HOW IMPORTANT ARE RELATIONSHIPS?
especially unto them who are of the household of faith. Galatians
6:10
Dr. Billy Graham tells us the reason 100’s, 1,000’s should overcome the reluctance of some to come forward in stadiums and arenas filled with 10’s of thousands of people to be "saved" is because Jesus called all His disciples publicly. Coincidentally, after that "alter call" there is a second to the TV audience and inviting them to phone his ministry for some study material. After Dr. Graham issues these "invitations," he admonishes new converts to "go to church next Sunday." Greg Laurie, touted as the heir apparent to Billy Graham, expects 25,000 to attend his 2005 Anaheim, California Harvest Crusade. While recognizing the validity of "one on one" evangelism, he is dedicated to what he refers to as "event evangelism," "crusade evangelism" or "mass" evangelism. Yet, he states, "Change begins with a relationship with Jesus." There are others but these are two excellent examples of crusade or mass evangelism.
Founder of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Dr. Adrian Rogers, says, "I believe God wants us to proclaim the message of salvation in the power of the Holy Spirit by every means possible, especially through radio and television. That's our commitment at Love Worth Finding and I am thrilled to be a part of this work!" In the early days of television, preachers would encourage the "at home" audience to "Put your hands on the television set and pray with me." Who would dispute the fact that these men and these means have "struggled mightily" to spread the Gospel "by every means possible?" Who would disagree that thousands have been "saved" by their (?) efforts – amen to all these efforts.
There is, however, a nagging concern surrounding crusade, television ministries and even "mega churches." Many years ago, a popular song asked the question, "Is that all there is?" It went on to say, "If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing." Maybe that is exactly what so many Christians have done – in some instances, at least, they just broke out the "booze" and kept on dancin." They "went forward," or put their hands on the TV recited the prayer the preacher dictated, got saved and went on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Why not? When are they ever told any differently? Billy does tell new converts to "go to church next Sunday." And, they do, but increasingly "church" is just as big and impersonal as touching a TV or confessing one’s faith to Billy or Greg or whom ever is off there on the distant stage. The "mega-church" is so large that the only "personal contact" possible is the "glad-hand" received on entering the arena. That distant, remote, unapproachable pastor may become the prototype image they have of God. Greg Laurie tacitly recognizes the weakness in the various forms of "mass evangelism." In their defense, he asserts that a friend brings the overwhelming numbers of "unbelievers" to crusades. If that is true, why isn’t their witness sufficient?
Without an example, without a model to follow, would we expect them to realize how much He really, really cares for us – personally? Yes, Jesus did call each of his disciples publicly. But He also did so individually – and personally, one by one. Just as they were "hand-picked," they were individually taught - with a "failure rate" of only 1/12th. These boys didn’t say "well if that’s all there is" (They did, but only for a short time.) If a disciple is a learner, he is also an imitator.
Here lie the fundamental difficulties with TV and "mass evangelism" – learn what, imitate with whom? The possibility of seeing God as aloof and unapproachable as reflection of their conversion experience, then the absence of a tutor and finally the absence of someone to model one’s behavior after. What is wrong with the one who brought them to the event? All the time is that timid, insecure person who was instrumental in getting the convert to church or to a revival or crusade. Convinced of his incompetence, he turns the reins of their consecration to strangers. You see, we want to make Christianity impersonal, tied up in doing the right thing; saying the right prayers; following the proper worship sequence; reciting the correct words in celebrating communion – external things. We have forgotten Christ’s command that we love one another. Instead we sit at the feet of Billy, revere Greg and ignore those around us.
We also seem to forget that we are family. Jesus
said, For whoever does the will of my Father
in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" Matthew 12:50
and Paul writes, Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of
God; Ephesians 2:19
Return to the page
directory
YOUR
EYES SHALL BE OPENED
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5
How many times growing up have we been told about and read the account of the "Fall of Man?" There they were Adam and Eve – prototype humanity – in heavenly bliss. They did not know the pain of human suffering and they walked and talked with God. And in the garden, God placed everything we needed – and those two trees, life and knowledge. Not quite heaven, however, because imperfection was just around the corner – but close as close as we have ever been. As close as we ever will be – in the flesh. So what happened on that day when the serpent conned Eve – that whole "apple scene?" Incidentally, there is nothing in Scriptures about the fruit of the tree of knowledge being an apple.
