WHO, AFTER ALL, IS OUR TEACHER?
Return to the page directory

Return to the page directory
 

They Rejected Him
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. John 1:11
Return to the page directory

"His own" is the Jewish nation. He is their Messiah as well as ours. When He sent the disciples out on their own for the first time, He told them not to go to the Gentiles or to the "half-breed Samaritans but, rather, to the Jews. The Good New was to be presented to them first so that, in the day or reckoning they would have no excuse – having rejected Him who lived among them and died for them as for us all. The instructions found in Acts 1:8 dramatically show that they were to be given every opportunity to accept Him. The apostles were to first go to Jerusalem, then Judea, Samaria and only then into the entire world. We quickly forget that those Jews whto accepted Jesus became know as &quons." While there are nearly as many schisms in modern Judaism as there is in Christianity, there is one fundamental defining characteristic of all Jews, they reject Jesus as the Christ. One day they, at least some of them, will accept Him as their Lord and Savior. This is God’s plan for them. This is eloquently testified to in Luke 21:24, And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible says that Luke 21:24 shows us that God has a three stage plan for the future of the Jewish people. (1) All of "God’s elect are gathered in out of all nations" - the "gentiles. (2) "Then the Jews will be converted." (3) Only then will they "return to their own land, and rebuild and inhabit Jerusalem." In light of the turmoil in the world over the "Nation of Israel," and the fervor of "Christian Zionists," it might be well to consider Gill’s position. The "time of the Gentiles" must take place first. Before they return to, occupy and rebuild "Biblical Israel," they will accept Jesus as their Christ. It is only after these two events that they will reoccupy and rebuild. We might (with some difficulty) argue that the first condition proposed by Gill has been fulfilled – the "elect of God have been gathered. Can anyone legitimately contend that the second, the conversion of Jews to Christianity, has been satisfied? It really doesn’t seem so does it?

We also forget, conveniently or otherwise, that the "Jews" never, never ever occupied the "Promised Land." Against God’s direct command, they allowed "heathens" to dwell amongst them. (ref) Against His Prophet and His will they demanded a king to rule over their unconquered land – there were only three – Saul, David and Solomon. At the end of Solomon’s reign, long before any conquering army set foot on their sacred soil, they engaged in a bloody civil war that resulted in the "Promised Land" being divided into "Israel" and "Judah." The whole point of the Temple was to house the Ark of the Covenant in the "Holy of Holies. But in 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar totally destroyed Solomon’s Temple. There was no ark among the bounteous booty taken back to Babylonian – it had already been taken away years, decades before. No one has seen or heard of it since. The Temple and the "Holy of Holies" during Jesus day was as empty and hollow as the legalistic practices of the Pharisees themselves. In His day, there was no nation of Israel, there was no Temple housing the Ark of the Covenant, and by His own words the religion the Jews were practicing was a vacuous and meaningless ghost of what it was to have been.

The "Promised Land" was to stretch from the modern nation of Lebanon in the North to the Sinai in the South. The present "Israel," is a fractured shell of what was to have been but never was. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a series of excellent maps – historical and modern – that amply support the point. Modern day "Israel" (ref) only bears a vague resemblance to the kingdoms of David and Solomon.(ref). We must remember that the Jewish people did not occupy the Promised Land because of disobedience to the LORD. We must remember that they were divided by civil war, conquered by their enemies, driven into exile and ultimately driven completely out of their country as Jesus said they would be because of disobedience. At any time, had they stopped their defiance, they would have been welcomed back into His loving arms as lambs of His flock – as the Prodigal Son returned. They did not. They have not. Their rebellion continues. They rejected Him and turned Him over to the gentiles to be executed. They continue to this day in their rebellion. Now if we want to know when their homeland will be restored all we have to do is turn to Luke 21:24. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And John said: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven Revelation 21:2

Return to the page directory

HARMONY

Return to the page directory
By the word of truth, by the power of God,
by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 2 Corinthians 6:7

Paul wrote to the saints in Corinth that, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony (1 Corinthians14:33 MSG). That’s a good thing, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ. Certainly it is something much to be desired and sought after far more than disputation and discord. After all, who would want troublemakers in our midst? The word translated by the Message as "confusion" is the Greek "Akatastasia" that is also translated as "tumult," "commotion" and "confusion." Who would want someone around causing nothing but trouble, constantly disputing what we are preaching and teaching? What Paul wrote to the Corinthians he said applied to all churches without exception. Probably, then, that would apply to us today as well. Some caution might be suggested by the fact that the following verse of Paul’s letter says, Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak (v34).

Understandably, some churches have elevated his comments about harmony to the level of doctrine saying, basically, if you don’t like what you hear you can and you are invited to go someplace else. Now that may seem a bit harsh, but isn’t it understandable? Preachers today would be no more likely to encourage or tolerate those in their congregations who disagree with them than Paul would have in his day. the works of the flesh, Paul enumerates are antagonism, envy, rivalry and combativeness, quarreling opposition and dissension, defiance and disobedience that are ranked right up there with adultery, fornication, hatred, murder, witchcraft, sedition and heresy. Quite a list. One might well consider shying away from the accusation of being involved in such unacceptable behavior.

But, surely one must ask if the opposite of sedition is conformity. Is harmony to be achieved at any price? John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible suggests that harmony is a "byproduct" of teaching the Gospel, "truly, sincerely, without any adulteration." That’s a far cry from contemporary preachers demanding (for sake of "harmony") that their congregations unquestioningly accept their teachings? Its also a far cry from so many "sermons which are a blend of the Gospel interspersed with their philosophy of life and their wisdom. As a matter of fact, most translations suggest preaching the truth is the precursor to peace and harmony within the congregation. Over and over again, it is "truthful speech" rather than edicts and demands for conformity. Even in his letter to the Romans when he wrote, Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another (Romans 14:19), his call is not open-ended but rather refers to those things that "edify." That means we are to "build up" one another; help each other grow in "Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness (ref.). The truth corrupted by mixtures of philosophy, psychology and other expressions of human wisdom is simply no substitute. It is doubtful such preaching would or should produce harmony.

To whom was Paul referring when he wrote, Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) pastors, ministers or all Christians? Over and over again (ref.) we are warned to be on guard against false prophets. We are specifically warned Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God by the Apostle John (1 John 4:1). Doesn’t this suggest that we, the Body of Christ, are to study the Word ourselves to be able to evaluate what is preached and taught? It certainly does not seem to suggest a vacuous, passive acceptance every word that proceedeth for the mouth of the preacher. Might not one be suspicious of a preacher demanding absolute obedience to his teaching? If such perfect knowledge were humanly possible, why did Jesus promise and send us the Holy Spirit? Such demands are one of the measures of a cult. According to the Apologetics Index, "A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader…"(ref) Another of the foundation’s 14 characteristics of a cult is that "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished." Worshiping the "right way" is being true to God’s Word. That’s when He will bring harmony into our midst instead of confusion.

Return to the page directory

DEMOCRATIC CHRISTIANITY

Is it "who we are trying to reach" or "what we are trying to teach?" The question is relatively new to Christianity and virtually non-existent in other of the world’s major religions. Formerly, in days gone bye, the answer would have been what we are trying to teach. A few years ago, Christians knew it was our God given ministry to "preach the Gospel." Now it appears we’re not so sure. The emphasis seems to have shifted

Part of the reason for this transformation concerns evangelism – reaching the "unsaved." We don’t even want to call them "unbelievers" or "unsaved" for fear of offending. Instead, we call them "seekers" and some "churches" pride themselves in being "seeker friendly." One pastor, at the forefront of this avant-garde movement, states, "You can’t communicate with people until you find something you have in common with them. Perhaps, but it is his next statement that really sets the stage for what we are calling "democratic Christianity." "The ground we have in common with unbelievers is not the Bible, but our common needs, hurts, and interests as human beings. All well and good if the core of Christianity is God meeting our "felt needs." If not, when/how is the disciple of "consumer Christianity" converted to "servant Christianity?"

There is a second issue. In order to be "seeker friendly," we must preach to people’s "felt needs," what they find interesting and appealing with the hope that they will come back. To assess what will "capture their attention," the "successful" (large/mega) churches have become marketing savvy. What "right thinking" pastor would consider starting a church in a new community without surveying what the people wanted? Could one hazard a guess what such a survey of "needs" and "interests" will come up with? If you were to go to such a church’s web sites and search, for such Biblical words as "sin," "salvation," "resurrection" you’d get a list that would include such topics as basketball, blended families, cycling, bowling and bridge, hiking and hockey instead. You will probably find his statement on baptism and basic beliefs nestled somewhere between.

Many years ago a book titled The Lonely Crowd lamented the passing of what the author called the "inner-directed" person and the advent of one he labeled the "other-directed." It was this other-directed whom he categorized as the "lonely crowd." "Other-directed" because, having lost, or never found, a solid foundation in moral judgment, such persons are like a ship adrift, subject to the whims of tides and winds of popular opinion – majority rule at its "best." They are a lonely crowd because, surrounded by their peers, they are nevertheless uncertain of what is "in" and what is not from moment to moment. They are constantly on guard not to be out of step with those who are, for the moment popular – the "trend setters," constantly sensitive to any clue that what was once but no longer is the "in" thing in speech, thought or action. In simple and old-fashioned language this is the "herd mentality – something like sheep – so easily led. Is today’s "church" a "lonely crowd?" Has it abdicated its moral leadership; surrendering to majority rule?

