01/015/1012

 

WISDOM
 Return to the Directory

For wisdom is better than rubies;
and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it Proverbs 8:11

We are so easily distracted by things: wealth, power, prestige and possessions. To be rich, to have an abundance of things to be "moneyed," opulent, how alluring. To be influential in the ways of the world; to sway peoples opinions and impel them to action; how tantalizing. To be prominent and be well-known; to be recognized and acclaim by those who are, themselves rich and famous, how very enticing. Homes in the right neighborhoods, vogue vehicles and fashionable clothes are all so very gratifying. Don’t they all build our egos and inflate our sense of self-worth? Lustful carnality comes in many forms, not just in wine, women and song. It affects all, not just the lecherous and lascivious.

Solomon, son of David, wise man of the ages, was no less susceptible to their enticements that the rest of us. In spite of his request of our Lord God Almighty, Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people (2 Chronicles 1:10), he was, as some have noted, "a curious commentary on his early resolution." The first royal act he performed was to build himself a grand palace to replace his father’s inadequate hovel (1 Kings 7:1). He used the wealth of the nation for his personal aggrandizement rather than for public good (1 Kings 10:18). According to Unger’s Bible Dictionary, he was the "first great commercial king of Israel." One, just one, of his wives was the daughter of the king of Egypt, another was an Ammonite. There were also Moabites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. None was an Israelite. All together, it is recorded he had 700 wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Among them, perhaps, the queen of Sheba. All of whom God had specifically forbidden, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love (1 Kings 11:2). Within the holy Temple pagan religious practices were held and idol worship permitted (1 Kings 11:1-13) Not very wise. As wise as he was, he was not wise enough to withstand the seduction of carnality.

What more powerful lesson could there possibly be to illustrate the corrupting influence of material things than the life of Solomon? Granted wisdom by the very hand of God. Favored in His sight. Yet, he succumbed to their enticements. Remember what God said to Solomon?

Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made the king: Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; 2 Chronicles 1:11,12

Because he did not ask for these things, God gave them to him in full measure. Indeed He did, and he, Solomon, took full (personal) advantage of those bounteous gifts.

Are there lessons for us about what we should pray for in addition to the lesson Solomon teaches us on greed and carnal appetites? Let’s page forward to the temptations of Christ. What did Satan offer Him? His own physical "needs", doubt, power ------ aren’t they the same things? On top of this is Christ’s other admonitions about "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:23) and Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Luke 18:22) Or what about this statement found in the book of James, Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten (ch 5 vs.1)? Does any of this suggest we should seek out riches, pray for them – for whatever reason or purpose? Can we soothe our obsession for wealth, prestige and power with tithes, justify them by claiming we are funding God’s work, using our gifts to His glory? Would that be wise? Would it even be true?

Where is the Scripture saying "gather ye the riches of this life?" Where are the passages that counsel us in our prayer life to send heavenward supplications for prosperity? Where is it written that we are to accumulate wealth to better serve Him? Indeed, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Proverbs 8 advises, "We must be dead to the wealth of this world, that we may the more closely and earnestly apply ourselves to the business of (sic) religion." And the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia provides us with a Biblical principle, "Only moral and spiritual means to moral and spiritual ends. Amen.

Return to the Directory

 

 

Submit To Government?
Return to the Directory

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God Romans 13:1

There is this persistent, nagging question about how much responsibility God has for bad things happening to good people. You see it all comes from the very nature of God as found in the pages of Sacred Script. He is all-powerful, all knowing and ever present. If He is all these things, and He is, then it is He who authors bad things or does He simply acquiesce? The question becomes especially troublesome when innocent little children succumb to deadly diseases, starvation or simply the unspeakable brutality of other "humans" toward them.

Well, in Paul’s letter to the saints in Rome, an equally disturbing little bit of news is provided. We are to obey those in authority over us – regardless. Yes, regardless, the statement is unequivocal. Notes on the verse from the NIV state, "Even the possibility of a persecuting state did not shake Paul’s conviction that civil government is ordained by God." We must agree with the specter of Jimmy Jones in Guyana legitimately ordering parents to poison their children just before they committed suicide. Christians living under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein had to be in concert with his unbelievable reign of terror. There is apartheid in South Africa, the brutality of Joseph Stalin as well as the loathsome spectacle of Nazi Germany. Suppose the government ordered us to murder our children or kill our elderly, are we to comply?

Some commentators soften the obvious troublesome nature of this passage by saying Paul was referring to "moral authority." For example B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament states" It does not imply that we shall obey wicked magistrates when they command us to disobey God. See Acts 4:19" We Christians are commissioned only to obey those governments that are "moral." Without this "escape clause," of which there seems to be none in his letter, a terrible dilemma is foisted upon we Christians. Such "interpretations" may avoid the perplexing dilemma, but they really have no Scriptural foundation.

Others are much more conservative such as Matthew Henry’s Commentary for example "Whatever the persons in authority over us themselves may be, yet the just power they have, must be submitted to and obeyed. In the general course of human affairs, rulers are not a terror to honest, quiet, and good subjects, but to evil-doers." Strangely Luther is silent while Calvin and Wesley endorse the concept. Calvin’s position is summed up in this observation, "And by mentioning every soul, he removes every exception, lest any one should claim an immunity from the common duty of obedience. 3." Wesley goes so far as to suggest, "Because they are the ministers (officers) of God for the public good. This very thing - The public good."

