LEAVEN IN MODERN TIMES
We are all familiar with the warning that Jesus gave concerning “the leaven of the Pharisees” found in Matthew chapter 16. However, we may sometimes find ourselves at a loss as to how to appropriate that warning, and we may struggle to even see the relevance of the teaching to our modern times. After all, the sect of Pharisees of whom Jesus spoke are no longer around. Though that might be true, the problem of leaven is as contemporary and relevant as the Tempter himself
The adding of “leaven” to the gospel today has become, in some circles, a common and even a popular thing to do. Some have reached the place that were they to hear the gospel preached free from all leaven, they would not accept it as doctrinally sound. They have become so familiar with the error of leaven that it has become a “security blanket” without which they would be overcome with fear. This fear does not allow confidence in the gospel in its virgin form. It believes that the Gospel is insufficient in and of itself to rid the Church of, and maintain it free from sin. This persuasion is a serious reflection upon God’s ability to govern His church, and exalts the wisdom of man above that of God.
I would assert that this fondness is strictly an subjective emotion. It is not logical, for it has long since divorced all logic. It is not Biblical, because it has developed an immunity to all biblical evidence that is not convenient. In reality, it is an emotional attachment to an ideology. It is none other than a love relationship–not with Jesus Christ, but with religious code. It is a modern-day counterpart of Judaism mixed into Christianity. In New Testament times certain tenets of Judaism were so woven into the very fibers of the thinking of many Jewish Christians to the extent that they were so emotionally attached to them that they did not want to let them go. A similar condition can be found even today.
The Scriptures clearly teach, yea, even demand a separation from the world. THAT TEACHING I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY EMBRACE, but at no place in Scripture are we taught to be separate from the world merely as an end in itself. We are taught to forsake sin in order to have Christ. We are taught not to be conformed to this world that we might be transformed and conformed to the image of Christ. In the Scriptures, separation is taught only as a “means to an end”--that end being Jesus Christ. We are taught that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” Mt 6:24. This Scripture can clearly be applied to people on both ends of the spectrum: to those who DESPISE separation (they love the world), and to those who LOVE it (separation). And to state that some love it is no exaggeration, for I have heard that confession made. Indeed, I believe that one form of modern day leaven is clearly seen in an ideology that is more in love with the means (separation) than with the end (Jesus Christ Himself).
To those who would doubt the above statement, let me ask the following: Why is it that the preaching of standards (biblical and otherwise) take a more prominent place during the course of a camp meeting or revival than does either the subject of holiness or prayer? Why is a preacher judged more harshly by his failure to touch on certain pet issues than should he fail to preach on heart purity, or forgiveness? Why is it that before an evangelist is called he is more likely to be interrogated about his stand for or against certain technological inventions than about his personal relationship with God or his passion for souls? I suggest that this reversal of priorities is in itself a form of leaven.
Not only do we frivolously apply Scripture so that it agrees with our personal likes and dislikes, but at times we will venture to publicly ridicule or belittle those who would dare to differ on issues that God did not feel important enough to include in His Word. In some cases, not only is there the absence of unequivocal teaching of God’s Word upon the subject, His Word on that subject might be entirely silent. Yet we add our leaven unnoticed by men due to the public support of those who are like-minded. Do we not take into consideration God’s opinion on the matter?
Maybe we should examine our loyalties. Are we recklessly loyal solely to God and His Word, or are we primarily loyal to a predetermined mind-set or philosophy? What is sad is the fact that leaven is added to the Scriptures, many times, not by its foes but by its friends who are not entirely aware of their actions. These friends read and interpret Scripture through a grid of personal philosophy rather than allowing that philosophy to be determined and molded by Scripture. One man set aside Vincent’s Word Studies simply because they did not always collaborate his preconstructed concept of Scriptural teaching. Apparently some of us read God’s Word, not for the purpose of being taught thereby, but with the intent of finding support for what we already believe? Think about that!