In the same way, how long have we retained the adolescent idea that this was all about "intimate relations" as we politely call it? Well, excuse the pun, but the notation that they were both "naked" feeds the misinterpretation. Oh, my goodness! Instead of such a limited understanding, is it possible that Adam and Eve were "corrupt," corrupt in every way and just didn’t know it? Were they perfect? If they weren’t, isn’t it correct to say they were naturally corrupt and prone to disobedience? How could God tolerate that? Could it have been their child-like innocence? Any parent will tell you children are not perfect, but innocent – up to a certain age they don’t know any better. Did Adam and Eve have a "child-like innocence" about them? Is that’s how He "tolerated" them?
After eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil, the couple realized, they knew, they were imperfect (naked) and ashamed – not of their nakedness, but of their imperfect, sinful nature. What they did, seems to suggest it was their nakedness – they made clothing (Please note, they - made - clothing.) Then God came by and, not finding them, He called out for them. Because, they were so ashamed they hid from Him – they knew their homemade clothes weren’t enough. He, God, made the "alpha sacrifice" and prepared more satisfactory clothing for them from the pelts of animals – a "blood atonement."
The things John Gill thinks Jesus sees about children that so attracts His attention is they are, "harmless and inoffensive; free from rancour and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority." At least a beginning of describing what we should be like – and are not. If we see Adam and Eve as more than hiding their physical nakedness from God, and embrace more of the image Gill describes as attractive to Him, our view of the full extent of our sinful nature explodes. Then, if we are willing, we can grasp the simple fact there in nothing we can do to reconcile our sinfulness before the face of the Lord God Almighty. We can’t possibly do so even with a wardrobe – a warehouse – full of our own works.
It seems we don’t sin once in a while, we don’t "backslide" now and then, but that we are, by our very nature sin. The work of our redemption isn’t the one-time blood atonement we might like to think but the constant "24/7" intercession His sacrifice allows Him to make before God’s throne on a constant, continuous basis. Should we miss that, then we will also miss Jesus’ challenge to ourselves as much to the scribes and Pharisees to whom He spoke these words, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John 8:7b). Do we believe once saved we sin no more or very infrequently? After all, He was speaking to "heathens," rather than to the saved. If we believe so, aren’t we lessening His sacrifice?
Maybe even more basically, aren’t we restricting that sacrifice to a one-time-covers all? Our sins are washed away by the Cross and by our accepting His sacrifice. Does that mean we sin no more thus not needing any further intercession? A Bible teacher gave a lesson one Sunday quoting Romans 8:34. He fittingly emphasized Christ’s death and resurrection, but only indirectly recognized the importance of His ascension (perhaps because the passage didn’t use the word). Christ’s ascension gives us two very important things: (1) the Holy Spirit, and (2) Jesus sitting at the right hand of God pleading for us – without ceasing. There was a certain arrogance about Adam and Eve thinking they could do something themselves to take care of their sins. There is something of a lack of humility if we think we don’t need His constant intervention. Does 1 John 1:9 sound like we need to "shower" only once or on a very regular basis?
- If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Return to the page directory
IS MY NAME EARL?
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:
I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more
abundantly John 10:10
Return to the page
directory
A new television show premiered in the fall of 2005 featuring a character who, "found out about karma. You know do good things and good things happen to you. Do bad things and they’ll come back to haunt you. Now I know if I want a better life, I need to be a better person." The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that "karma" is the "force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence." The "New Age" movement has adopted karma as part of its patchwork of beliefs along with astrology as a reliable guide for personal actions, the healing power of crystals and the prophetic power of Tarot Cards. The two ideas he, Earl, represents are deep seated in our National psyche. He thinks he can determine his destiny by what he does – that he is in control. How very American. Earl believes that a "better life" is expressed in material terms is in many ways the very core of our values – the driving force of our economy, marketing strategy in a nutshell. What is the American Dream if it isn’t the never ending accumulation of material wealth? How else do Americans expect, anticipate achieving that dream if not through individual effort?