At one time we knew what Christianity stood for. According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology doctrine played an extremely important part in the early teachings of the apostles. It is generally agreed that early doctrinal statement consisted of three principles: (a) Jesus is the Messiah – Acts 3:18, (b) that He rose from the dead – Acts 1:22, 2:24,32 (c) that salvation is by faith in His name – Acts 2:38, 3:16. What we heard in Christian homes and churches was Christian Doctrine - Scriptural teaching based on theological truths. Those days, when we might have likened the Christian community as "inner-directed," governed by their sure and certain "internal gyroscope" of Biblical Truth, appear to have passed on. While we might have tried to find some common ground with the unsaved in order to share the Good News more effectively with them, they never became the dictators of what we taught or believed. We would seek to change them not become them. It’s one thing, however dangerous and ill advised to go into a bar to evangelize and something else to become a drunkard to demonstrate we are "one of the boys." Christians were once the trendsetters, not the followers. Much of what is taking place in this Country stems from the fact that we have long ago lost the "moral high ground" becoming pretty well indistinguishable from everyone else. Seeking not to offend has been elevated to a moral virtue. It’s almost as though we have adopted the Rodney King plea, "Can’t we all just get along together?"

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Return to the page directory

Return to the page directory
"Gangs Dressed in the Clothes of Religion."

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1

 
A Crisis in Faith
Return to the page directory
Father, all things are possiblhee; away this cup from me. Mark 14:36

TWELVE LEGIONS OF ANGELS
Return to the page directory

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:53

John records that, as Jesus was being seized in the Garden, Peter drew a sword from his side and cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave Malchus (John 18:10). It is that act that prompted Jesus’ response recorded in Matthew 26:53. It is a rebuke on many levels. Peter presumed to take charge – he was a "take charge kind of guy" like so many of us. Jesus is in charge – or should be. Should Peter have asked were there some doubt about his appropriate response? Should he have known as Jesus points out that, But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled (Matthew 26:56)?

What may be even more uncomfortable for many of us is that this was also a rebuke of the use of violence. Jesus said, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52). Was this, unlike the way we apply the rest of Scripture, just a one-time utterance not to be taken out of context and applied in a larger sense? Surely Jesus the Christ was not condemning the use of force suitable circumstances was He? There is a difference of opinion. The People’s New Commentary states it is "A general law. The violent usually die violent deaths." John Gill's Exposition of the Bible gives four exceptions to Jesus’ proclamation: (1) governments may conduct war, (2) "ministers of the word for good," (3) revenge for evil deeds and (4) self-defense. That’s comforting isn’t it? But, the Four Fold Gospel Commentary states that by rebuking Peter, "Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom."

Paul writing to the saints at Corinth said, For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3). Gill seems to suffer a lapse of memory, because in this case, he writes, "every Christian's life is a warfare with Satan, and his principalities and powers …not done "after the flesh"; in such a manner as the men of the world wage war with one another … but in a spiritual way." What about Jesus’ statement on revenge, But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39) and forgiveness, Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22).

And what of our enemies, are we not morally justified to take up the sword and slay them? Isn’t that the natural, the normal thing to do? Yes. But is that how we Christians are to respond toward them? You know the answer – it is NO! Jesus said But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you (Luke 6:27) Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you (Matthew 5:44). In Mark 11:25 He said, And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. That doesn’t sound very vengeful. To the saints in Roman Paul wrote, Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12:9). Be not afraid of them that kill the body (Luke 12:4).

Jesus restrained His hand didn’t He? If anyone was ever justified in taking up His sword against evil and unrighteousness wouldn’t it be He? Instead, the Son of the Living God in His entire ministry preached love and forbearance didn’t He? In James we find, From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? (James 4:1) Scriptures simply don’t support the idea that under some circumstances violence is justified. What is also striking in Jesus’ teachings is the absence of any suggestion or recommendation that violence ever is to be used.

My, what a difficult lesson to accept. To reject violence is to discard the idea that, ultimately, there is something we can do to correct injustice and achieve that which cannot be obtained in any other way. We may not be ready to totally reject violence as a means to some ends – however Scriptural that may be. Notwithstanding the thought of love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, in as much as you have done it unto the least of one of these, pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you along other rather emphatic Scriptures speaking against its use strongly suggests it should be the least desirable choice – one of last (not first) resort. Our trust should be in the Lord. He is our rock and our salvation, not the sword.

Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain:
ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. James 4:2

Return to the page directory

Me and My Bible
Return to the page directory

And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon,
having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Revelation 12:3.
Believe it or not!

Return to the page directory
 

COMPASSIONATE GIVING
 

Return to the page directory
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.Matthew 5:7

In the Fall of the year, Corporate Christianity makes its big appeal for money. That’s necessary because, unlike the government, the church can’t mint its own money or levy taxes although some have tried both. Yet the demand for goods and services are just as much as those confronting government. Furthermore, the "something-for-nothing" mentality citizens display toward government, the "free-ride syndrome" is just as pervasive without the power or the authority to demand payment for services rendered.

Faced with the demand for spacious, luxurious "worship" accommodations and a plethora of tailor-made services custom-designed to fit our highly individualistic life-style niches, churches are really backed into a corner. What choices have they than to resort to those same marketing strategies that have served American businesses for generations? Corporate Christianity resorts to a bountiful supply of "ready-made," if somewhat dubious "Scriptural" appeals.

Modern "CEO-pastors" are well versed in such appeals – probably from their graduate-school/seminary training days. Glibly, without so much as a batting of the eye, with a straight faces the will pronounce from the pulpit, "You can’t out spend God!" And all God’s people say "WoW" as they dig into their purses and apply pen to checkbooks. Stock Scriptural passages are trotted out to justify the contention that we have a moral obligation to give 10% of our income to the place where we worship as an undesignated gift that is our "tithe." No "stewardship campaign would be complete without the command found in Malichi 3:10, Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse and the promise found there as well, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. That is a "WoW!" The modern CE)-pastor will quip, "Maybe you can’t take it with you but you can send it ahead!" The presumed foundation for such a trite utterance we are led to believe is contained in Mark 6:20 that speaks of "treasures in heaven" and 1 Timothy 6:18-19 (LB) that speaks of storing up "real" treasures in heaven – "safe investing for eternity." To finish the ensemble of stock fundraising we are encouraged to do all of this willingly, thankfully joyfully (2 Corinthians 9:7).

In church, when we talk about "giving" we are talking about money. Money that is given to the church that will pay dividends and that is essentially the same as taking out guaranteed stock certificates for a bigger, better, more successful eternity – that will pay dividends. Aside from the crass, self-centered, materialistic nature of such appeals are they really Scriptural?

Is this what we know as Jesus? We were recently blessed with Mel Gibson’s movie "The Passion of the Christ." Isn’t that more of Him than presuming to put such words as investment, returns, treasures into His vocabulary? When we think of Him, and after all who is our teacher – our High Priest forever, do we think of a calculating investment banker? Do we see him as calculating return versus effort – cost analysis? When He said, "what ever you do to the least of these, you do to me," was He implying a payoff for doing the right thing or is He appealing to the compassion His disciples prayerfully had for Him? Which is most consistent with His character – calculating or forgiving?

Are we so lost, so hopeless today that we don’t know compassion? Can we not help another person in need out of a genuine loving concern for him? Compassion is tenderness, kindness, mercy empathy and consolation. Can’t our giving reflect these spiritual qualities? What giving to slave a soul in distress as a balm of Gilead? Isn’t this Jesus? In Jeremiah 8:22 we read this woeful plea, Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered A "balm" heals wounds, isn’t it Christ-like to heal the wounds of others? Are not we as His disciples to "bind up the wounds of those who are hurting? Prayerfully, what more should we expect to receive in return for our generosity than what has already been freely given us?

Jesus talks about compassion. He says us, Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? (Matthew 18:33). The story He relates to us of the "Good Samaritan tells us the Samaritan acted out of compassion not some calculation on a return of his investment of time and money, But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him (Luke 10:33) as was the case with the Prodigal Son. How is it we presume to think we can improve on the lesson?

Return to the page directory

CHARISMATA
(Are God’s Gifts for Sale?)
Return to the page directory
 

In addition to those listed in Ephesians, speaking in tongues, discernment, casting out devils and healing along with wisdom, knowledge and miracles are other "Gifts of the Spirit" in the writings of Paul. How many there are is not clear. The lists given by Paul at different times vary. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, as well as other sources, does not consider any these to be exhaustive. It is agreed that they are "extraordinary gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon Christians to equip them for the service of the church." The question is should we be able to sell them? Not the gifts themselves, that probably wouldn’t be possible. Undoubtedly, there is a "non-transferable" clause attached to them somewhere. But should we be able to profit from the ability/talent they afford us? For example, should a person with the gift of healing be able to charge for healing much like a doctor or a prophet for his forecasts?

Well-intended people talk about athletic prowess or the ability to make money as "gifts" as though these were Spiritual Gifts. Actually, Baker’s says that, "No text enables us to determine the relation of spiritual gifts to ‘natural’ talents or abilities." Athletes profit from their abilities, entrepreneurs from theirs, gifted writers from their talents. In crude fashion, if one is a prophet, called of God, shouldn’t he also profit from his prophecies? Sometimes the lines become blurred. What about a "Christian" composers singers or actors? Case in point, should Mel Gibson have profited from The Passion of the Christ? Gibson said, "I had to make this movie, I couldn’t not make it." "This is God’s movie," he said after a screening at Focus on the Family in August. "The Holy Ghost was running the show. I was just directing traffic." (Ref)

What about pastors and ministers, shouldn’t they be able to "make a living" from their "gifts?" There are two Greek words for "ministry." The firs, Diakonia is translated, "those, who by the command of God, proclaim and promote religion among men." It is used 32 times such as, And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry (1 Timothy 1:12). The second is Leitourgia "a service or ministry of the priests relative to the prayers and sacrifices offered to God." It is used 6 times in such passages as, Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me (Philippians 2:30).

Paul who wrote most about Gifts, wrote, gifts were For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Ephesians 4:12) not wages or salaries. And Peter wrote Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall (2 Peter 1:10). "Calling" is the Greek word "Klesis" which means an invitation or a "vocation" not a techne, an "occupation" (a business, trade or craft - Acts 17:29, 18:3) Matthew 9:9 is also a good illustration of the difference – he was called from "collectorship" to "discipleship."  Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (as well as other resources) makes it clear that Spiritual Gifts are, "distinctive, divinely originated endowments to serve the Triune God for the common benefit of his people, the church." By the way, Paul supported himself in his ministry by being a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). To Titus he wrote, And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful (Titus 3:14). While most Bible scholars believe the substance of the verse is encouragement to stay in the Word, many also believe Paul was referring to a Jewish tradition of requiring their children, however well educated, to learn a trade as well. "The Jews say, that he that does not teach his son a trade, it is all one as if he taught him to rob or steal; hence their doctors were brought up to trades." (ref).

