soul'. It is supposed that, at death, the soul becomes `disembodied'—that, in a conscious state, the soul leaves the body and travels or is transported either to Heaven, to await the Resurrection, or else to Hell, to await the Judgment.
It further is supposed that the disembodied soul has cognitive, perceptive, and motor capability.74. In particular, it is supposed that:
However, this concept of man—an immortal entity which is spirit in nature, residing in a physical body, and remaining conscious after death—in every respect is contrary to the teaching of the Scripture. According to the Scripture:
Only through the Resurrection is there conscious existence beyond the grave; only through the Resurrection is man transformed from mortal to immortal; only through the Resurrection is man transformed from flesh to spirit.
While Protestants virtually are unanimous regarding the concept of the `soul', there is great diversity of opinion regarding the origin of the soul. Many Protestants believe that the soul comes into existence at the instant of conception, as a result of union of sperm and ovum, and that the life of the soul is imparted by the gametes of the parents. Other Protestants believe that God creates the soul apart from the body and that he subsequently imparts the soul to the foetus; however, among this group there is no general agreement as to the point at which impartation takes place. Some argue for impartation at conception; others, for impartation at the point of viability; and still others, for impartation at the moment of birth. Still other Protestants take still other positions regarding the origin of the soul.
Not surprisingly, few of the arguments made regarding the origin of the soul have Scriptural support beyond a few passages which have been wrested from their context. One hardly can expect to discover in the Scripture teaching regarding the origin of an entity which itself is foreign to the Scripture.
Concern among contemporary Protestants regarding origin of the soul has been fueled by the contemporary debate81 within society over the matter of abortion.
The debate is kept alive by individuals who consider abortion to be the worst of all possible sins and have made crusade against abortion into a religion and a way life. In their obsession, many of these individuals, if not most, have lost every vestige of sanity. Many openly advocate the murder of physicians who practice abortion. And many consider that to deny that a foetus is a living human being is to endorse or advocate abortion.
Curiously, many of those who vehemently oppose abortion have no compunction or sense of mission regarding the slaughter which occurs in warfare. This attitude brings to mind the logical argument82 of the apostle John regarding love. To paraphrase John: How is it possible for one to be concerned about the supposed murder of the unborn, while caring nothing for the real and present murder of those who, unquestionably, have been born? It should be apparent that those who oppose abortion while remaining indifferent to the rampant slaughter of men, women, and children in the conflicts which daily rage throughout the earth are hypocrites whose thinking lies outside the bounds of sanity.
According to the Scripture, man is a chemical organism which is animated by a `spirit of life' (also termed83 the `breath of life') which is imparted by the Creator:
7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.– Genesis 2:7 (LXX)
Contrary to popular notion, the term English term `soul' is used in the context of the Scripture simply to designate a being, whether human or animal. Indeed, as recently as a generation ago, the term `soul' commonly was used in everyday speech and writing to refer to a being.
Thieme is one of very few Protestant ministers and teachers who teach that the animation of Adam established a pattern which is followed for the animation of every subsequent human being. It would appear that, of the small number of men who hold to this belief, most are disciples of Thieme.
Thieme teaches that, even as Adam was fully formed and viable prior to the impartation of life, so also the foetus, irrespective of viability, is not alive until `soul-life' (which Thieme also terms `the spark of life') is imparted directly by the Creator. Thieme argues that soul-life is imparted at the moment of birth, and that is it the impartation of soul-life which produces the first inhale of an infant. Thieme teaches that a foetus which is aborted or a foetus which is stillborn never becomes a living being.
While Thieme is correct in his teaching that life does not begin until birth, and while he is correct in his teaching that the fleshly creature is animated (as opposed to receiving the impartation of a `soul'), the understanding of Thieme regarding the nature of life is far from correct, having been skewed by tradition. The result is that, overall, the teaching of Thieme regarding the inception of life is illogical and incoherent. According to Thieme:
But these assertions contradict the declaration84 of Jesus, when he said to Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And they are incompatible with the dissertation85 of Paul to the Corinthians regarding the transformation which takes place upon resurrection.
The error of Thieme with respect to the inception of life begins with his failure to recognize that the `spirit of life' or `breath of life' (which he terms `soul-life' or the `spark of life') is more than an animating agent. The Scripture reveals that:
From the latter two facts, it appears that the spirit of life serves as repository for the personality, the character, and the memory of the individual, and that the same spirit is imparted upon resurrection, so that the identity of the individual is preserved.