If we once again read that quote from "Earl," shouldn’t it strike a familiar chord to us – "if I want a better life, I need to be a better person?" It is a theme of American literature since its infancy wrapped up in Horatio Alger’s many "dime novels" expounding the "rags to riches theme. It is the "American Dream." And that dream can be accomplished by anyone through honesty, hard work and determination. The only thing that is perhaps unique about the upcoming series is the introduction of a somewhat mystical connotation to how we get to the "better life." But, then, we are in a "new age."
What should we expect in the world’s richest nation? Is it any wonder that some critics have already voted the show, " hands down the best new show of the season?" And what if the series reverses the process, a ne’er-do-well first becomes rich and then changes his life? The connection between what we do, success and riches is there. The show should be a hit because it resonates so well with our core values. Then what could be more reasonable than for a preacher of a mega church located in any affluent neighborhood to speak on the same theme? Actually, the connection between doing the "right" thing resulting in earthly rewards is an ancient theme preached from presumably Christian pulpits for hundred’s of years. Our nineteenth century preacher of the" gospel of success," Horatio Alger, had Calvinist breeding and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the Harvard Divinity School. If there is any surprise at all in either Earl or Horatio is that the other branches of Protestantism have taken the theme to their religious hearts. Now that is comic relief.
Would we expect American preachers to make Matthew 19:24 their foundational theology? Never mind that Jesus preached to His congregation the evils and dangers of earthly riches and their incompatibility with Heaven, do we really think well-healed American congregations would receive such a message? Would we expect preachers with such as the cornerstone of their theology to be successful "pastors" of mega-churches? Wouldn’t that be the surprise? Strange as it may seem, Christianity is actually a "rags-to-riches" religion. We seldom hear the correct slant on that which is:
(1) The "rags" of Christianity are our filthy, sinful lives – a poverty of the Spirit
(2) Yet, we are so privileged – we were chosen before time
(3) We will be successful through the unmitigated grace of God – not our efforts
(4) Our poverty of sin will be forgiven and forgotten
(5) Allowing us to inherit the unimaginable Kingdom of God – riches beyond imagination.
The contrast between the "My Name is Earl/Horatio Alger" infection of our American Culture and the truly Christian message is overwhelming. In so many fundamental ways it is diametrical to Earl however mystical the comedy may be. We are not in control. There is nothing we can do. We are powerless. The good life is not to be found in this life – it is to be shunned; forsaken. Our struggle isn’t to fight our way to the top of the heap but to battle to crawl under it – how un-American.
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
. Matthew 20:27-28
Frank Sinatra is remembered for many songs. The lyrics of one of his
signature melodies said. "And now, the end is here And so I face the final
curtain My friend, I'll say it clear I'll state my case, of which I'm
certain I've lived a life that's full I traveled each and ev'ry highway And
more, much more than this, I did it my way." Whether that was an expression
of Sinatra’s religious convictions or simply a song that went over well on
the "Vegas strip" is between him and our Lord God Almighty. Imagine, if you
will, his making such a statement before the Throne of Grace.
Whatever Sinatra’s religious persuasion, according to a
NEWSWEEK/Beliefnet Poll (August 2005) indicates a lot of Christians agree.