Of course one called to use his/her gifts in ministry to the saints and to the world must also provide for themselves. Scripture, however, does not seem to support the practice of doing so with one’s gifts. Paul didn’t, he supported himself making tents. When Jesus sent His twelve disciples out, He said Take nothing for your journey, (Matthew 10:9-10, Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3). Instead, they were to live off the good will and charity of the saints (Luke 10:7). They were to "Live by the Gospel," not make gain of it. (ref). Nowhere is there reference of fees for services rendered by the song, the sermon, the healing or the miracle. Nowhere does Jesus stipulate the hourly rate, the weekly wage or the yearly salary. He said nothing about travel expenses. He did speak of their host’s good will (ref). Where is faith? And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Luke 22:35

Return to the page directoryy
 

THE PRINCE OF PEACE?
Return to the page directory

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
 

The prophet Isaiah described the yet to come Messiah as The Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) but what is recorded in the Book of Matthew seems to suggest the Prophet was a bit misguided. The passage from Isaiah is the one so often quoted by Christian around the Christmas season. In part it says, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Understandably, it gave Israel the impressions that He would personally destroy all those who opposed them and immediately establish His Kingdom. Many Bible scholars then look upon what Jesus says as correcting that assumption. The peace He brings is an offering reconciliation between God the Father and sinful humanity – that is the Gospel message. Prayerfully, it would produce peaceful relations within the church and give repentant sinners rest. However, the result of His coming would produce anything but peace in the world. Before there is world peace the forces of evil must be destroyed – that’s the sword. Having said that, we surely are aware that the only sword He wields is Truth. Even Paul in using the likeness of a Roman soldier to describe the "armor" available for Christians (Ephesians 6:10-17) does not refer to any sort of "carnal" sword – not to the weapons of human warfare. It’s the (1) belt of truth, the (2) breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the (3) gospel of peace, the (4) shield of faith, and the (5)helmet of salvation and the (6) sword of the Spirit. It is not WMDs, RPGs, AK47s, Hummers, Apache helicopters or Abrams tanks.

In response to recent terrorism and contemporary incidents of genocide and world domination as the policies of some countries/dictators, it is tempting to want to speak of "just wars" or a "preventative war." Nazi Germany, the USSR, al-Qa'ida, as well as the ruminations coming from China and North Korea make these adjective changes to war tempting indeed. The Roman Catholic Church contends, "Now the State has corporate rights of its own which are perfect; it has also the duty to defend its citizens' rights." The source of these rights, it asserts, "stems from natural and international law which confer upon states, versus individuals, the "moral" powers or rights which are the necessary means to the essential purpose set by the natural law for the individual and the State to accomplish" (ref). So much for the state.

Islam preaches, encourages, "jihad" (religious war), war for "just" purposes with promises of heavenly bliss. Jesus the Christ does not. This is one of the many emphatic differences between Islam and Christianity. No where in Scriptures will we find permission to fight granted to those who are being persecuted. To the contrary, we are counseled, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matthew 5:44). Mohammed writes, "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;" [22.39].

Without becoming like them, how can we justify, our participation in war? Surely the Crusades presumably intended "to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny," weren’t "immoral" were they? What about Christian participation in our own Revolution, World War I and II? If we accept the Roman Catholic stance on war, we can rationalize our participation as citizens obeying the authority of the state. To do otherwise, to resist inscription might, according to Paul, rightly be considered seditious. Paul counsels in Romans 12:18, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Perhaps, therein, lies the answer. That would seem to suggest that we are to "seek after peace, pursue it, and cultivate it" (ref) rather than war. But we are plagued by Jesus’ command to forgive seventy times seven (Mattthew 18:22) an inexhaustible number of times. Then, there is that most disturbing passage from Matthew 5, Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (38-39). When do we go to war then? Has He set for us an absurd, a ridiculously impossible task? Now, what if it was that the focus of our lives was serving our Master indeed. What if we were, indeed, a "Christian Nation" using Christian ethics in our dealings with our own citizens and with other nations? Might not this influence how often and for what reasons we might go to war? Or is this, too, the foolishness of an impossible dream not to be taken so seriously? Surely the more we digress, the less we are His disciples.

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

Return to the page directory

WHAT’S IN YOUR SERMON?

Prince of This World
(And the temptations he offers)
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31
Return to the page directory

Is there any Christian who doubts the so-called "prince of this world" Jesus refers to in John 12:31 is Satan? If there is, then believe this, in John 16 He, Jesus, talks about the coming of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. He tells His disciples, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (v. 8). In verse 9 He explains why of sin, in 10 why of righteousness and in verse 11 He says, Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. And so Satan is called in John 14:30, 16:11. Paul writes about the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4) referring to Satan. Satan is the "prince of this world," the "god of this world." He is referred to as the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) and those who fulfill the desires of the flesh and of the mind the children of disobedience are under his influence in opposition to the will of the Spirit. Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness with food, the kingdoms of the world. Satan promised to give Jesus all things if He would just worship him. To which Jesus replied, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Matthew 4:10). He also said, we can’t serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).

Then what are we to believe about those who are telling us to seek after and to put our faith in things of this world? Doesn’t Jesus warn us about its cares and deceitfulness (Mark 4:19)? Doesn’t Jesus tell us not to covet the things of this earth because they are temporary (Matthew 6:19)? Doesn’t He warn us that where our treasure is there is our hearts will be (Matthew 6:21)? This is Jesus talking. Then who has the authority to countermand Him? Yet, one Rev. Dr. proclaims, "Jesus must heal and prosper us Christians today." (ref) Really? What does he mean, "Jesus must?" Is this "gentleman of the cloth" saying that our Jesus has no choice in the matter? What ever happened to let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me (Matthew 16:24)? Have we new revelations superior to His? Where is the Scriptural foundation for such a claim?

Another preacher claims, "Lack, sickness, poverty and bondage to demonic oppression have no place in the life of a Christian." (ref) Luke 10:19 is used as Scriptural "proof," yet it speaks our triumph over Satan because Jesus is the ultimate victor. It is a promise of victory over the power of sin, not a promise of health and wealth. Some have labeled this type of preaching the "Word-Faith Movement." It believes that through faith, we can obtain anything we want especially health, wealth and success. All we have to do is speak them to claim them. It’s a simple matter of "believing and receiving. All we need to do is claim 1:Peter 2:24 to be healed of our physical illness never mind that the "disease" Peter is writing about in by whose stripes ye were healed is sin. This same "Prophet of God" invokes Philippians 4:19 as a Scriptural guarantee that if we will "claim it" God will take care of our needs to be compared with the heavenly "streets of gold, gates of pearl, walls of jasper, and many mansions." Never mind that the passage speaks to being "rich" and "full" in God’s grace through Jesus. It is talking about our spiritual wants and needs not material ones – His riches in glory, His abundant eternal life. What more could we want or need? Straight from the mouth of Jesus we are taught, Ye cannot serve God and mammon (Luke 16:13). Then why would we seek "mammon" unless we choose to take the word of a "prophet" over His? Otherwise, are we believe God is the author of confusion with Jesus telling us one thing and this contemporary "prophet" another?

In contrast is this statement, "to the extent that God's people collectively obey his commands, which include caring for the poor, then individual needs will be met" (ref). This author indicates that Jesus taught materialism is a major antagonist for our loyalty and that it is deceitful and distracting. We could almost use 2 Corinthians 4:4 as a description of what is taking place today. The passage says that the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not. Need we wonder who the "god of this world" is and with what he deceives? Part of that deception is in the use of "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" who may even think they are preaching His Word. Paul identified these types in a letter to the Corinthian saints. He said they only served themselves and that they were in it for the money and interpreted the Scriptures and handled the Word falsely to that end. Possibly we could discern the "false apostles" and the "deceitful workers in our midst by what they are doing. Are they self-serving? Are they preaching materialism, success and power to justify their coveting such? Surely such would not come from above.

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. James 3:15

Return to the page directory

What’s a Priesthood, What’s a Priest?
Return to the page directory

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people 1 Peter 2:9a

In the KJV of the New Testament, "priesthood" is used 8 times meaning the office of a priest, the priestly office, or the order or body of priests. Although Protestant denominations have a priesthood, none really define the term. We can get clues about the "priesthood" by finding out what a priest is. Once more Protestants seem to assume everyone knows what they are talking about and don’t bother telling us about that either. Further, every reference to "priest" in the New Testament refers to the Temple priests. Only in Hebrews is the reference other and therein it refers to Jesus the Christ. (ref) Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, tells us a priest is "a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice." They believe that he is "the religious mediator between God (gods) and man." Finally, he is "the appointed teacher of religious truths." (ref)

At least we have some clues from our Catholic friends. According to their traditions, a priest is one who (1) is called to the service of God, (2) is authorized to hold public worship (3) is authorized to offer sacrifices, (4) is a mediator between God and man, (5) is to teach religious truths. We’re left with almost as many questions as when we started especially with such a dearth of Scripture on the subject. What does it mean to be "called to the immediate service of the Deity?" Called by whom, for what service? If we shift our search away from "priest" to "minister" or "pastor," we get more information. We learn from The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, that "no man is permitted to preach in the pulpits of the Presbyterian Church in America on a regular basis without proper licensure from the Presbytery" (19-1) that so as to "preserve the purity of the preaching of the Gospel." The United Methodist Church declares a "pastor is, "The ordained or licensed person who has been appointed by the bishop to be in charge of a local church or churches." It seems being "called" may not be the same as being "authorized."