We must remember the major figures in the New Testament, including Paul, were in such a state of disobedience with the "governing authorities that they were executed. On one occasion, the Apostles Peter and John were specifically forbidden to use the name of Jesus by the authorities. Their response, recorded in Acts 4:19, was to ask "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge." Jesus Christ could not possibly be considered obedient to clerical or civil authorities.

How frequently preachers, teachers and Bible scholars warn us not to take things out of context or to consider them in isolation from the rest of Scripture? How frequently are we told that God is not the author of confusion? Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 14:33 writes, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. While he was speaking of gifts and tongues, isn’t the principle is appropriately applied to other areas? As to the first point, many commentaries restrict the application of this statement to the particular time and place of its writing. Noting that Corinth was under Roman domination and that Jews, in general, were regarded as a seditious lot, Paul may have been cautioning his congregations not to be identified with them as troublemakers. It is totally improper to believe that our Heavenly Father would intentionally confuse us. Yet with the rest of Scriptures as witness, we must conclude the either Paul was misquoted, that he misspoke or that his message was for a very specific set of circumstances. The lives of Jesus and the Disciples cry in a loud voice against tyranny and injustice. We must not let a misapplication of this passage make us cowards.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2
 

Return to the Directory

 

Send Money: Stay Home
(The Myth of Missions)
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.Mark 16:15
Return to the Directory

There are two of God’s commands we have obeyed to near perfection. The first, is found in Genesis 1:28 where He tells Adam and Eve to Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. That we have done with great abandon. Then, in the Scripture above, He told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel. We have done that as well at least proclaiming we are proclaiming the Word. Two thousand years later we still are going into the world with nearly disastrous results. This passage from Mark is one of those that makes one wonder just how literal some verses in the Bible should be taken. He really didn’t mean, as it first appears, that we should start preaching to rabbits or cows – although it is reported some have tried to do the latter. The word "creature" in this instance comes close to meaning those who are unsaved another word (slur upon slur) for "gentile." We are also usually willing that the eleven disciples could not really be expected to go into every corner of the world – even the know world would have been overwhelming.

Elsewhere, Jesus tells us we are to let our love for one another witness to the unbelieving world. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another John 13:35 Are we really to take this exhortation as meaning all we are to do is "preach?" Does Jesus’ command to "preach" have to be taken literally – as the only way to go about converting "creature" to Christianity? The Greek from which we derive the word "preach" is Kerusso. That, " always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed; to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus." But the understanding here might be more directed to the public and authoritative nature by which we are to "proclaim" rather than the soap-box, pulpit model almost always employed.

Yet, as though that is exactly what He intended, the model of missionary work over the centuries has been for appointed missionaries to travel to those "far away places with strange sounding names," at no little risk to life and limb. Yet, in a strange reversal of fortunes those countries, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France and Britain that did so much to spread Christianity far afield, now lag far behind in their own church attendance. Respectively the figures are $45%, 47%, 25%, 21% and 27%. Apparently, no one has been keeping the home fires burning. Maybe Ugandan Christians can send missionaries into these desolate outposts.

Half the world's people live on less than $1 a day according to the World Bank. In 1999 1.2 billion people lived on less than $1.00 per day around the world. In the Sub-Sahara of Africa, over 300,000,000 live at or below the $1.00 a day poverty level. The majority of Kenyans live at this level. The120 million people of Nigeria, which is almost the size of Europe, have an average annual income of $290 – that’s less than a dollar a day. Air France will fly a missionary from LAX to the Ivory Coast, round trip for $4,723.33. That would provide a family in any of these areas twice the subsistence for 6 ½ years if the missionary stayed home. For the $2,475 it will cost a missionary to fly from LAX to Angola on British Air, a family can be provided double the subsistence for almost 3 ½ years if he would just stay home and send the money. A trip to Nairobi, Kenya from LAX costs $2,897.52.

Where would our missionary send his airfare if he chose to stay home? In the Ivory Coast, 20% of the population is Christian. In Kenya, 66% of the population is Christian. In Angola it is 85%. Burundi, one of the poorest African countries is 65% Christian already. 40% of Nigerians are Christian. The country of Malawi supports a population that is 75% Christian. It costs $ 1,848.52 for one person to fly round trip to the capital city of Lilongwe. These are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They don’t need to be introduced to the "bread of live," they need to eat bread to live. There are bound to be established churches there already – and there are. There are Evangelical Congregational Churches, the Evangelical Reformed Church of Angola, the Presbyterian Church is there along with others. Along the Ivory Coast you will find the Evangelical Protestant Church of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. In Kenya there are about a dozen denominations already in existence including the Reformed Church of East Africa, the African Gospel Unity Church with ties to the Baptists and many more. (see ref) If stewardship involves the careful use of the resources God has given us, wouldn’t that suggest we support these existing Christian rather than re-inventing the wheel on some pretext of a "purposeful vacation?" They don’t need us preaching the word. They are already doing that. What they need is our money to help fight starvation and the AIDS/HIV.