Furthermore, leaven is added to Scripture today in much the same way and for the same reason that it was back then, and many times that reason is due to a “herd-like ” mentality. Remember the Gadarene swine? There were no rifts among them. They were of one accord, one mind, traveling the same direction, all for the same reason, but they were ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, going the wrong way. In our humanity, we draw such comfort from companions and fellow travelers. That is not wrong: it’s natural. Where we go wrong is when we love and esteem more highly the “herd” and its opinion than we do God and His eternal Word.
Take heart my brother. There is hope. Love doesn’t have to be blind. We hear of courageous young men and ladies all the time who ignore their emotions and break off relationships that they know to be wrong. We can do the same. I am not proposing division between God’s people. Rather, I am encouraging the reader, as did Jesus, to beware of leaven, and if there has developed that emotion bond with leaven, break it at any cost. Fall in love with Jesus Christ, and in so doing you will genuinely love the brethren. Once that has taken place, the last thing you will want to do is stir up discord by adding leaven and demanding of others what you do not positively know to be required in Scripture.
The adding of “leaven” to the gospel today has become, in some circles, a common and even a popular thing to do. Some have reached the place that were they to hear the gospel preached free from all leaven, they would not accept it as doctrinally sound. They have become so familiar with the error of leaven that it has become a “security blanket” without which they would be overcome with fear. This fear does not allow confidence in the gospel in its virgin form. It believes that the Gospel is insufficient in and of itself to rid the Church of, and maintain it free from sin. This persuasion is a serious reflection upon God’s ability to govern His church, and exalts the wisdom of man above that of God.
MISPLACED LOVE
It has been perplexing to me for years to see the fondness that some have for “leaven.” No, the term is never used, but it is typically added either under the banner of “Old-fashioned rugged holiness preaching” or “old fashioned holiness church standards.” Please, don’t misunderstand; both are good and desirable, but they can also provide excellent cover and a perfect “climate” for leaven to thrive. I might remind you that spiritual leaven is defined as any teaching that corrupts the Word of God by adding to it or taking away.I would assert that this fondness is strictly an subjective emotion. It is not logical, for it has long since divorced all logic. It is not Biblical, because it has developed an immunity to all biblical evidence that is not convenient. In reality, it is an emotional attachment to an ideology. It is none other than a love relationship–not with Jesus Christ, but with religious code. It is a modern-day counterpart of Judaism mixed into Christianity. In New Testament times certain tenets of Judaism were so woven into the very fibers of the thinking of many Jewish Christians to the extent that they were so emotionally attached to them that they did not want to let them go. A similar condition can be found even today.
MISPLACED PRIORITY
By digressing for a moment to think briefly in the political realm, we can find an analogy in what is referred to as the “platform” of any given party: the document which outlines the ideology and priorities laid out by that party. As yet I do not know how to fully explain it, but it seems that due to the overemphasis on separation from the world, some have made that the PRIMARY plank in their doctrinal platform, and have built the entire structure upon it. Since it has had such a prominent place in their doctrinal structure for so long, just like those Jewish Christian, they have developed an emotion dependency upon it. Whenever someone tries to pull on that plank to restructure the platform or reorganize priorities, it begins to pull upon their very heart. It matters not that logic supports the restructuring, nor does it seem to be of any consequence that the Bible demands it. What matters is that it doesn’t “feel” right.LOVE IS BLIND
Studies have shown that when patients are shown pictures of people that they love something happens in the brain. A chemical shows up that blocks out both depression and rationale. This supports the old adage that says “love is blind.” For that reason I maintain that to LOVE what I have referred to as leaven or even “separation from the world,” is spiritual adultery. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with ALL our heart (Deut.6:5 )-- not love an ideology. This explains why that when such a love exists there is an absence of rationale and intellectual treatment of God’s Word. In the same way that young people (and some not so young) who are “in love,” many times, make decisions based upon their emotions, this type operate by the emotional bond with an ideology rather than by an intellectual understanding of God’s Word.The Scriptures clearly teach, yea, even demand a separation from the world. THAT TEACHING I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY EMBRACE, but at no place in Scripture are we taught to be separate from the world merely as an end in itself. We are taught to forsake sin in order to have Christ. We are taught not to be conformed to this world that we might be transformed and conformed to the image of Christ. In the Scriptures, separation is taught only as a “means to an end”--that end being Jesus Christ. We are taught that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” Mt 6:24. This Scripture can clearly be applied to people on both ends of the spectrum: to those who DESPISE separation (they love the world), and to those who LOVE it (separation). And to state that some love it is no exaggeration, for I have heard that confession made. Indeed, I believe that one form of modern day leaven is clearly seen in an ideology that is more in love with the means (separation) than with the end (Jesus Christ Himself).