Incredibly, Thieme and others—having postulated that the soul is immortal—argue that, once a soul is brought into existence, even the Creator is unable to destroy it. But the notion of the immortal soul is demolished by the teaching of Jesus concerning Gehenna86. Using Gehenna as a metaphor, Jesus warns87 that God is able to destroy not only the body, but also the `soul'—that is, the very essence of the individual.
Despite the impressive academic credentials of which Thieme constantly boasted, the teaching which emanated from the pulpit of Thieme was disappointing in its scholastic quality. Though at first glance the teaching of Thieme gives a scholarly appearance, it cannot bear scrutiny. The teaching of Thieme demonstrates not only scholastic incompetence, but also a slipshod attitude. Both the pulpit teaching and the publications of Thieme exhibit an abundance of unstated and unwarranted assumption, invalid logical inference, and failure to perceive fundamental theological truth.
The booklet of Thieme titled Smudge Pots or Torches? provides several examples of the scholastic incompetence and slipshod attitude which characterize the ministry of Thieme. Published in the year 1965, the booklet was re-issued in 1969 under the title Sin of Worry [Smudge Pots or Torches?], and again in 1971, under the title Worry. No substantial changes appear to have been made in the text of the re-issued versions, the tables of content and the page counts being identical. While the booklet appears no longer to be in print (as is the case with many of the booklets of Thieme), the fact remains that the booklet was re-issued twice, and was in print during a period of at least six years, during which period Thieme indisputably was at his prime. Thus, it is no overreach to cite the booklet as being representative of the scholarship of Thieme, particularly in view of the fact that the later editions of many of the booklets of Thieme have been extensively edited and revised by his son and by others.
The booklet Smudge Pots or Torches? centers about the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, which records the justification of Abraham and the inauguration of the unconditional covenant which the Eternal made with Abraham. Hardly any passage of the Scripture is more fundamental to the Christian Faith. Incredibly, Thieme makes no mention of the covenant; rather, he claims that the passage presents “three cures for worrying”. And while attempting to show how the various details recorded in the passage relate to worry, Thieme gives but a passing nod to the sixth verse—a verse which declares one of the most fundamental88 truths to be found in all of the Scripture:
And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.– Genesis 15:6 (LXX)
Thieme says that, in the fifth through seventh verses, Abraham is being taught three `object lessons'. According to Thieme:
All three of these assertions of Thieme are indistinct, insipid, and even laughable, demonstrating the failure of Thieme to apprehend the significance of the passage. Moreover, the assertion regarding the fifth verse is inexcusable, for the purpose for which the Lord God directed Abraham to consider the stars is plainly stated in the verse:
And he brought him out and said to him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars, if thou shalt be able to number them fully, and he said, Thus shall thy seed be.– Genesis 15:5 (LXX)
Even as it is impossible to enumerate the stars, so also it is impossible to enumerate the descendants of Abraham, who today (counting both the living and the dead) number into the billions. Of course, this cannot be said of the Jews, who, by their own reckoning, never have numbered more than fifteen million—a fact which may have influenced Thieme's interpretation of the fifth verse.89
While Thieme does recognize the existence of the Abrahamic covenant, the passage of Scripture which Thieme associates with the Abrahamic covenant is Genesis 12:1–3, rather than the fifteenth chapter of Genesis.
Thieme claims that the fourteenth chapter of Genesis records four `great victories' of Abraham. Theme describes these victories as:
Thieme surmises that, after these victories, Abraham fell into a sinful state of fear and worry, and that the events recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis were designed to deliver Abraham from that state. According to Thieme, Abraham had three worries:
This conjecture obviously is based upon the first four verses of the passage:
1 And after these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram, I shield thee, thy reward shall be very great. 2 And Abram said, Master and Lord, what wilt thou give me? whereas I am departing without a child, but the son of Masek my home-born female slave, this Eliezer of Damascus is mine heir. 3 And Abram said, I am grieved since thou hast given me no seed, but my home-born servant shall succeed me. 4 And immediately there was a voice of the Lord to him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come out of thee shall be thine heir.– Genesis 15:1–4 (LXX)
In a technical sense, Thieme's interpretation of the fifteenth chapter does have a degree of validity. However, the interpretation is myopic to the extreme, for it fails to apprehend the substance of the passage. Though the covenant which the Lord makes with Abraham indeed addresses the concern of Abraham regarding enemies, provision, and an heir, the concern is made insignificant by the incredible scope of the covenant.