The Roman Church tells us its priesthood is authorized to "offer sacrifices." What might they be considering that He was the ultimate sacrifice? We know in the Roman church, "the Mass [is] to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice." Where does that leave Protestantism? What "sacrifices" have we that only the "ordained" may offer? Next is the matter of being an intercessor between "ordinary" Christians and God. Hebrews 7:25 speaks of intercession, but that assignment seems to belong to Jesus. Romans 8:26 indicates that the Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for us. Where is it written that priest/pastor/minister, a man by whatever title, can/must/ought intercede for us other than through prayer through the Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus the Christ which is the right/duty/obligation of every Christian?

That leaves us with the last descriptive duty of "priest/pastor/minister," teaching religious "truths." Most denominations argue such priestly teaching is necessary to avoid heresy. Only those so educated in the "orthodox" word are entitled to instruct other Christians. That hasn’t worked. Heresy abounds. The plethora of such diverse "truth," and the massive schism between Protestantism and the Catholicisms is ample evidence that the best-educated minds are subject to deceit and error. No denominational position is without challenge. In contrast, Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would be their teacher (John 14:26). Perhaps we should follow that instructional model for a change.

It appears we retain the Old Testament’s priestly class without any of its substance. The Protestant priesthood can’t even rely on confession or transubstantiation clamed in the Catholic Eucharist to justify their existence. They certainly can’t claim an unbroken chain of Petrine authority. Other than promoting their denominationally derived truths, what legitimate purpose does the priesthood serve? Other than restricting the work of the Kingdom into the hands of a few, what has it accomplished? Sainthood in the Scriptures speaks of a relationship with God – being set apart – not of any implied individual moral achievement. Yet the practices of the Church have so corrupted the concept as to render it useless. From this same institution that presumes to call its clergy "father" we blithely adopt their paradigm for priestly distinctness and privilege. We the "saints" of Christ are commissioned to carry out the ministry of proclaiming Him to the world not a "boxed around" clerical class

ye should shew forth the praises of him
who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:1 Peter 2:9b
 

Return to the page directory

The Proof of the Pudding

The old proverb says, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Since we aren’t a generation much into puddings, we might better understand the proverb’s meaning if it were stated more conventionally as "seeing is believing" or "actions speak louder than words." Rather than taking something, some assertion or belief at face value, before we judge the matter, we should test it. So now here we have James, brother to Jesus the Christ telling us that where there is envy and strife and confusion there is evil. James continues, But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy (v. 17). Surely we must agree.

According to David B. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia, there are over 223 "denominations" in Roman Catholicism and 8,196 Protestant denominations. Confusion. But, things might not be that confusing since Barrett uses a very rigid definition of "denomination." Others list only several hundred Protestant Denominations (click here to see an abbreviated list or another here). Interesting, failing to notice the many schisms within its own ranks, the Church places responsibility for these "unhappy divisions" upon the absence of "his accredited ambassadors" in Protestantism. "They," the divisions, "are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine Authority" (ref.). Of course, their Divine Authority are those "within the altar" since they are "clean" while "he who is without is not clean" (ref). One of the great tragedies of Roman Catholicism and its implications for all of Christianity is the lack of "clean-ness" within the altar of the Roman Church that has existed on a scandalous scale for hundreds of centuries – more "proof of the pudding." Who could disagree these are "unhappy divisions?"

Some divisions are relatively inconsequential, a spat instead of a brawl. The differences between the Reformed Church of America and the Christian Reformed Church would be a "spat." Members of one denomination are free to attend another’s church serves and join the other with a minimum of "discomfort." Disagreements becomes open war when words such as "cult," "sect" and "heretic" are used. The Roman Church for example considers all Protestants heretics (ref). "As all non-Catholic denominations reject some truth or truths taught by Christ, or repudiate the authority instituted by him in his Church, they have in some essential point sacrificed his doctrine to human learning or his authority to self-constituted leadership" (ref).

The Church would have us believe that "confusion" within Christianity is nothing to be alarmed over nor is it responsible. Instead Protestants are, "Their professed object being to secure uniformity, the experience of three hundred years has proved to us what may not have been foreseen by their originators, that they have had a diametrically opposite result, and have been productive not of union but of variance" (ref). Actually, they contend, the "most serious schisms" serve to demonstrate the indivisibility of the papacy and the Church (ref). "Heresy," they contend, "like other evils, is permitted as a test of faith and a trial of strength in the Church militant" (Role of Heresy in History). Had the Church steered a steady course over the two thousand or so years of its history, one might be persuaded. Had it not been divided and riddled with controversy, its argument might be more forceful. Such is the case.

Unless we are willing to concede that God has authored confusion as a crucible in which to test institutional-corporate religion of Christianity (the church), we must conclude the church has failed. It leaves a sour taste in one’s mouth. In its proclamation of the necessity of "doctrines," "creeds" and "confessions" it have failed to produce any that are even remotely universally acceptable within the community of Christianity. What are we to believe Paul meant by, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints (1Corinthians 14:33)? Are we to believe this does not apply to the church? Or is it possible the church is not a believably acceptable part of Christianity? Is it possible to believe Paul’s admonition applies only to one prophecy being given at a time and not to it’s the content? How can we have priesthood and a priesthood of all believers? How can we "affirm the priesthood of all believers" on the one hand, speak of "laypersons" on the other and outline the "unique leadership role of the pastor on the other?" Somewhere in the midst of all this contentiousness the Gospel Message is missing. Is the reason its inherent complexity or is it made to seem that way to advance one’s position of superiority and greater wisdom?

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:
be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16
Return to the page directory

Who Flies Under a False Flag?
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous Matthew 23:29

Return to the page directory

It doesn’t take too many Hollywood productions before we know the answer is pirates. And that their method is deception. They have something to hide – their real identity, their real intent. Yet, the congregations of Christianity seem to be oblivious to the "pirates" in their midst. Maybe their gullibility stems from such a long tradition of "pirates" they don’t know the differene. Maybe it stems from the naïve belief that all pure where they to worship. Pirates thrived on the naiveté of merchantmen, whalers and others who didn’t know the "rules of the road." Unsuspecting, they were easy prey for those intending to deceive for their own gain. "Christian pirates" find easy prey among such unsuspecting stealing their inheritance.

These pirates "sail up" to us under the flag of authority of "Doctor, "Reverend" (even more, Reverend Doctor), "Priest," "Bishop," "Father" or even "Vicar of Christ." Sometimes the subtly is admirable, just using the tender title of "pastor." As a matter of fact, many "Reverend Doctors will tell us to, "Just call me pastor." Then there are those who fly the flag of "Minister. "So paternalistic, comforting, even awe inspiring are these usurpers of our authority we may not be aware of being robbed of our birthright. Yet those who in "humility" to be called "pastor" are assuming an awesome mantle.

We must recognize the legitimacy of the "pastoral gift" (Ephesians 4:11). Just as nations strove to make oceans safe for seafarers, the pastoral admonition of Jesus to feed my lambs (John 21:15) and feed my sheep (v. 17) is of that nature as is "minister" found in Acts 26:16. The title "bishop" and "elder" are so intertwined, they are difficult to separate. Smith’s Bible Dictionary states, "bishop and elder, or presbyter, were essentially equivalent." With the exception of Jesus’ referring to the "priests" of the temple, it is used is to refer to Jesus the Christ. Any human being assuming that title is a pirate of the first order. "Father" is used in Scriptures to refer to the Lord God Almighty and there is no foundation for the use of "vicar" in any translation of any Bible – Old or New Testament. These last two giving us some Scriptural warning s that there may be a pirate’s sail down on the horizon. Who should be so bold as to assume for himself the title of God? Doctor? OK, but it isn’t found in the Scriptures other than in the medical sense except in the instance of Luke 2:46 KJV. How appropriate that Luke the physician should reference "doctors" as teachers.

Actually, it isn’t the title that makes one a pirate of our souls, it is the intent of the user of that title. Why would anyone want to be called "pastor," "bishop," "minister," "father" or any other such title if only because, not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1). If this isn’t sufficient warning, Jesus says, But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matthew 23:8). And as if to doubly emphasize the point, a few sentences later He once again admonishes, Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ (Matthew 23:10). In between, He tells us not to call anyone "father" either (v. 9). The lesson seems transparently simple; doing so is unmitigated, self-serving arrogance to start with. Why? John Wesley gives two excellent reasons: "1. To believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason; 2 To obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority." "They" (our bishops, pastors, fathers, ministers, Our D.D’s ) become the ultimate authority instead of Jesus the Christ, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Yet, one "authority" states, "To construe these injunctions into a condemnation of every title by which Church rulers may be distinguished from the flock which they rule." If so, should that abrogate Jesus’ words?

Read what Jesus said to the "pirates" during His earthly ministry – they were called "scribes" and "Pharisees," Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves (Matthew 23:15). Jesus is scolding/condemning these pretenders of the "Gospel" for converting people by using false doctrines. In the Hollywood version, a pirate ship sails up to the merchantman flying the flag of a "British Man-O-War." Thinking they are protected, the people let their guard down and drown. In the Christian religion, the story is much the same with something of a similar ending.

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Return to the page directory

Is the BOOK Open?
when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,
ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, 1 Thessalonians 2: 13b
Return to the page directory

The question is are all Christians capable of reading and comprehend the Bible or is this ability reserved for the few? What could be more fundamental to our faith and our Spiritual growth than answering this question? The Catholic Church believes only the "popes and councils are the only legitimate and infallible interpreters of the Bible" (ref). Do the Protestant denominations have similar beliefs? So often we see the gifts of "pastor" and "teacher" combined and that "office" held only by those licensed and certified by the denomination. Do such customs reflect a similar opinion that only those with their theological degrees are qualified to pastor and teach?