Return to the Directory

 
 

  
If This Is The Way, Is It The Only Way?
(Let Us Emerge)
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19
Return to the Directory

There are several questions about the two Scriptural references above. First was it Jesus’ intent to single out His eleven disciples/Apostles to engage in this herculean task? Second, is "preaching" the only method He intended for them to use? Third, if this was the method to be used to propagate the Gospel to all nations and into all the world, why hasn’t it worked? As you may well know, there even are serious questions as to whether or not the passage from Mark was in the original Gospel which only serves to kindle the matter of who and by what means was this proselytization to have taken place.

The first of these questions seems the most easy to answer. If we restrict the responsibility to the original eleven, two things become readily apparent: (1) They failed at the task miserably. (2) Paul, the evangelist of all time and the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament, would have been left out of the race which seems most unlikely. It seems that, although He was addressing only the eleven, the principle applies to every Christian – or does it? Perhaps, it only applies to clerics; that is seminary graduates. Well, on second thought, maybe the question isn’t as easy to answer as first thought. Even so, most scholars do agree that the responsibility of spreading the Word rests with all Christians – if it can be called a "responsibility." We are, after all, a royal priesthood by last accounts however well that might bode us.

Now that we’ve at least temporarily settled the issue of who, we may move on to the matter of how. Jesus both taught and preached and in the two verses quoted above, He tells us to do both. There are many Greek words translated as teach. In Greek teach can mean to deliver a didactic discourses, to impart instruction or to "explain or expound." Teaching, can also be informing, making one a disciple or actually being a disciple. To teach can mean to chasten or to learn. For preaching, the picture isn’t that much different. There are also many Greek words translated as preach in the New Testament. In some cases the word actually means something quite different than what we’re accustomed to thinking of as preaching. Dialegomai, for example can mean to reason, ponder, talk, utter, argue and discuss, bring good tidings, teach, speak, tell, in addition to plain ole preaching. The preach found in Mark 16:15 does mean to speak with formality, gravity, with authority, but the teach in Matthew 28:19 could read "to make disciples of all nations." When we read teach or preach in the Bible, it can mean many things, but we are assured that its veracity is by divine inspiration.

Maybe one of the greatest, if not the greatest preachers ever (Paul) had it right. He wrote that God ordained the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. With the advent of radio, television and, now, internet preaching and teaching of the Gospel is instantaneously worldwide. Think of it, the world has been absolutely saturated with the Gospel message delivered by electronic preachers by the 10’s of 1,000’s for decades. Before, during and after the electronic blitz, generations of missionaries have gone everywhere preaching and teaching the Word. Why hasn’t all of this preaching and teaching gotten the job done? If you’ve ever been bored with a college lecture or dozed through a "preaching to the choir" sermon, you know why. It’s inefficient. Teaching and preaching must be repeated again and again. Even then only about 10% of it is ever remembered. Any professor or preacher will tell you how frustrating that is. What if we were tested in church?

Isn’t it just possible that there is another way we haven’t yet tried? Where is it written that preaching and teaching is the only way to evangelize? Think about it. Jesus doesn’t command us to preach or teach. What He does command us to do is to love our brothers and sisters in the faith. He said, this is the way people will know we are His disciples and might cause them to say, "See, they say, how they love one another" and try to find out what makes us different. Now that would be an "emerging church" in every sense of the word. Maybe we should try it for a change. When these self-motivated "seekers" attempted to find out why we so love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we could tell them why and have the opportunity to discuss with them about Jesus and even instruct them on His ways and inform them about the Gospel. Maybe, they would become disciples and, when they went home, they’d be changed, more loving. Others would notice and inquire and the Gospel would prosper. If everything is to be left up to the preachers and teachers, why do we need a comforter?

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

Return to the Directory

 
 


He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4:8

Return to the Directory

The first stanza of an old folk song reads, "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I think I’ll eat some worms" and the stanza goes on to elaborate what kind those woebegone person is going to eat, "Long, slim slimy ones, Short, fat juicy ones, Itsy, bitsy, fuzzy, wuzzy worms." Well, modern Christians may not have gotten to the point of desperation for friends that they’re ready to actually eat some short, fat juicy, itsy, bitsy, fuzzy wuzzy worms. Not yet, but their actions and their theology indicates they aren’t too far away from swallowing a big mouthful. The source of such tearful lamenting and dreadful soul-searching is the mistaken belief that evangelism (or as it is known as today, "missionology") requires that everyone loves us.

There are many references in the Gospels to the effect that we are to love our neighbors. The term "neighbor" is a sweeping, all-inclusive term as used in the New Testament. It implies that we are to love everyone regardless; even those we come in casual contact with. Now that, in itself, is a tall order. For example, our Christian love would apparently embrace the man accused of molesting and murdering a young 17 year-old San Diego girl with a history of similar crimes. Seemingly, it would even include Adolph Hitler. The significance of this is testified to by the fact that Jesus made it a command second only to loving God Himself; And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matt. 22:39 and Mark 12:31) To say the least, these are pretty big shoes to fill! By this command, everyone is to be regarded and treated as we, ourselves, desire and expect to be treated. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matt. 7:12) – more like waist high hip waders.