Thieme argues that the worry of Abraham amounted to blasphemy, and that, consequently, Abraham needed first of all to confess his sin. In verses 9 through 11, Abraham is seen preparing a sacrifice consisting of five animals, the first being a heifer. Thieme associates each of the sacrifices with one of the Levitical offerings. Then Thieme asserts that Abraham walked through the divided carcass of the heifer, symbolizing his confession of sin.
However, the Scripture gives absolutely no indication that Abraham walked between the pieces of the heifer, or that he walked between the pieces of any of the other animals. And, indeed, for Abraham to have walked in a ritual or ceremony between any of the pieces of the sacrifice would have been to destroy the imagery of a rite which is central to the Scripture.
Thieme fails to apprehend the fact that the events of the fifteenth chapter have to do with a single vision which took place in a single night. Curiously, Thieme associates verse 12 with one night, and verse 17 with the next night. In this matter, Thieme appears to have no familiarity with the style in which much of the Scripture is written, a style in which redundancy and digression are common.
According to Thieme, the `deep sleep' which fell upon Abraham on the first night was a consequence of Abraham having “claimed the Word”. Thieme asserts that Abraham went to sleep “with peace”, but then had a nightmare, awakening “disturbed, panic stricken and in a state of hysteria” and “with an horror of great darkness upon him”. According to Thieme, the darkness represents `pressure'. Thieme says nothing concerning the sleep or dreams of Abraham on the supposed second night.
It is noteworthy that, though Thieme repeats his assertion that Abraham passed between the pieces of the heifer, Thieme makes no comment regarding the significance of the curious passage of the burning torch and the smoking furnace through the pieces of the divided sacrifice. Inasmuch as Thieme attributes significance to the passage of Abraham through the pieces of the sacrifice (though, as already noted, it is absolutely certain that Abraham did not make a ceremonial passage through the pieces of the sacrifice), it is incredible that Thieme fails to attribute significance to the passage of the torch and the furnace through the pieces.
Thieme claims that the burning torch represents “the believer who has stopped worrying,” and that the smoking furnace represents “the believer who is upset”. This correspondence is drawn purely from the imagination of Thieme; it has no Scriptural basis. It is almost beyond belief that a man who genuinely possesses the God-given gift of pastor-teacher and whose life truly is centered about the study and teaching of the Scripture should fail to recognize the correspondence between the burning torch and smoking furnace in this vision of Abraham and the pillar90 of fire and pillar of cloud which went before Israel during the forty years of the desert sojourn:
21 And God led them, in the day by a pillar of cloud, to show them the way, and in the night by a pillar of fire. 22 And the pillar of cloud failed not by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, before all the people.– Exodus 13:21–22 (LXX)
The failure to recognize this correspondence is all the more vexing in view of the fact that the words which the Lord spoke to Abraham in the course of the vision have to do specifically with the future deliverance of Israel from Egypt:
12 And about sunset a trance fell upon Abram, and lo! a great gloomy terror falls upon him. 13 And it was said to Abram, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their own, and they shall enslave them, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years. 14 And the nation whomsoever they shall serve I will judge; and after this, they shall come forth hither with much property. 15 But thou shalt depart to thy fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age. 16 And in the fourth generation they shall return hither, for the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up, even until now. 17 And when the sun was about to set, there was a flame, and behold a smoking furnace and lamps of fire, which passed between these divided pieces.– Genesis 15:12–17 (LXX)
The fifteenth chapter of Genesis is an account of the inauguration of that which arguably is the most solemn and fundamental covenant in all of the Scripture—an unconditional covenant which the Lord himself made with Abraham. In a number of respects, the covenant is symbolic, for it is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is based.
To properly interpret the passage, it is necessary to understand that, in the ancient world, a solemn covenant was inaugurated by the slaying of an animal as a covenant sacrifice. The gravity of the covenant was reflected by the value of the covenant sacrifice. The heifer, the she-goat, and the ram are sacrifices of considerable value; together with the dove and pigeon (which are symbolic), they represent the ultimate covenant sacrifice, Christ Jesus, who, as the Lamb of God, died in order to inaugurate the New Covenant.