Is diligent study essentially a waste of time? Might it not lead to misinterpretations and dangerous heresies? In the verse quoted from 1 Thessalonians, Paul is telling the saints that the message he was preaching was God’s truth. Should we not, as this picture from Paul seems to suggest, sit at our pastor/teacher’s feet and assimilate his teachings without question? How were the Thessalonians to know that Paul was, in fact, "preaching" the truth? How do Catholics know that the popes and councils are telling them the truth? Was the only proof the preacher – Paul? These Christians of the First Century were in difficult straits because they could not turn to the Bible and compare what was written with what Paul was saying because it was a Bible without a New Testament. But, are we really any better off today?

The Apostles could claim direct and personal contact with Jesus as their source of authority. They literally studied at His feet. Though Paul had an encounter, it was not comparable with theirs. Was his teachings to be trusted and on a par with those who were with Him everyday for three years? Yet, even with them, there was that most amazing, revealing question at His ascension, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6b) Remember that Peter, of all people, denied he even knew Jesus? Remember, not long before His crucifixion, the Disciples argued about which of them was the greatest? (Luke 22:24) Recall the mother of Zebedee's children (Matthew 20:20) asking Jesus that her sons would sit the left and right of His throne? They were James and John. This took place just before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. They didn’t have a clue what He was about - not then. How is it we put such confidence in their writings? How convenient it is that we forget these Apostles + Paul were men subject to those same frailties afflicting all of us. We put them up on pedestals to be worshipped – St. Peter, St. Paul. They were just men. UNTIL! Unless we remember and focus upon the "until" we are idolaters worshiping men.

The Catholic Church accuses we Protestants of something called "Bibliolatry" - excessive reverence for the letter of the Bible which is nothing more than a "case, husk, or shell of the spirit." But how do we realize that truth? Surely, the Church is not an answer. Its only claim to infallibility is Apostolic Succession. The history of the papacy and their creeds and doctrines bring them into serious question – not the least of which was the practice of indulgences Luther found so offensive. The creeds and doctrines of Protestant denominations are perhaps of even less value since they can claim no such succession. None has brought us unity. None of this has provided us certainty of doctrine in even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. Cloistered monks, creeds, doctrines and confessions have only calcified Christianity into a religion.

We appear to have missed a vital point. The writers of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, were people just as the Bible itself is words – they are carnal. The "church" was not founded upon Peter nor is the Bible the source of Truth any more than the Urim and Thummim (ref) was the source of divine revelation for Aaron – they were rocks. We must agree with our Catholic friends that, Revealed Truth, and, consequently, the Faith we derive from it are not founded on a priesthood or the Bible, but on Christ himself; it is from Him and through Him that the written text acquires definitely all its worth. The "until" that changed dolts into saints was the Holy Spirit! The "until" that changes sterile words on cold paper is the same – the Holy Spirit. He inspired them. He inspired the writing of every word on every page of the Bible. The question is not whether the Bible is to be open and available to us all. The question is whether or not we are open to Him. Are we willing, do we desire that He comes into our hearts and directs our ways. Without Him, the pages remain stone cold and the saints are no more than relics. We forget the very words of John the Baptist:

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mark 1:8
Return to the page directory

Then and Now
not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2 Corinthians 3:3c

Return to the page directoryWe know there was the Old Covenant and now the New. We also know that the Old Covenant (Testament) was a covenant of works while the New is of grace. But how often do we remember that under the Old Covenant God struggled with a nation – the Nation of Israel; the Chosen People? All God’s ministrations were to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Exiting Egypt in the wilderness and into the Promised Land; His struggle with them to do His will there; the era of the Kings of Israel; civil war that divided the kingdom and ultimately resulted in its total conquest. This was God struggling with a people, with a nation. It was God working through signs and wonders (ref) with the Chosen People, a Holy Nation.

Today, God is still struggling but with individuals, not nations. The United States is not the 21^st Century version of the Holy Land. And, although in terms of its corruption and immorality one might think so, Washington D.C. is not Jerusalem. From the perspective of the United States, our commission is to save each citizen rather than save the Nation. Doing one, of course, does the other. To turn a phrase from Billy Graham, the New Testament is that "Everyone Jesus calls, He calls individually."

Worship under the Old Covenant was emphatically Temple centered. A point we so often forget – and just one Temple at that. It was Solomon who constructed that Temple. The festivals, sacrifices, offerings and oblations, the priesthood (high priests, chief priest, regular priests) – all the ceremonies and rituals involved "Solomon’s Temple." There weren’t any synagogues until after the dispersion (see ref). There certainly weren’t any "churches." Israel had access to God through His presence first in the tabernacle in the wilderness and then in the Temple of Jerusalem. And that access was by the Ark of the Covenant which was the only piece of furniture in the Holy of Holies, the Ten Commandments were within. After Nebuchadnezzar's armies destroyed Jerusalem and burned "The Temple" to the ground in 586 BC (2 Kings 25:9) the Ark turned up missing – never to be seen or heard of again. They managed to lose the symbol of God’s presence among them. In Zerubbabel’s "Second Temple" (ref) and the temple built by Herod the Great; King of Judah (by Roman decree) was just as hollow as magnificent, the Holy of Holies had no furniture at all. The Holy of Holies, home of the Ark, was as empty as their sacrifices and rituals (ref).

What Paul points to in the passage from his second letter to the Corinthians (Acts 3:3) is that Christian worship is no longer confined to a temple – a building. Paul gives us three ways our covenant is New (1) we of the Messiah clearly, you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us (3:3a). (2) our covenant is not written in ink on paper but, by the Spirit of the living God (3:3b). (3) it is a new covenant written on the hearts of each of us, on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart (3:3c) God is no longer struggling with a nation, or the signs and wonders (ref) as then. Jesus intent was not Israel as his disciple requested (Acts 1:6). Notice how He responded to that request. First, we are promised we will be given strength and ability. Second, that we are to use that power to witness of Him (Acts 1:8). In verse 9, He left and ascended into heaven.

Unless we want to contend that all are saved whom God intends, we must concede a mechanism is in place for that work to continue. Who was assembled that Scriptures refers to as "ye," Peter? Was Peter singled out? Did Jesus say, to him "you will receive the power of the Holy Ghost?" Peter was included along with the rest of the "apostles." Were these eleven alone to evangelize the world? That would have excluded Paul, invalidating all of his works and letters. Paul, if he is to be considered, wrote about the "office." Which of these is the mechanism – Peter, the Apostles (including Paul) or a priestly office?

Actually the word "office" translated from Greek as "work" has several meanings. In his letter to the Romans, Paul is not telling them about "offices" and "officers" as we think of them but about work. We don’t all have the same work to do in furthering the Kingdom. To encapsulate that work into an office is to return to "then" – the old convenient where there were a few leaders (e.g. Moses, Joshua, etc.) and many followers. To bring Paul’s message into the New Covenant requires each Christian to know that he is a leader, an officer in the "purpose driven church of His eternal plan." If the New Covenant rules applied at Sinai, there would have been no one down in the valley to build a golden icon because they would have been up on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments. Our officer is Jesus - that’s the New Testament.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Hebrews 9:11
Return to the page directory

To Die: To Sleep
O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory? 1 Corinthians 15:55
Return to the page directoryThe title is taken from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The quotation is, "To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to." There is a lot to consider in his statement for Christians. It isn’t that we should seek death, certainly not to end one’s own life. Nor are we to fear it any more than seek it out. But, the victory of which we speak so proudly, is it not over death – eternal? Do we not agree that, "When we have shuffled off this mortal coil," we are in the arms of Jesus? Isn’t the victory over "heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks" what we are heirs to? In his second letter to the saints at Corinth, Paul wrote, For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2 Corinthians 5:1) Does it follow that an obsession with living is and indication of a lack of faith?

Mary Magdalene went to the grave of Jesus with spices and ointment to properly anoint and embalm His body for proper entombment. In that journey, she must have thought all was lost. She fully expected His body to be in that tomb. The rest of His followers acted that way. They scattered to the four winds. Death had triumphed – so they thought. All was lost. Yet, it was that journey of mercy that made those women unwitting witnesses to His Resurrection. What does that represent if not victory over death? Are we immune from death? Peter didn’t think so. He wrote, Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me (2 Peter 1:14). As he observed, Jesus wasn’t. Even though He was more than capable of setting it aside and He knew what lay beyond the grave, He died. Was the agony of Gethsemane anything less than a dread of the suffering and death He knew was at hand?

Isn’t baptism a symbolic reenactment of His death and, only after, of His rebirth? Are we to escape the "shuffling off of this mortal coil?" Is the guarantee of His rising from the dead that we will not die or is it victory over death and, beyond the grave, eternal life with Him? The author of the Book of Hebrews writes that we are slaves to our fear of death but that Jesus frees believers from that fear (Hebrews 2:15). Notice, its the fear of death, not of death. In contrast, Paul writes, But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. (1 Timothy 2:6)

Now, when we pray to prolong the life of a loved one, is our prayer for that person or ourselves? Someone once noted that we are in clay vessels to show the power of God. For surely, in such a weakened state of the flesh (even for the most stout and fit of us) we are incapable of any good works without His direction, authority and strength. How often have we heard in funeral services something of a misquote from Job, "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord." To which we all say "Amen." Do we mean it or is that just a mechanical, perhaps somewhat hypocritical utterance on everyone’s part? It does recognize that everything, including life itself, belongs to God which He dispenses at His pleasure and for His purposes. Then should not our prayers reflect His designs for that life rather than for us to avoid the grief of a loved one’s passing? In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done (Matthew 26:42). Should we do less?

If we pray for our dying loved one to live, is it because we sense God’s timing is faulty? Unless we wish to reject the writings of Job, this would seem unlikely because he clearly states that God determines our days: Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; (Job 14:5). Perhaps we pray to prolong life thinking we know that loved one has more to do for the Kingdom. If that knowledge is certain, amen. But, to pray to sustain that life out of our sorrow seems extraordinarily selfish. Are we not depriving our loved one of the joys of eternal life? We are taught that while we are in this mortal body, we are absent from the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6). Conversely, we know when we are absent from this body, we are at last in His glorious presence (2 Corinthians 5:8). If we believe, then for that suffering loved one existing in agony or barely existing at all, don’t our prayers to prolong their existence depriving them of boundless joy? In our suffering, instead of praying for God to preserve the life of the one we love, shouldn’t we pray for Him to help us with our grief?