To those who would doubt the above statement, let me ask the following: Why is it that the preaching of standards (biblical and otherwise) take a more prominent place during the course of a camp meeting or revival than does either the subject of holiness or prayer? Why is a preacher judged more harshly by his failure to touch on certain pet issues than should he fail to preach on heart purity, or forgiveness? Why is it that before an evangelist is called he is more likely to be interrogated about his stand for or against certain technological inventions than about his personal relationship with God or his passion for souls? I suggest that this reversal of priorities is in itself a form of leaven.
PROPER APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE
Certainly men do not profess to be numbered amongst the Pharisees who added leaven. We all claim to be BIBLICAL Christians, but that cannot possibly be true since the very Scripture God uses to lead one man to take a certain course of action, another uses to condemn that very action. Some seem to treat passages like 2Co 6:17 as blank checks signed by the All-mighty. “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,” is not an invitation for us preachers to fill in the blanks with whatever we believe and with that which is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. Do we not take seriously II Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation?” It is amazing how carelessly we handle the eternal Word of God.Not only do we frivolously apply Scripture so that it agrees with our personal likes and dislikes, but at times we will venture to publicly ridicule or belittle those who would dare to differ on issues that God did not feel important enough to include in His Word. In some cases, not only is there the absence of unequivocal teaching of God’s Word upon the subject, His Word on that subject might be entirely silent. Yet we add our leaven unnoticed by men due to the public support of those who are like-minded. Do we not take into consideration God’s opinion on the matter?
Maybe we should examine our loyalties. Are we recklessly loyal solely to God and His Word, or are we primarily loyal to a predetermined mind-set or philosophy? What is sad is the fact that leaven is added to the Scriptures, many times, not by its foes but by its friends who are not entirely aware of their actions. These friends read and interpret Scripture through a grid of personal philosophy rather than allowing that philosophy to be determined and molded by Scripture. One man set aside Vincent’s Word Studies simply because they did not always collaborate his preconstructed concept of Scriptural teaching. Apparently some of us read God’s Word, not for the purpose of being taught thereby, but with the intent of finding support for what we already believe? Think about that!
Furthermore, leaven is added to Scripture today in much the same way and for the same reason that it was back then, and many times that reason is due to a “herd-like ” mentality. Remember the Gadarene swine? There were no rifts among them. They were of one accord, one mind, traveling the same direction, all for the same reason, but they were ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, going the wrong way. In our humanity, we draw such comfort from companions and fellow travelers. That is not wrong: it’s natural. Where we go wrong is when we love and esteem more highly the “herd” and its opinion than we do God and His eternal Word.
Take heart my brother. There is hope. Love doesn’t have to be blind. We hear of courageous young men and ladies all the time who ignore their emotions and break off relationships that they know to be wrong. We can do the same. I am not proposing division between God’s people. Rather, I am encouraging the reader, as did Jesus, to beware of leaven, and if there has developed that emotion bond with leaven, break it at any cost. Fall in love with Jesus Christ, and in so doing you will genuinely love the brethren. Once that has taken place, the last thing you will want to do is stir up discord by adding leaven and demanding of others what you do not positively know to be required in Scripture.
– Philip Burch