In all of this, there is not one iota of a suggestion that we should expect our love for others to be returned. Quite the contrary, it is recorded that Jesus tells us, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matt. 5:44) Forget the hip waders; that requires a full hard-hat diving suit. Who said Christianity was easy? Break out the can of worms. "Aye" to quote Shakespeare, there’s the rub" for those who anticipate that non-Christians will return the love we show them. We can do all the Gospel summersaults and theological hand-stands possible and it will be to no avail. Trying to show people that we Christians are "just one of the guys" by sipping suds with them at the local dive won’t be anymore an effective "missional" gimmick than embracing the Postmodern heresy of "relativistic pluralism." Often this is defended by Paul’s first letter to the saints at Corinth in which he declared, I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some. (1Cor. 9:22)

Simply put, using Paul’s declaration of being "all things to all people at all times" to imply we shouldn’t offend anyone is a misapplication. Rather, he was saying that he wouldn’t throw the weightier matters of the Gospel at those unprepared to grasp them. He was saying we shouldn’t discuss the meat of the Gospel to those who were having trouble digesting its milk. To conclude from his statement that he was suggesting he was a spiritual chameleon without any moral standards is a misapplication of this passage. Paul concludes his statement by stating, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor. 9:22b) He did not intend that to mean engaging in lurid and immoral behavior. Matthew Henry Commentary puts it this way, "He would transgress no laws of Christ to please or humour any man, but he would accommodate himself to all men, where he might do it lawfully to gain some." In death as in life he exemplified one who lived what he preached. He did nothing in word or deed to dilute or prostitute the Gospel for anyone’s sake. Doing otherwise, sacrificing the Gospel in the name of accommodation, might gain us some fair-weather friends but, when/if we remove the makeup of reconciliation, we’ll surely lose them. Operating under false pretenses won’t get Christianity any true friends.

When anyone considers modifying the Gospel to make it more "seeker-friendly," in the name of evangelism, missionology or whatever the "rationalization" used, they are not only nullifying Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross but the leaders of the Apostolic Age of Christianity. They either don’t know or choose to ignore that the only Apostle to die a "natural" death was John and this only after he was boiled in oil and given a life sentence of slave labor on the Island of Patmos. Paul along with the rest died to preserve the Gospel. Why should we expect better treatment? They loved non-believers who despised them, why should we be different?

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Luke 6:22 (see also Matt. 5:10-12, 10:22, John 7:7, 15:18-20, 17:14)


Jesus Crucified  Bartholomew Martyred   Andrew Martyred  Matthew Martyred     Peter Martyred John Martyred James Martyred Thomas Martyred Christians Burned Alive Things have Changed  

Why would we expect to be regarded any differently?  The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.  Matthew 10:24

Return to the Directory

 

 


GO!

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19

Return to the Directory

For most Christians who consider themselves "evangelical" this passage from Matthew is the one they would say most defines them. Some translations, such as the NKJV reads, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations which is the most widely found version although the 1599 Geneva Bible resorts to the KJ version of "teach all nations." The rest of the verse remains essentially the same across numerous translations. It is doubtful that such a difference has been or would ever be the grounds for dividing the evangelical community. The point seems clear enough, whether it be "teach all nations" or "make disciples of all nations" that Christianity unlike Judaism, which came to be defined as the exclusive religion of the descendants of Abraham, was for the entire world. This belief is reinforced by John 3:16 which says 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. Of course, we know that all, by their choice will not be saved. That’s a matter for another time.

Nonetheless, there is a concern. It’s not a matter of how we go, although that is something that needs to be looked into, but who should go. The "Great Commission" as it has become known, was given by Jesus to the remaining eleven of his then called "disciples;" Judas having committed suicide. (Matt. 27:51) Now, if we turn back in the Book of Matthew to verse 10:2 we find, for the first time, the word "apostle." It is the title given to, guess who, the twelve! In verse 1 they are, in fact, called "disciples." The distinction is that a "disciple" is a student; a learner while an "apostle" is a "delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders." Luke, in recounting this occasion wrote, And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles. (Luke 1:1) Clearly, this account reinforces the concept that there were many disciples of Christ, but, originally, only twelve apostles. The NT Greek Lexicon states that later on the title "apostle" also applied to "other eminent Christian teachers" such as Barnabas, Timothy and Silvanus.

Then, since we really should consider the entire Bible rather than just selecting this or that verse which, in isolation seems to support the point of view we are championing, we need to jump over into Paul’s discussion of Spiritual Gifts. In Ephesians, Paul has this to say And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12 see also 1Cor. 12:28, ) which strongly suggests we are not all apostles, evangelists, pastors, etc.. Most accounts, while conceding that a person may have more than one of these gifts of the Spirit, suggest that we are not all imbued with the same gifts. That would strongly imply that not all have the "authority to go everywhere and preach the Gospel, and plant churches." (see Gill) In his first letter to the saints at Corinth, he asks rhetorically Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers are all workers of miracles? (1 Cor. 12:29) A little later, he answers his own question saying, Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:4) To the saints at Rome he writes, Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith. (Rom. 12:6)