For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 2 Corinthians 5:4
Return to the page directory

Chancellor of the Exchequer
Abraham gave him a tenth of everything; first, his name means "king of righteousness,
" then also, "king of Salem," meaning "king of peace"; Hebrews 7:2

Return to the page directory

Great Britain’s the senior financial officer is called the "Chancellor of the Exchequer." His responsibilities involve setting monetary and fiscal policy. He is also responsible for raising revenues and for controlling overall spending. In the United States the title would be Secretary of the Treasury.

It is not well understood that one of the most influential angels is the archangel Dikastes. Little is known of him because little is written about him and that is because he directly advises the Heavenly Father on such matters rather than consorting with us. Our best source of information is his work on what we refer to as "fiduciary superintendence" or, more commonly, "stewardship." In that capacity, he was the principle architect of the tithing laws that governed the Israeli Nation during its short history. We are told that he suggested the law as laid out in the Old Testament. He is credited with suggesting the "tithe" be 10% (Numbers 18:26). More obscure is that he may be involved in what we would call "cost accounting." Some sources credit him with proposing the policy statement cited by Jesus, For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more (Luke 12:48). Somebody is keeping track of how well we are spreading the word. Wouldn’t God, in his stewardship concerns, be interested in how effectively we are using His resources?

Think of the overhead operating costs of a mega church. All of those resources used to build and maintain enormous facilities capable of accommodating thousands of people on a Sunday. At the flip of a switch a preacher’s words can be televised around the world – at least to those places and those homes where it can be received. But Television airtime is unbelievable expensive. So are those huge buildings.

Is that really the best way to spread the word? In both cases, the mass gatherings and TV evangelism, isn’t there something impersonal about them? We preach relational theology over the airwaves to people sitting at home, often alone, in their living rooms and to hordes of people gathered in massive arenas. Does that make any sense? Aren’t we told not to forsake our assemblies? (Hebrews 10:25) In a horde of 5, 10, 15,000 are we expecting to fellowship with one another, break bread together, pray for one another? (Acts 2:42) How can we Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep (Romans12:15) when we don’t even know the people we’re sitting beside? Is something vital lost when the assembly is too large to share communion? Is it possible that we might inadvertently begin focusing on the preacher instead of the preaching? How hard is it to maintain humility under the blaze of television lights or while looking into thousands of admiring, adoring faces every Sunday? Wherever we go, we stand out, we are recognized and admired, given special treatment, treated as a celebrity? What draws us to TV and the mega church? Is it remotely possible it is the magnetism of fame and greatness? Are we worshiping God or the super-star preacher; success, greatness or the humility of Christ? Are God’s resources wisely spent if such is the case?

Proponents claim they are able to reach more people than ever before and in the most inaccessible places. But wherever there are people, there are people who know people. Humanity is seamlessly joined together. It is interesting that a "TV preacher" coined the little ditty, "one to one for one" giving tacit recognition that neighbor to neighbor is more effective in worship and evangelism than any other tactic including a television audience reported in the millions around the world. This, opposed to you or me talking to family members, friends, coworkers without needing a translator, the fear of committing a cultural faux pas, no airline tickets to purchase, no hotel rooms to reserve, just one to one for one in our very own neighborhood. What is more, we can do that every day of every year of our lives.

And all that money we would have used on television equipment and time; all that money we might have spent on buildings and grounds, staff and advertising; all that can go to feed the poor, help the sick and house the homeless. Here we are, hundreds of years into "foreign missions," a half a century into "mass media Christianity." Is there an appreciable change for the good in how the human race is conducting itself? After all, what is stewardship if it isn’t using His resources in the best way possible to further His Kingdom?

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27
Return to the page directory

Unity

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that your be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10

Return to the page directory

The Last Supper, the Lord’s Supper, Communion, the Eucharist, Blessed Sacrament, Christianity has given many names to this most sacred of what we call sacraments today. But maybe the most significant is what it actually stands for – unity. Unity with the Lord God Almighty, Unity with our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ and, just as importantly, unity with one another. In some respects the latter of these is the most important because it would be difficult to have unity with God and with Jesus without unanimity with our brothers and sisters in Christ. And, perhaps, that is the first tragedy; we don’t have that unity. All too frequently, we are excluded from the table because of doctrinal/denominational differences that have taken an unnatural precedence over that found in the "church" of the First Century. Later, in his letter, Paul speaks to this, For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread (ch.10, v.17). The disunity we see in Christianity today would seem to be contrary, therefore, to Scriptures. Yet, there is another disturbing "disunity" in our ranks.

Indications from Scriptures strongly suggest early communion was in one another’s homes as part of their gathering together. So informal was the whole thing that Paul had to scold the saints there (1 Corinthians 11:17) and give them a little guidance on how to conduct themselves more properly. There is nothing in what he said that prevented them from taking communion, only that they should do so with more reverence consistent with what it symbolized. The Corinthians seemed to be enjoying the "elements" as food rather than as symbols of the sacrifice Jesus the Christ made for our redemption. Paul was instructing them to be more conscious that the elements were to remind us of His suffering and dying for us. He also suggests we should do so with a forgiving spirit and a contrite heart mindful of our shortcomings.

Somewhere, somehow the elegant simplicity of the communion of saints got lost with a bedecked man-of-the-cloth at an alter table in great solemnity serving grape juice from an ornate sliver chalice and carefully manicured wafers from a silver tray. Somewhere ceremony took over and its meaning and spirit left. Sacerdotalism is the religious belief that priests are essential mediators between God and mankind. No where is this more obvious than in how the "church" of today regards communion. First, in solemn ceremony, the "elements" are consecrated and declared sacred by an ordained minister/priest. Then the invitation is extended to the congregation, and so the ritual goes pronouncing the words of the essential form at precisely the proper moment as prescribed, not by Scripture but by ritual. Clearly form vs. function. Following the lead of the Council of Trent that anathematized (cursed) those who believed every Christian could administer communion, Protestant denominations have eagerly followed suit.

We are taught that Sacraments are "outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification" (ref). Having said so, the requirement that only special, certain individuals may "administer" those sacraments does not follow. The magic of transforming bread and wine into body and blood may explain why Roman Catholicism only allows the "priestly Orders" to "consecrate" the elements. Short of such transubstantiation, duties restricted to a special class of "Ministers of Word and Sacrament" there appears to be no defense or need for such limitations among Protestant Christians.

Jesus the Christ established the communion by saying to His disciples, Take, eat; this is my body (Matthew 26:26) and, when they had finished that, He said, Drink ye all of it (v. 27). Of eating the bread He said this do in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19). And of the wine He said, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you (v. 20). Paul adds, For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come (1 Corinthians 11:26). Then, based in Scripture, is it safe to say as often as we take communion we are to remember Him and the sacrifice He made for us? After He blessed the bread wine, He told them to do the same. Is there even the hint of a suggestion that Peter or John or one of the others was in charge of so doing? If not, let us step in where churches are so busy and preoccupied and remember Him and His sacrifice for us – often, together as brothers and sisters in Christ.

For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat?
but I am among you as he that serveth. Luke 22:27

Return to the page directory

Return to the page directory

The Fabric of Our Lives
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Ephesians 2:21 KJV

The Weymouth New Testament Bible translates this passage from the KJV to, in union with whom the whole fabric, fitted and closely joined together, is growing so as to form a holy sanctuary in the Lord; In both instances, the "holy temple" and the "holy sanctuary" refers to the believers of Jesus the Christ, not a building. Paul was speaking of the union in Christ of Jewish and Gentile believers. The word "building" in the KJV is a translation of Oikodome that also can mean "edifying, edification; the act of one who promotes another's growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness. Even more striking is his use of the word "temple" that is here the Greek Naos referring to the "Holy place" and the "holy of Holies" within the Temple. His Jewish listeners would know the significance of the reference.

He is in effect saying, as we (Jews and Gentiles in this particular instance) promote one another’s growth in Christ, as He becomes more and more the "fabric" from which our lives are woven. Individually and collectively we come closer to the ideal of the Holy of Holies - Him. We should remember that the Holy of Holies was God’s dwelling place and only the High Priest, just once a year, would dare to enter. As we promote one another’s growth in "wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness", as we collectively, become one body in Christ, we are drawn nearer to Him. To a Jew, this must have been a breathtaking statement that they could assume the mantle of a High Priest and enter into the very presence of God. That promotion of wisdom Paul is talking about would have to include helping people discern false doctrines and to summarily reject them. That’s what he says, rather bluntly in Titus 3:10, A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject. After all, in this part of his letter, he was welcoming the "uncircumcised" into the community of Christians.

As for the Jews themselves, Paul reminds them that they too have need to grow (2 Corinthians 3:3). We/they worship a living God and His laws are written in our hearts, not in tablets of stone. That seemingly simple fact seems to be one of the most difficult for all of us to grasp. We keep wanting to ritualize, creed and liturgy and manifesto the life right out of Christianity. In 1 Peter 2:5, the Apostle compares us to stones because we, like stones, are "lasting and durable, and will never perish, nor be removed out of the building" (ref.) but that we are living, not dead. We are the substances of His kingdom. But His kingdom is spiritual, not temporal. Then he tells us we are His priesthood. About this the JFB Commentary notes: (a) we are both the temple and the priesthood – naos, not hieron (b) we are the dwelling place of God as well as His priests. Finally, Peter tells us all we have to do is to place ourselves on the altar as a living sacrifice only, totally and completely for the glory of God. Finally, in his letter to the saints in the congregations at Corinth, through them, he tells us that we have been declared to the epistle of Christ. Adam Clarke’s Commentary suggest that the changes produced in our lives are the work of Jesus the Christ "just as a letter dictated and written by a man is his work."