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks in some detail of the role of Christ Jesus as covenant sacrifice. Regrettably (and incredibly), the translators of English Bibles appear, for the most part, to have been wholly ignorant91 of the ancient custom of covenant sacrifice, and thus stupidly have utilized the English words `testament' and `testator' when translating the Greek words diatheke, diatithemi, and cognates. While it is true that diatheke and diatithemi may be used with respect to the bequeathal of an estate upon the death of a testator, the terms never are so used in the context of the Scripture. Indeed, the Septuagint uses both diatheke and diatithemi with respect to the covenant which the Lord God made with Abraham.92
A testament is a document by which an individual, termed the testator, gives instruction concerning disposition of his estate upon his death. While Christ Jesus did indeed die, in no sense did he die as a `testator'. And while Christians mindlessly use the terms `Old Testament' and `New Testament' when speaking of the Scripture, such terminology is nonsensical.93 In no sense is Old Covenant scripture or New Covenant scripture a `testament' giving instruction concerning disposition of an `estate'. To apply the term `testament' to the Canon of Scripture is misleading and absurd. Indeed, the English words `testament' and `testator' have no applicability whatsoever within the context of the Scripture; uninformed use of these terms is the source of much confusion.
A covenant is an agreement into which two parties enter, each of his free volition. Each party pledges to the other (often in the presence of witnesses) his genuine willingness and earnest intent to fulfill the stipulations which constitute the agreement. This pledge or oath is made in a brief ceremony which takes place after the covenant sacrifice is slain.
The curious preparation of the covenant sacrifice, in which the carcasses of the animals are divided and the parts separated, reflects the oath which the covenant entails. In the ceremony, the two parties making the covenant pass side-by-side (or even hand-in-hand) between the divided pieces of the covenant sacrifice, thereby declaring, “Should I fail in my responsibility under this covenant, may I, like this sacrifice, be slain, drawn, and quartered, so that men may walk between the pieces of my carcass.”.
The Lord God purposed that his covenant with Abraham should make no demands upon Abraham—that it should be an unconditional covenant which depends solely upon the faithfulness of the Lord himself. Consequently, once Abraham had prepared the covenant sacrifice, the Lord caused a trance to fall upon Abraham. And while Abraham was incapacitated by the trance, the Lord himself—symbolized by a smoking furnace and lamps of fire—passed alone between the pieces of the covenant sacrifice, thereby obligating himself to the terms of the covenant without imposing obligation upon Abraham.
The symbology of the flame and the smoke or cloud should be apparent to anyone who has read in the Scripture the account of the desert sojourn of the tribes of Israel following the exodus from the land of Egypt. During that forty-year sojourn, the Lord, by means of a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night, continuously manifested his presence to the Israelites and directed their journey.94
The assertion of Thieme, that Abraham had a nightmare and awakened “disturbed, panic stricken and in a state of hysteria”, is ridiculous. The assertion is based upon the reading of verse 12 as it stands in the King James Version, taken at face value and without consideration of the context. In the King James Version, the verse reads, “And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.”
Analyzing the passage in the Greek of the Septuagint95, the findings are as follows:
Thus, the fear or phobos which came upon Abraham appears to be a direct result of the trance which had fallen upon him. Moreover, inasmuch as this fear is not mentioned outside of the twelfth verse, it would appear that the fear was entirely within the context of the trance, rather than being a result of the circumstances in which Abraham found himself.
Taking into account the context, the natural interpretation of the phrase “fear, great [and] dark” is that it has to do with the presence of God, and thus corresponds to the English term `awe'. Webster defines awe as “dread; great fear mingled with respect” and “the emotion inspired by something dreadful and sublime; an undefined sense of the dreadful and the sublime; reverential fear, or solemn wonder; profound reverence”. Thus, it is apparent that Abraham, in a trance in which the Lord God spoke to him and then appeared in the form of a smoking furnace and a flaming lamp, was overcome by reverential awe—and not, as Thieme asserts, by a `nightmare' induced by worry.
The obvious failure of Thieme to apprehend the import of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis presents an enigma. It seems queer—and even bizarre—that a man who, ostensibly, is called of the Lord to feed and care for the sheep of the Lord should misinterpret such a fundamental passage of the Scripture, even to the point of trivializing it.
The matter becomes still more perplexing when one considers the academic credentials of Thieme. Any competent scholar with access to a library should have no difficulty interpreting such a prominent and fundamental passage, of which no respectable commentary fails to take notice. Indeed, one of the most prominent, scholarly, and respected English-language commentaries, The Pulpit Commentary, discusses the fact that the fifteenth chapter of Genesis and the ritual involving the torch and the furnace has to do with the making of a covenant. Moreover, the fact that the passage has to do with a covenant is declared plainly in the passage itself.99
It would be charitable to attribute this misinterpretation on the part of Thieme to a few too many blows to the head taken in the boxing ring.100 But a more probable explanation is that, contrary to his claim, Thieme never received from the Lord the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher. And perhaps the root of the matter is still more basic.