While much of the time we are taught that the "Great Commission," as Matt. 28:19 has been labeled, applies equally to all Christians when, even within the very context of the verse, Jesus was talking to the eleven disciple who were destined to become Apostles. That this commission was given to the remaining eleven is made evident by similar passages given earlier (Matthew 10:2-12 also Luke 9:1-5) originally to the then twelve disciples. To claim, as many do that it is, "a special calling from Jesus Christ to all His followers to take specific action while on this earth" mitigates what Paul tells us about Spiritual Gifts. For all of us to go about," "baptizing," and "teaching" while we are going throughout the world and while we are going about our daily activities seems to obviate the importance of and need for other Spiritual Gifts. Paul certainly didn’t act as if the only thing that had to be done was to go around "baptizing" and "teaching." Probably because there were weren’t any. But did he go on a blitzkrieg of handing out Bibles on his way through the various towns and cities on his itinerary? Instead, as he moved from place to place saving souls, he left behind congregations that supported and maintained (more or less well) these new enclaves of Christian converts. It was the churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossus and Thessalonica with whom he communicated. Just like Jesus, he didn’t leave them high and dry, he left them with the comfort of the "church." Otherwise, there would have been no need for the plethora of Spiritual Gifts allowing the seasoned Christian to "come alongside" novices in the faith. Some of us are called to "go;" others are called to stay home and tend the flock.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 1 Corinthians 12:28-29

Return to the Directory

 
 


You Just Don’t Get It
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Matthew 28:19

Return to the Directory


The NKJV of this verse reads, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that the word "teach" (Strong’s # 3100) used in the KJV above may be translated as: (1) to be a disciple of one, (2) to follow his precepts and instructions, (3) to make a disciple, or (4) to teach, instruct. Hence from both translations we get a clear indication that Christ’s command in sending forth His disciples involved more than just "preaching" the Gospel. This puts the NKJV well within the zone of an acceptable translation while putting a significantly different emphasis on how this process may be accomplished. In contrast, those passages in the Gospel (Mrk. 16:15 & Luke 4:18) that use the word "preach" (Strong’s # 2784) are much more restrictive, a seemingly formal slant on how to spread the Word.

Although Jesus certainly "preached" to multitudes of Jews at different times and places, clearly His method of "transmitting" the Word to His disciples was much more exemplary and personal in nature. One might even say He "talked the talk and walked the walk." Although Paul had a number of close personal friends whom he obviously "made" disciples of, clearly his preferred method for spreading the Gospel was the more formal "preaching" as witnessed by the much greater frequency of the use of variations on the word "preach" found in his epistles and letters than what is found in the Gospels. (see Strong’s # 2784). This impression is reinforced by the great number of times Paul is found preaching in the synagogues of the various places to which he journeyed. Only seven of the many times "synagogue" is found in the Gospels is it reported that Jesus "taught" there (some of which may be duplicate accounts). In contrast, Paul taught there on innumerable occasions. As an aside, it is fascinating that Paul preached so frequently in synagogues as he proclaimed to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. Doesn’t’ it make one wonder how many Gentiles attended Jewish services? It is also interesting to note that all of Jesus’ Apostles died defending the faith; clearly including Paul.

All of this is compelling evidence that the best method of evangelism, "making disciples," is through personal relationships rather than staid and somewhat stylized "preaching." It isn’t that "preaching" and "teaching" have no place because they do. Jesus did a lot of both. However, in and of themselves, they are inadequate for sustained discipleship growth. This is especially the case when a "seeker" sees those who proclaim that they are "saved" in the audience behaving in a manner decidedly different from the sermon that was just preached. By all accounts, the number one criticism of Christians is their hierocracy – saying one thing and doing another. As an illustration of this is a study conducted by The Barna Group that showed,

"a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity."

In the same study it was found "that only 3% of 16 to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals" and that 85% of those surveyed considered Christians to be hypocritical. Additionally, the study found that 50% of young churchgoers perceived Christianity as hypocritical. Even more disturbing was the result that 23% of young non-Christians and 22% of born again Christians said that, "Christianity in today’s society no longer looks like Jesus." They said that, "something was broken in the present-day expression of Christianity." Just as distressing, is the finding that, young outsider[s have five friends who are Christians; four out of five have attended church for at least six months and half considered becoming a Christian. It seem that not only the "church" (the preaching, singing, etc.) no longer looks like Jesus; neither do those claiming to be His disciples. Perhaps, on bended knees, it is time for we "Christians" to ask forgiveness.

We don’t seem to get this passage of Scripture, A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35) Chapel In The Pines church in Arnold CA. seems to have the remedy for our no longer looking like Jesus, Their logo proclaims "Building God’s Family By Being Family." That’s what we don’t get. We no longer regard other "church members" as our brothers and sisters but, rather as that noisy crowd that keeps getting in our way and takes up all the good parking. We don’t get it that, before we can share our love with the world at large, we have to learn how to love our fellow Christians – you know, the Family of God. When in church, we aren’t to be strangers in a strange place coming together to praise and worship God and learn of Him from one another as well as from sermons. We don’t get it that the church is to grow in love, not in numbers. That’s being like Jesus. Having learned this lesson we are ready for the next,
 

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Matthew 12:31

Return to the Directory

 

Missional Promiscuity
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. John 20:21

Return to the Directory

Tell a group they are promiscuous and the reaction will likely be an embarrassed, sometime violent, rejection. Along with the yelling and screaming, there may even be spontaneous personal testimonies the likes of, "I have been married to my spouse for 35 years and have been faithful all of those years!" That’s because Americans invariably think "promiscuity" means sexual promiscuity not knowing it can also mean assorted, mixed, heterogeneous, diverse, and so on. (see also synonyms for promiscuous) We often find the same myopic understanding of the "missional" and "evangelism." Missional is such a new construct that it isn’t even in Webster’s Dictionary; having its origins in a book written in 1998 titled, Missional Church, the first chapter of which is subtitled, "From sending to being sent." As is pointed out on page 4 of this chapter, "Mission means sending." Whether it is "missional" or "mission," the question remains who do we send or who is sent?