While the title of this article is taken from an anonymous author who wrote, "Some people weave burlap into the fabric of our lives, and some weave gold thread. Both contribute to make the whole picture beautiful and unique," wouldn’t the picture be infinitely more beautiful if the fabric woven into our lives was Jesus the Christ – pure gold? You see, then He would be an inseparable part of everything we are, everything we say and do and think. Rather than, on occasion taking Him down from the shelf where we keep Him except when He is needed or when we wish to publicly profess our Christianity. Instead of being apart from our selves, He would be our all in all. That does seem to be the Scriptural plan doesn’t it? Rather than splintering into church and life, our lives would be the church in the true sense of the word – He rules in all we do and say. John the Baptist wore a burlap/sackcloth garment made of camel hair the "badge of a prophet and the mark of an austere life, frugality and humility (ref). Perhaps, together, they might make a "picture beautiful and unique."

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:8

Return to the page directory

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:9
 

Return to the page directory

            In 1520, Martin Luther wrote a paper called "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church." His thesis was that the corrupted institutional church had taken the Sacraments captive.  According to R.C. Sproul, Luther “was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification.”  Alister E. McGrath writes, “Luther believed that since God provided everything essential for the believer to be saved, the reliance on priest and Church for these things was unnecessary.”  He adds, “To an establishment that relied heavily upon, and profited greatly by the notion that its constituency remain dependent upon the institution for everything needful for salvation, Luther’s ideas were not only revolutionary – they were threatening.”  One, if not the primary means by which this dependency was enforced was through the Sacraments that only the “priestly class” could perform.  Of course that was reinforced by denying access by the “laity” to the Bible and the use of Latin (even after it was a “dead language”) in services.  Symbolic of their inferior position was the practice of giving only bread to the “laity.”  The Roman Catholic Church teaches that “God had given all grace to the Church and it was (is) the function and prerogative of the Church exclusively to dispense that grace to the faithful by means of the sacraments.”  Thus, by controlling who may perform the Sacraments, presumably the only source through which the grace of God is conferred on men, “Rome perverted their true purpose and used them to wield spiritual power over men.”  In his treatise, De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae, Luther also, outlined his argument for “spiritual individualism.”  He believed “the essence of Christianity” to be: (1) God’s promise to man as set forth in Scripture, and (2) man’s faithful acceptance of that promise.  On the priesthood Luther wrote,

If a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them, married or unmarried, and were to order him to baptize, to celebrate the mass, to absolve and to preach; this man would as truly be a priest as if all the bishops and all the Popes had consecrated him.

It would be awkward for reformationists to reject Luther’s theses, but that is exactly what has happened.  Protestantism is no different today than the Roman Catholic Church was in his time.  Although Protestant priesthoods don’t make claims to being genetic descendants of the Levitical priesthood or the spiritual ancestors of Peter, they act and think just about the same.  They too, just like the Roman Catholic Church of Luther’s day, have taken the Sacraments captive.  That little if anything has changed since Luther and Ulrich Zwingli stirred up the pot over 500 years ago, is evidenced by the fact that one Greg Ogden wrote a book in 1990 subtitled “Returning the Ministry to the People of God.”  He even states, “For nor only are all believers priests before God, we are also priests to each other and to the World.” (p. 12, Greg, Ogden, The New Reformation, Zondervan, 1990) Dr. Ogden has his M.Div and D.Min. from Fuller Theological Seminary.  Currently he is the “Executive Pastor of Discipleship” at Christ Church at Oak Book Illinois.  He writes, “The New Reformation seeks nothing less than the radical transformation of the self-perception of all believers so we see our selves as vital channels through whom God mediates his life to other members of the body of Christ and the world.” (p.12)  He then provides six changes that prayerfully would reform the church:

1)       The Holy Spirit has been rediscovered as the means of direct encounter with the living God.

2)       The Christian life is Christ in you.

3)       The church is a living organism, the body of Christ.

4)       All God’s people are ministers.

5)       An ecumenism of the Spirit transcends denominational loyalties.

6)       Worship is the defining event in the church.

We couldn’t agree more with his words.  It would be miraculous to see all of this in practice, somewhere.  However, entrenched priestly special interests make that a remote possibility at best.  It’s not just the capture of the Sacraments as Luther saw, it’s the entire unshakable hierarchical priesthood (with Protestants imitating the Vatican model) defending their place at the “head-table,” their prominent positions and their paychecks.  This “Babylonian captivity” is not just over monopolizing the Sacraments, it is much greater.  It is capturing, as it were, and perverting the entire priesthood, the entire church.  The first, the “capture of the Sacraments,” could be likened to capturing the Ark of the Covenant.  The corrupting and debasing of the priesthood and the church can be likened to Babylon destroying Israel.

 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.  1 Corinthians 12:11

It is not the healthy who need a doctor

They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick:
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mark 2:17
Return to the page directory
 

And so writes one well-recognized mega-church Pastor defending his well publicized association with non-believers. He continues his defense paraphrasing Mark 2:16-17. He states, "when the religious teachers saw Jesus associating with and befriending irreligious people - the so-called "sinners and tax collectors’, they asked Jesus' followers, ‘Why does Jesus fellowship with unbelievers?" Of course, Jesus answer was, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor." The Pastor is right with just one caveat – we must avoid even the slightest hint of agreeing with or approving the sinners life-style whatever it might entail. We must not leave the impression that we agree with what they are doing that separating them from God’s love. The Pastor is right in saying, "we MUST build bridges of love to people of no faith, to people of other faiths, and to people we disagree with." In Romans 1:28 Paul tells us that since sinners don't recognize God, He doesn’t recognize them in their sinful condition. We must remember, as Paul reminds us, that God is sufficiently knowable (His power and nature) to all, through what He has made, to condemn them. That doesn’t excuse us from not reaching out to such, but it is a warning to proceed with caution. He does give them a second chance, using us as His messengers, to recognize Him by accepting His sacrifice of His Son for the remission of all our sins.

By his own account, in a month’s time this Pastor attended a Jewish service, a Catholic Mass and spoke before Muslim and Gay organizations. Prayerfully, no one will think he considers them equated in some manner, but rather that he was illustrating his cosmopolitan outreach. His challenge to the Christian community is "to start building bridges of love, instead of walls of fear" and rightly so. But doesn’t this lead one to ask, if he spoke before these groups, what did he say? To the Muslim group, for example, did he tell them they needed Jesus the Christ in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Did he tell the Jewish folks, he might have spoken to before or after their service, the same thing or did he skirt the issue? Wouldn’t it have been interesting to be a "fly on the wall" at the Catholic service to hear what he said to them? We may be assured of one thing; he didn’t partake of the Eucharist – not unless he’s a closet Catholic. To the gay community, did he explain the Biblical view? Maybe he told them all that "they were sick and as sinners they needed to repent."

Just showing up may be the first step, but it doesn’t get the job done anymore than just being warm, kind, loving and friendly. What we want to do is take them where they are and, by our words as well as our actions, help them find their salvation. We need to do more than just show up with a big smile, a handshake and a pat on the back while blabbing platitudes. Non-Christians, atheists, aren’t mean, despicable gremlins who go about all day with a scowl on their faces and a growl in their voices. Most, if not all, are some of the nicest people one would ever want to meet. After being bumped out of the way getting out of the "sanctuary" and nearly run over in the church parking lot, one might conclude they are much more friendly than Christians.

The question really comes down to whether Dr. Rick Warren would perform a wedding ceremony in his Saddleback church for Melissa Etheridge and her partner. You see, some might take a seemingly innocuous notion of "surrender to God," which is close to what Muslims mean by the term "Islam," and mistakenly take it as an argument for the unity of religions. That’s what Juan Cole, President of The Global American Institute thought after hearing Pastor Warren speak at the MPAC. He wrote of the occasion, "Once a pastor turns, as Warren did, to a social gospel, then he has social goals to accomplish, and he needs all the help he can get. A social gospel creates a field of practical ecumenism." That should serve as a red flag indicated we’re walking down the wrong path. Ecumenism is not the Gospel. Is it unfair or being super critical to ask if, through Dr. Warren's friendship with the founding father of MPAC, Maher Hathout, has he converted to Christianity?

We must never take the Scriptural idea of loving everyone as meaning we approve of what they say or do. Jesus eating at Zacchaeus’ house resulted in his salvation not just the start of a warm friendship. In associating with unbelievers, our loving purpose should be to produce such change as well. And we must take the greatest care not to act in such a way that observers might be led to think we are endorsing who they are and what they are doing. Paul warned the saints at Corinth about this very thing. In reaching out, our actions and our words must not become stumbling block for others. Further, under the guise of loving others, we must not act improperly, unseemly, offensively unbecomingly. A Christian drunk in a bar is worse than a drunk in a bar.

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock
to them that are weak. 1 Corinthians 8:9

Return to the page directory
 

The road to destruction isn’t a narrow, winding and bumpy path, but a broad and deceptively easily freeway of deceitfulness. So it is with those who would falsify the Word in their attempts to destroy the Truth. It’s not done with gigantic monstrous steps but in tiny little, seemingly insignificant baby steps that are hardly noticeable. Many haven’t heard of the "Emerging Church" but chances there is one nearby or you might even be attending one. A number of mega-churchs and their pastors endorse the movement and some allow cells on their campuses. It is the hottest potato in the salad of Christianity. It is the classic "sheep in wolves clothing."