The teaching of Thieme regarding salvation and sanctification gives good reason to question whether Thieme genuinely is a Christian. For example, Thieme teaches that salvation is obtained in a momentary transaction which is irreversible, so that subsequent behaviour and attitude have no bearing upon the matter. Thieme makes no mention of the cost of discipleship or of the necessity of endurance in the Christian Faith. Thieme denigrates the necessity of repentance (in the sense of sorrow or regret) regarding sin, declaring that all that is required is acknowledgment or confession of sin. And, despite the obvious importance of the ritual of water baptism in the apostolic era, Thieme teaches that the ordinance of water baptism has been abolished. While Thieme does recognize that the Christian is subject to discipline, he argues that the Christian may live in a perpetual state of carnality or `reversionism' without jeopardizing his salvation. Thus does Thieme gainsay the Scripture regarding the necessity of sanctification.101
All things considered, it is not improbable that Thieme is unregenerate and consequently lacks benefit of the ministry of the Spirit of God—that, despite appearances, Thieme is operating wholly on the basis of fleshly intellect and is oblivious to matters which are discerned only through the ministry of the Spirit of God.102 This would explain the tendency of Thieme to interpret the Scripture in terms of psychological principles.
Whatever the truth of the matter, this much may be said with certainty: To interpret the account of the fifteenth chapter of Genesis as a dissertation on worry is, from the academic perspective, to demonstrate gross negligence and scholastic incompetence. And from the spiritual perspective, it is to demonstrate utter obliviousness to the realm of spiritual truth, and gross incompetence in the role of pastor.
Clearly, the imposing academic credentials103 of Thieme did not ensure good scholarship. Indeed, they raise the question of the degree of academic preparation which the ministry requires, and the more general question of the qualifications which a man must possess in order to enter the ministry of the Gospel.
Not every man who is called to the ministry has an academic background which he considers adequate to his calling. The academic credentials of Thieme, which are trumpeted from the back cover of each of his publications, tended to intimidate and discourage men who felt a call to the ministry but, because of factors such as age, familial obligations, and economic resources, could not manage a return to the university environment for formal study of Latin, Greek, ancient history, and theology. It took but little exposure to the teaching of Thieme for a man to develop a deep contempt for the traditional minister, whose messages typically are topical or of the inspirational variety, and who appears incapable not only of verse-by-verse exegesis of the Scripture, but also of coherent, logical thought. After encountering Thieme, an aspirant to the ministry having doubts as to the adequacy of his academic preparation might be disheartened to the extent of abandoning his quest, rather than risk becoming just another traditional minister.
Contrary to popular notion, lack of a seminary education does not disqualify the man who has been called by God to the ministry. The tools and expertise necessary for exegesis of the Scripture may be acquired outside the seminary environment. Are we to suppose that a man who the Lord is willing to entrust with the care and feeding of his sheep through independent study of the Scripture is incapable of the independent study required to educate himself adequately in Greek104, ancient history, theology, and canonicity? Is the study of these subjects any more demanding than is the study of the Scripture itself?
And while a measure of instruction in the realm of theology is essential, enrollment in a theological seminary is not necessarily the best means of obtaining that instruction, because of the theological bias which a seminary imparts. Indeed, a seminary degree typically is more a sign of indoctrination than it is a sign of education. The purpose for which the pastor of a local assembly studies the Scripture is to discover and bring to light truths which have been hidden by anachronism, mistranslation, and theological tradition. The man who has drawn on more than one source in gaining a basic orientation to theological concepts is less likely to follow blindly a particular theological tradition. And the minister who is diligent and objective in his study of the Scripture develops his own theological understanding directly from the Scripture, ever acquiring new understanding, and ever purging out error acquired from tradition.
In the present day, appearance generally is valued over substance, and status symbols, over practicality. Not a few men pursue an advanced university degree for the title which it confers, rather than for the perspective and insight which may be gained in the pursuit. Congregations, seeking prestige rather than enlightenment and edification, prefer the vain, cunning, and bungling man who flaunts the title `Doctor' over the humble, faithful, and competent man who asks to be addressed simply by his Christian name105.
But the truth of the matter is that an advanced university degree and in-depth knowledge of the original languages is of relatively little value to the pastor of a local assembly in his study of the Scripture. Ultimately, the pastor is dependent upon reference works which have been compiled by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Greek, history, canonicity, and textual criticism—men to whose level of understanding in their respective fields he cannot hope to attain.