We also tend to confuse "evangelical" and "evangelism" while, in fact, they are quite different. As Webster’s Dictionary points out that evangelical means, "relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels" while "evangelism" is the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ; militant or crusading zeal." Thus a "church" that describes itself as "evangelical" is not necessarily evangelistic. Whether it is "evangelical" or "evangelistic" the question is how?

On both counts, (missional/mission on the one hand and evangelical/evangelism) what we mean by them is clearly promiscuous. On the one hand we talk "mission" while what we do is "missional." We say we are evangelical, but what we do is more evangelistic. The Scriptural cited, (John 20:21) occurred after Jesus’ resurrection. As Gill points out, "what they were sent to do, was to preach the Gospel, convert sinners, build up saints, plant churches, and administer ordinances." Unless the room was a coliseum in size, then number of them in that one room had to be a few rather than many. The fact that in John 17:6-9 He identifies them as the men whom You have given Me out of the world (v.6) along with His then praying for all believers over in verses 20-23 strongly suggests those present were His eleven remaining disciples. It is they, His remaining Apostles whom He commissioned on that day. They were the ones ordained as missionaries.

Increasingly the American "church" has moved down the road from sending missionaries into the world to acting as if its central all consuming purpose is to be a mission. If we look more closely at the two separate prayers Jesus offered; one for the disciples (Apostles) and the other for all believers. They are quite distinct. The prayer for the Apostles (specifically John 17:18-19) centered on the fact that they were set apart for mission. His prayer for the other believers (John 17:20-24) was that they might be one – that they may be perfect in one. (v.23) and that the love with which you love me may be in them and I in them. (v.26) Then, why have we strayed into the realm of making all believers apostles; if you will "missionaries?" The authors of the book mentioned before want to lay this metamorphosis on the observation that America is becoming de-Christianized (post-Christian as some would have it). What they should be considering is why this decline has happened.

The answer lies in the fact that, as Christians, we have yet to learn a simple truth which is the need for diverse gifts within the family of God here on earth? If we took a list of gifts, and asked our congregations to rank them in order of desirability, which would be first and which would be last? Would they rank, tending to the physical needs of the disadvantaged in the "church" (serving) above taking an all expenses paid missionary journey (Apostle) to Australia, Denmark or Finland? Would paying (giving) for such missionary junkets be near the top or toward the bottom of the list? Would working to equip others develop their spiritual gifts (evangelist) or takeing care of the menial (gardening/janitorial) tasks that need to be done around the church grounds? (serving) Truthfully, we all know the obvious answers to such questions and how the ranking of Spiritual Gifts would turn out. That’s why in his first letter to them, Paul had to keep harping on relatively fundamental issues such as the many Spiritual Gifts and the fact that they all were equally necessary for the Spiritual health of the entire congregation. In pretty much the same way, we’re wanting to be out there on an exciting missionary journey and no one is home tending the fire. It’s less effort to chip in a few bucks now and then, and let someone else assume the more difficult and noxious tasks, while we watch Dancing with the Stars at home in our easy chair. It’s the old story of fiddling while the world burns. Missions are an easy sale, tinged with excitement and adventure. The day after day caring for other’s physical and spiritual needs is fundamentally necessary; but it’s unending, unrewarding, unromantic, boring. It’s a hard sell from the pulpit.

There are different kinds of gifts. But they are all given by the same Spirit.
There are different ways to serve. But they all come from the same Lord. 1 Corinthians 12:4-5

Return to the Directory

 
 


Hypocrites

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men:
for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Matthew 23:13

Return to the Directory

Over and over again we get the clear message from non-believers that we don’t practice what we preach. What do we proclaim? Isn’t it to love one another as He has loved us? At least, that seems to be Peter’s take on things when he wrote, Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: (1 Peter 1:22) In this passage are two significant words/phrases: First is "unfeigned love;" Second is "brethren." Most preaching on the subject of "Christian love" centers on the love for our neighbor as found multiple times in the Gospels such as in this passage from Matthew, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Matt. 19:19) Of course, there is the "second greatest" commandment given in Matthew as well, And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matt. 22:39) However, our enthusiasm for explaining the Bible within its "cultural milieu" fails to note that "neighbor" includes loved ones, relatives and friends as well as those strangers we happen to meet. In our evangelical zeal to "go into all the world" we tend to overlook this source of human contact, skipping such as these to go to Uganda, Dubai or some other exotic and faraway place. It is far more exciting and acceptable to build houses for the homeless in Haiti than for the homeless in our own hometowns. Yet it is this holistic attitude toward friends, loved ones, those living across the street; regardless of whom, when or where that John Gill considers "a distinguishing badge of Christianity, and without which all profession of religion is a vain and empty thing." So often, that badge is tarnished with oversight.