To the unsuspecting and the uninformed, it might appear to be Christian. Yet it is radically, dramatically different in so many basic ways: 1.We must reexamine and question every belief and practice in the Church. 2. We have no foundation for any beliefs. We cannot know absolute truth. 3. We cannot be dogmatic about moral standards. Absolute stands on issues such as homosexuality are obsolete. Activities such as drinking, clubbing, watching sexually explicit movies, and using profanities are seen as opportunities to show those who are not part of the Christian community that postmodern Christians do not think they are better than them through any false sense of moral superiority. 4. Dogmatic preaching must give way to a dialogue between people of all beliefs. 5. Spiritual feeling and social action make up the only reliable substance of Christianity. 6. The pursuit of truth is a never ending journey with no solid starting point. The only legitimate measuring rods of Christianity are experience and good works. 7. To capture a sacred feeling we should reconnect with ancient worship forms such as burning candles. 8. Sublime feeling is experienced through outward forms. Therefore we should utilize art forms in our worship. Appreciating art for art’s sake is a spiritual experience. 9. The ultimate goal is to make the world a better place; a utopia in which there is no oppressed, no poor and the environment is clean. This paradise is achieved through social activism. It is selfish folly to live for the return of Christ. (based on an article in Apologetics Index; and from additional info.)

Here is what one prominent Emerging Church pastor, Tim Keller, writes about what some call "zip-code ministry," "Every expression and embodiment of Christianity is contextualized. There is no such thing as a universal, a historical expression of Christianity. Jesus didn’t come to earth as a generalized being; by his becoming human, he had to become a particular human. He was male, Jewish, and working class; he was a socially and culturally-situated person." The implications of his statement are "jaw dropping." This is not just adjusting one’s sermons to the cultural milieu of one’s audience, it is denying the Truth of the gospel under the pretext of relevancy. Another Emerging "pastor" states, "The Bible "is not a ‘look-it-up encyclopedia of moral truths.’" He also asserts, "Christians should not try to judge right from wrong in an absolute sense because all of our understanding of the Bible is colored and conditioned by extra-biblical things such as one’s time and culture." That’s "contextualization" at its best. He argues that, "Making absolute truth claims—so important to evangelism in the modern era—becomes problematic in the postmodern context." According to the Emerging Church, truth is what most people in the "community" believe. Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church puts it this way, we "started questioning [our] assumptions about the Bible itself—"discovering the Bible as a human product." Therefore we cannot preach truth and morality based on the Bible because there is no way to confirm its validity. Instead, truth and values must be arrived at in a dialogue between people from all cultures, of all the beliefs, found in our "communities." According to the Emerging Church, we must "join in conversation" with people of various beliefs to come to a consensus which then becomes the "truth."

The Emerging Church movement involves more than burning candles, "contemplative spirituality" producing "sublime feelings" and "spiritual experiences" by appreciating art for art’s sake. It’s more than its "loosey-goosey-anything goes worship" practices. It’s more than its focus on "good works" and social activism. By subtle and deceptive means, intended or otherwise, the movement is subverting and ultimately will "destroy Christianity." Its focus on relativistic and consensus based truths and morals, its focus on mysticism, an ecumenicism that regards other religions equal to Christianity, its iconic idolization, while supposedly clinging to traditional Christian beliefs with the ultimate purpose of the movement as making the world a utopian place to live is producing a "knock-off Christianity" that has a little something for everyone. Given the choice of attending a Las Vegas Casino or the church on the corner, which will most people choose?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Return to the page directory

 
Mind Your Own Business!

And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God,
and report that God is in you of a truth. 1 Corinthians 14:25

Return to the page directory

Today, churches are involved in such various activities as caring for creation, social justice, disabilities, growing churches, multi-racial ministries," modern-day slavery, feeding the hungry, pregnancy support, fitness and well-being, HIV/AIDS and addictions. Actually the list is nearly endless. As one church put it, "There is something here for everyone." Many, if not all of these activities are quite worthwhile and admirable. The difficulty with them is that they are distractions; side-shows to what should be (must be) the main event. Surprising as it may seem, the "main event" for church is not preaching salvation to the unsaved. It isn’t even preaching. It is to be a coming together of the family of God to worship and praise Him.

The most common word for "worship" doxa (from which we derive the word "doxology") means such things as glory, honor and praise. There is also eusebeo which is translated as "piety," proskuneo which in the NT is to kneel or prostrate one’s self, to do homage or make obeisance, to express respect, to make supplication, sebazomai that translates as "to fear" or to "be afraid," and to "honor." Finally, there is sebomai which simply means to "revere," to be "devout." All together, over 280 references to "worship." Shouldn’t that tell us something? One of the more striking uses of "sebazomia" is found in Romans saying, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Shouldn’t that tell us something? Isn’t it sad that which is to be an expression of praise to God (the Doxology) is either ignored in our "church" services or is so stylized as to be meaningless?

When we praise God and His Son, we extol, and give honor to them. That’s the Greek word aineo. We also epaineo them, laud and commend them. We give them approbation – epainos and consecrate ourselves with solemn prayers to Him – eulogeo from which we get the word "eulogy" and we arête, that is extol their virtue, goodness, excellence and purity. Peter told us, ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. And again, after being dumb since being visited by an angel, at the dedication of his son John, Zacharia’s mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. Likewise a blind man, upon having his sight restored, followed Jesus and glorified God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God. Let us realize that this was brought about by a blind man being able to see again – a miraculous gift. Not only he, but the crowds who saw the miracle praised God. Shouldn’t we who have been given the gift of salvation be overwhelmed and shower Him with ceaseless, unending praises?

Instead we passively sit in our pews, listening to religious discourses on such topics as, "Believing For A Supernatural Year," "Increasing Your Capacity To Receive," "Don't Give Away Your Power," and the likes of "Keys To Answered Prayer," "You Are An Overcomer" and the ever popular "Expect Good Things," "Claim Your Possibilities" and, of course, "Being Great With Finances." If that weren’t enough most "churches" offer a little something for everyone. There are Men’s Ministries, Women's Ministries, Singles' Ministries, Couples' Ministries, Children's Ministries, Junior High Ministries, High School Ministries, College-age Ministries, Post-College Age Ministries, Seniors' Ministries and the list goes on and on. We may be a little short on the serving of communion, but we make up for that by catering to the least little whim or fancy we might have or desire to have fulfilled. So often, it is all about me and satisfying my needs.

When we do get into those matters of "charity," we think of it in terms of what is mentioned above; justice, disabilities, slavery, feeding the hungry, addictions and the like without realizing these are distractions, symptoms at best of a greater need; a greater evil – a world that is unsaved. Jesus said because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. Indeed it does. Hardly has the Thanksgiving basket been delivered before we forget the lonely and destitute. The world’s problems cannot, will not be solved through any human effort no matter how herculean. As recorded in John, (By this shall all men know) it is only then, when others can see the love the Children of God have for one another will God and man be reconciled. That is the business of the church. It must be a loving, worshipping, praising congregation of His disciples or it is nothing at all.

And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. Luke 24:50-53

Return to the page directory

The Book of Knowledge
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:31

Return to the page directory

            One outstanding thing about the Canons of Dordt is that it presents statements of fact not belief.  Its points don’t begin by saying “We believe.”  Instead, they begin, as in Article 1, “God's Right to Condemn All People: Since all people have sinned,” which is a statement of fact.  The Introduction to the Conclusion of the Synod  of Dort in part reads, “This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confession of the Reformed Churches.”  Calvin’s 5 points are, likewise, statements of factual knowledge.  The same is true for the answers to the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and others.  Therefore, to follow suit with our Reformation fore-fathers, instead of saying, “  We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the true Messiah, the one and only Son of God,” it should be, “We know that Jesus is the Christ, the true Messiah, the one and only Son of God.”  In like respect, “we know that Jesus the Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.  He is the only way to  salvation.  We know that, We must confess Him with our mouths in order to be saved.  It is written, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  There is no other way.  If we don’t know this, not only are we not Christian; we are not saved – period, end of sentence.  There is no “plan B.”  He is Truth itself, the sum and substance of all the truths.  Christ is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal.

            What gives us such assurance is the source of such knowledge – the Bible.  C. H. Spurgeon said it best, “All Scripture, being inspired of the Spirit, is spoken by the mouth of God.”  Should we have lingering doubt, perhaps thinking Spurgeon was meaning only the Old Testament, this should calm our apprehensions, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  That’s from Paul’s second letter to Timothy.  In addition, these two statements we completely agree with, (A) “Belief in the Scriptures as God's Word and the certain conviction that they do not lie to us come to an individual only when the Holy Spirit works in that person's heart as a result of faith in Jesus Christ created through the Gospel. No amount of reasonable, historical arguments--however helpful they may be--will ultimately convince anyone of the truth of the Scriptural writings.” (B) Christianity rests “on the assurance that the Bible is completely accurate. It may contain statements that are (1) figures of speech, (2) non-technical descriptions, or (3) difficult to understand. But actual errors would fall into a different kind of category.”  We also endorse The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  We may not understand or agree with everything in the Bible, but it stands as God’s Truth.          To be aware of the truth; to be convinced or certain of; to know with certainty, is the ultimate expression of faith.

If it is bigotry to believe the Bible is the Sacred Word of God, so be it.  In the same respect, if believing that Jesus the Christ is the only way to salvation and all who do not confess Him as such are going to Hell is bigotry, we Christians must be accounted as bigots.  On both points and all that they imply, there is absolutely no ground for equivocation.  That must be clear and unambiguous to all Christians.  We should and must be as the definition of bigotry states, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own.”  The word bigotry is a “value-laden” term meaning it carries a lot of strong negative connotation regardless of the context it is used.  One who believes that America is the greatest country can be accused of being one.  Muslims then, by the same right, are bigots as are Jews.  Actually, if Christians are to be regarded as bigots because of their beliefs, then all religious beliefs are bigoted.  Who isn’t, then, Atheist?  Not really because they are just as adamant in their beliefs that there is no God.  Bigotry is a slur used to discredit a belief when other arguments fail.  It’s a label that doesn’t always fit although it frequently wins arguments. 

            Those attacking Christianity have been very effective using the bigotry argument against it.  That’s understandable.  What is incomprehensible is that His supposed followers have so easily crumbled under the pressure of the accusation.  So many fall all over themselves apologizing for what Christianity has propounded for centuries with the mistaken idea that their now watered-down, namby-pamby pseudo-religion will be more attractive to non-believers.  Such shenanigans have given new meaning to Christian apologetics. 

           
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:  Ephesians 4:13

 

Return to the page directory