In general, the truths which cry out to be published from the pulpits of the land are not deeply buried, nor are they cunningly encrypted. Their discovery requires neither detailed linguistic analysis nor the fathoming of obscure details of ancient history. They are not the exclusive domain of the philosopher, nor do they involve convoluted theological reasoning. For the most part, they are simple truths which have been obscured by anachronism, mistranslation, and theological tradition. Most of them lie in plain sight and simply have been ignored or rejected. Such truths may be apprehended by any man having the diligence to study the Word for himself106, the discipline to view with objectivity even the most familiar of passages, and the temerity to break with tradition.
The need of the Christian Pulpit is not for ostentatious men boasting advanced academic degrees, titles, and honours; rather, it is for humble men who, genuinely having been called of the Lord to the ministry of the Gospel, out of a profound fear of the Lord are faithful to their calling.
Though each congregation has it own customs in various matters, most Protestant congregations have essentially the same `look and feel', in the sense that a visitor to any of the services encounters a familiar setting and sequence of events, and experiences few, if any, surprises. But such was not the case with Berachah under the administration of Thieme.
The day Thieme arrived at Berachah, he began molding the organization to suit himself. From the progression of events, it is apparent that, in the end, Berachah in every respect became as Thieme wished it to be.
Without question, the most significant characteristic of the ministry of Thieme and thus, of Berachah Church, was the absence of the traditional `sermon'. Unlike traditional Protestant ministers, Thieme was in the business of `teaching'—not that of `preaching'.107 It was this factor, more than any other, which differentiated Berachah Church from traditional Protestant congregations, and it was this factor, more than any other, which determined the essential character of the organization. On Sunday as well as on weekdays, the main fare at Berachah was `Bible class'. For many of the congregation, it was the teaching and only the teaching, rather than any other facet of congregational life, which provided the impetus for faithful attendance.
A primary factor in the appeal of the Bible classes of Thieme was the atmosphere which Thieme cultivated within the congregation. The atmosphere was characterized by unusual respect for privacy, by pseudo-intellectualism, and by elitism. To a large extent, the ritual and trappings found in traditional religious environments were absent from Berachah. Moreover, until about the year 1980, the atmosphere of Berachah had a distinctly academic flavour, as opposed to the distinctly religious atmosphere of the typical Protestant congregation.108
Thus, being largely disassociated from traditional religious stereotypes, Berachah Church was a place in which people from almost every walk of life and from almost every religious, academic, or professional background could assemble and receive intellectual stimulation without fear of discomfort or embarrassment.
A characteristic of Berachah which many found attractive was the ability to maintain one's privacy and anonymity. According to the well-publicized policy of privacy, no one needed fear being asked to raise a hand, stand, fill in a visitor's card, pin on a visitor's ribbon, walk an aisle, shake the hand of a `greeter', or even identify himself. Only if one wished to become a voting member of Berachah Church was it necessary to make direct contact with others; the names and telephone numbers of the members of the membership committee were listed in the the weekly bulletin. Thus, the individual who wished to attend Bible class without associating with the rest of the congregation or without becoming a member of Berachah Church was free to do so, as often and for as long as he desired.
Thieme cultivated with his followers a spirit of pseudo-intellectualism. This he did through the use of vocabulary, jargon, and elaborate doctrinal contrivances.
The vocabulary of Thieme was unusually large, abounding in superlatives and in words having an academic or scholastic ring to them. If nothing else, the Bible classes of Thieme provided for the congregation intellectual stimulation from the standpoint of vocabulary, and impetus for regular use of the dictionary.
The teaching vocabulary of Thieme included not only standard English terms, but also jargon developed by Thieme. The complement of jargon was augmented from time to time with labels devised by Thieme to describe psychological109 phenomena associated with his latest doctrinal `breakthrough'.
The jargon which Thieme developed early in his ministry was an attempt to portray by analogy a number of functions which are basic to the Christian Way of Life. This jargon was readily comprehensible by the proverbial `man on the street'. For example, the early jargon of Thieme included the common term `rebound'110 to portray recovery from sin by means of confession, in accordance with I John 1:9. Another example is the term `faith-rest', which Thieme used to designate the relaxed mental attitude of the Christian whose confidence or faith is in the character and the promises of God.
But, over time, the jargon of Thieme increasingly became esoteric and unintelligible to those lacking a detailed introduction to it. Were George Orwell111 to describe the evolved jargon of Thieme, he well might call it `Thiemespeak'112. Thiemespeak included abstract and arcane terms (such as `supergrace', `ultra-supergrac