Much is written about "charity" (Strong #26) in the Pauline and General Epistles and occurs once in the Book of Revelation. The Gospels and the Book of Romans, agape is translated as love (in the NT 86 times as love, 27 times as charity, once as dear and a few sundry translations.) Overall, it is used over 106 times. For some reason or other we just don’t like the word "charity" probably because in our culture it smells too much like a "free ride" for recipients of food, clothing and housing which they have not earned by the sweat of their brow. We’re big in the sweat of our brow theme; it’s almost a religious icon. Yet agape means brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence however translated. Guess what "benevolence" means: "1. disposition to do good; 2a. an act of kindness b. a generous gift." Its several synonyms include kindness, compassion, generosity and goodwill. These are the "badge of Christianity."

However, if we go around the world "saving souls" and performing other charitable deeds but ignore our brothers and sisters in our own congregation, who are we hurting; what have we gained; what have we lost? And, quite frankly, that "glad hand" greeting and superficial smile simply does not cut it. Peter had it right when he wrote, "unfeigned love of the brethren." In my dictionary, that means, unfeigned, unfeigned, unfeigned, not some volunteer’s extended hand of greeting as we enter what we presume to call the "sanctuary." Sanctuary from what; if therein we find precisely the same cold, calculating self-centeredness as we do when we’re among non-Christians? Perhaps we should say, when we are not in "church" remembering that over 70% of those we encounter in our daily routines proclaim to be Christian. So, the question is, are we treated any differently by "out-of-church-Christians" than we are by the "in-church-Christian" bunch? Most often, beyond the greeters at the door, where it really counts in the world of our hurts and needs, the answer is a resounding NO!

Are we to complete the "Great Commission" by preaching alone’ if at all? Is it to be accomplished by street-corner-banner-waving demonstrations or outward garb? Not according to Jesus. Instead, His method is by our charity, people will see our differences and desire to become part of such a charitable community. As Tertullian reported heathens would say "Look," they say, "how they love one another" (for they themselves hate one another); "and how they are ready to die for each other." Today, the world we are supposed to minister to regards us as hypocrites with nothing that would recommend our faith to them. Today, the world regards us as hypocrites simply because we behave no differently than non-Christians and heathens.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35

Return to the Directory

 

 

         

Must Fulfilling "The Great Commission" Lead to This?

Return to the Directory

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:19-20

Let us uncritically accept this "commission" given in Matthew 28 by Jesus to His remaining eleven disciples, soon to become Apostles, applies equally to every Christian. Let’s accept the premise that there remains today only two Spiritual Gifts, Evangelism and Apostleship, and that all others are either subsumed in them or have become outdated. Therefore, it is the sovereign duty of every Christian to go out, pounding the pavement, for converts. Let’s acknowledge all of this as the never changing Scriptural Truth much in the same way as 1 Tim. 2:11 is treated (sic). We get our kids handing out the E3 cubes "designed to make evangelism simple;" teeny-boppers distributing "CrossTalk Tract" and "Tract Tags;" mom and dad distributing "Gospel Tracts" in crowded places where people might pick them up (maybe even glance at them before they get tossed) such as in restaurants, schools, buses, waiting rooms and at the office." Meanwhile, the "church" has a number of evangelism/discipleship programs for different age-groups. It holds "outreach to the neighborhood" programs such as preparing and serving meals for the homeless; operating thrift shops to provide alternative shopping services to the local community, holding "community yard sales," giving away candy to children, clothing, spicing up the Sunday musical program while toning down the sermons; theatrical productions are put on for Easter and Christmas; whatever other enticements it takes to draw people in; all stops are out.

As a result of our strong and determined evangelical efforts, the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47) Next thing we know, membership has grown from one or two hundred to seven or eight hundred. The "sanctuary" is packed; the parking lot is full; there aren’t enough classrooms or areas for informal gatherings. At first the crowd is accommodated by adding two or three additional services on Sunday. The growth continues. A Saturday service is added and then another and another. Still the overcrowding continues. More parking; more class-rooms and a larger "fellowship hall" are built. The parking lot is expanded. The church considers adding a balcony area to the "sanctuary" and building a multistory parking garage. The programs continue. Membership grows. By this time, there is no more room for expansion left on the original site. The church begins looking for suitable near-by property to purchase to build a larger church facility. There is talk of starting multi-site churches where, by transmitting pastor’s sermons by satellite to the multiple locations, a number of worship opportunities are provided within the same congregation at multiple times and sites. At each site, music, worship, and prayer solidify the sense of community while keeping the identity of the "mother church." When a sports arena and garage facility became available, the determined course of action to be taken was to purchase it and develop satellite churches as well.

The predictions are that there will be multi campus in every major city in America. Seacoast Church, SC operates 13 campuses each with 5 weekend services as well as an internet "church." Seattle’s Mars Hill Church operates 9 satellites in two states with three more planned. Rick Warren’s Saddleback operates 9 satellite campuses and an internet "campus." Add to this the mega-churches that meet in stadiums or on sprawling campuses, such as Lakewood Church (43,500), Life Church (26,776), Willow Creek Church (23,400), North Point Church (23,377) and Second Baptist Church (22,723) (they are usually multi-campuses also ) and we have "evangelism" at its finest. It is interesting to note the one ingredient all these churches have in common is the "home pastor" gives the sermons to all locations via TV. Note the Osteen-Warren potential for stardom.

Does evangelism have to mean we are destined to "worship" in a "satellite-church" watching our "pastor" on a TV screen or in an auditorium watching him on TV? No, there is an alternative: minus the "pastoral star qualities." It’s known as "mother/daughter" churches. This is more of a "family" rather than a "slave" relationship. The "mother" church provides the initial leadership and financial resources to get the new church "daughter" started. It might even provide a "core team" from "mom" who live in proximity to "daughter" to be the initial congregation. "Daughter" will likely have the same values and beliefs as "mom:" at least until the "umbilical cord" is cut. While the working relationship is close, "daughter" is autonomous with her own pastor, staff and budget. They may even develop their own ethnic/racial stamp. What is most important is that the "mother/daughter" method retains the small, close-knit family type of church atmosphere impossible within the "mega-churches." While the "satellite-churches may be small, its pastor is an impersonal TV image. Furthermore, they are not autonomous and they retain the language of the "mother church."

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry , Abba, Father. Romans 8:15

Return to the Directory

 
 


Pimping the Gospel
(A Case of Throwing the Baby Out With the Wash)
And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased .  John 6:2

Return to the Directory

            Today, the “church” is taking every possible step toward what will make the Gospel more palatable, and even attractive for people.  One such step is attempting to neutralize the age-old impression that Christian’s can’t have any fun.  They can’t drink, play cards, dance, gamble or engage in any of the “fun things” life has to offer. Heaven forbid.  To lessen this impression, churches are serving up a smorgasbord of drama, music, and other forms of entertainment. The health-wealth-and-prosperity gospel attempts to make Christianity more “popular,” by lessons that talk about “positive energy,” “being empowered to succeed,” “God really wants us to enjoy life,”  "We are called to live a life of blessings and abundance." This brand of pimping the Gospel presents itself as “The Way to a richer, fuller life now!”  A statement of purpose from one of the apparent heirs to the Possibility Thinking dynasty states, “Jesus came that we might have a more abundant life.  He came to carry our weaknesses, our sickness, our pain, so that we can walk in total freedom, peace, power and purpose.”  These Scriptural half-truths are based on “Loving Father/Brother Jesus” to the exclusion of their role as righteous judges of the unrepentant sinner. (Matt. 11:20; John 5:30, 12:48; Acts 7:7, 10:42; Rev. 19:11)  According to John MacArthur, this makes material things, not Jesus the focus of Christianity.  He calls this promise of forgiveness minus the gospel's hard demands “Easy-believism.”
             A second, more serious, effort is being made to counteract the accusation that Christians are narrow-minded, what some call it our “holier-than-thou attitude.”  One writer characterizes our “bigotry” this way,

“The doctrine common among many Christians that you can know God only through the mediation of Christ leads many Christians to think that they have a special connection to God that non-Christians lack, leading them to think that they have God's special favor and non-Christians don't. This fuels an elitist attitude that can lead directly to bigotry.” (Different Opinions & Religious / Philosophical Issues)

Recent surveys, including one by the Christian research organization The Barna Group, found that among the American public, “Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%).”

         To offset the second of these unfavorable criticism, we must figuratively start “tearing pages out of our Bibles” that have perceived offensive verses on them.  On the short list are those pages dealing with the fact that we all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, (Rom. 3:23) His righteous judgment, the reality of Heaven and Hell, that not all will be saved (Biblical profiling), that Jesus is the only way to heaven, the need for repentance, His (Jesus) resurrection and ascension, the tribulation, the role of women, divorce, the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Such topics as these and others that were once the mainstay, that might be perceived as critical or smug or arrogant are no longer the subject for sermons.  Elaboration of all the articles of our faith that various groups, organizations and individuals consider offensive is too extensive.  To summarize, let’s just say that if all of the offensive material were removed from the Bible, only the front and back covers would remain; for the time being and only as long as the word Holy and the symbol of the Cross are not displayed. 

         Another attempt to make the Gospel more acceptable to non-Christians is by “Contextualizing” the Bible.  This trend goes far beyond simply using popular jargon to “culturize” and “modernize” the language of the Bible (e. g. getting away from King James use of “thee” and “thou”) to such tactics as explaining Paul’s sanction against women being pastors (1 Tim. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.) as an expression of his male-centered culture.  Some, more radical conceptualists go so far as to accuse the Apostle Paul, recognized as the greatest rabbinic scholars of his day, was wrong in saying that Eve was deceived not Adam (1 Tim. 2 14) based on Gen. 3:6 that he was with her.  Another instance is explaining the Scriptural sanctions against divorce as a function of the subordinate role of women in the culture of Jesus’ time. (I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Matt. 5:32) Ralph Winter writes about the mission of contextualization,

"Apparently our real challenge is no longer to extend the boundaries of Christianity but to acknowledge that Biblical, Christian faith has already extensively flowed beyond Christianity as a cultural movement just as it has historically flowed beyond Judaism and Roman Catholicism. Our task may well be to allow and encourage Muslims and Hindus and Chinese to follow Christ without identifying themselves with a foreign religion. The Third Reformation is here.”
There is no politically correct, polite way of describing this growing detestable, practice within Christianity.  To these perhaps well-intended  corruptors of the Word we ask, “how do we demonstrate true love and respect for our fellow man by corrupting the Gospel designed to save them?  Where is it written He authorized us to modify it?  On the contrary, is it not written that we should not?”

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2 Corinthians 2:17

Return to the Directory