"Eight in 10 Americans—including 68 percent of evangelicals—believe that
more than one faith can be a path to salvation" – the poll found that 91% of
Roman Catholics believe the same thing. In so many words, these people are
saying, "We can do it our way." However sound the poll, it certainly
suggests a marked digression for an absolutely fundamental Christian precept
–
John 3:16. Singing "I Did It My Way" before God’s Throne may be a
regular occurrence. Do you think He’ll be impressed? Let’s pray, for their
sake, that He is a Sinatra fan. How could it be that so many professing Christians could
reject the very thing that makes them Christian? Where, in the name of God,
could such ideas possibly have come from? They aren’t Scriptural. To the
contrary, everything in the entire Bible points to the blessed event of the
coming of the Messiah to save the world from its sins. If the Messiah
promised in the Old Testament and He whose virgin birth was proclaimed by
angels is just one of many? What’s the big deal? Buddha, Mohammed, or the
many voices of Hinduism will do just as well. Let’s not forget Shintoism,
Jainism, Taoism along with the innumerable expressions of "spirituality"
found in Africa – or, perhaps, our own "garden-grown-variety." Heresy is being sold in the Christian community as
compassionate broadmindedness. It’s as though we don’t want to be accused of
being "narrow-minded" which is exactly what we should be. Whose word should
we accept that of a compassionate theologian or preacher or what we find in
Scriptures? One "theologian" of some note is reported to have said,
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. If we may
be permitted to say so, His name was Jesus (Matthew
7:14). That doesn’t sound very "liberal" does it? Just one verse later
there is this warning, Beware of false prophets,
which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves. (v. 15). We aren’t doing people a favor when we "respect" their
false religious beliefs. We aren’t even being kind. "Broad minded"
acceptance of someone’s immoral lifestyle or another’s mistaken beliefs is
the most cruel thing a Christian could possible do. Such "preachers of
compassion" are preaching people right in to damnation. Christians must
understand that the compassionate thing to do is to try to help
non-believers find their salvation unless we think that condemning someone
to Hell is the compassionate thing to do. And, believe it or not, that is
exactly where the "I did it my way" syndrome will send a person. Or should
we speak of "Hell Fire and Damnation" for fear of offending someone or
frightening them away? Probably not. Someone is not doing a good job with the Good News we
presumably have been proclaiming for over some 2,000 years? We are told
to Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel
to every creature (Mark
16:15). What is the Gospel? Elementary – the "gospel is the glad tidings
of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the
Messiah, the founder of this Kingdom." (ref.)
Well, evidently not so elementary if we can even entertain the idea that .
Someone seems to have forgotten to tell a generation of converts that this
is what they were supposed to be "preaching." Apparently, someone has
forgotten to teach the very narrow-minded Word of God in seminary to a
generation of "ministers." In contrast, shouldn’t our fervent prayer be to
able to say, "And so I face the final curtain my friend, I'll say it clear
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain, I did it not my, but HIS way."
What more joyous statement could ever be made? And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be
called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall
be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein
I DID IT MY WAY
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
FAITH AND REASON (The Efficacy of Prayer)
And it came to pass, that, while they communed together
and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. Luke 24:15
We are encouraged by some contemporary pastors to "get the facts" and "count the cost" before making decisions. It seems that’s what these two on the road to Emmaus were doing. They were assessing the "facts" and apparently planning their next step whether to return to Jerusalem on the "fact" of His resurrection and the imminent restoration of Israel to is proper prominence or to go home in defeat. They were assessing the situation. As positive as such appraisals of "costs and facts" might be, there is no indication that they were going to turn around and head back to Jerusalem. In fact, some scholars believe that, in their estimation, all was lost. Jesus seemed a little perturbed with their deliberations. He said to them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? (v.26) His "assessment" seems to lean toward the "fact" that they were preparing to abandon ship and go home.
As they came to the outskirts of Emmaus, their travel companion seemed prepared to leave them, so they asked Him to spend the evening. He did. After supper, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them (v. 30). Then, we are told, their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight (v. 31) whereupon, recognizing Him, they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem (v.33). So much for "getting the facts," "evaluating the costs" and "planning what to do next." Doesn’t this little account simply add to the vast number of Biblical references showing us the short-sightedness of human reason and human effort? There’s that haunting statement from Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly. Doesn’t that say it all? It took the living Christ to open their eyes. Isn’t that the same with each of us? Evaluation and planning based upon incorrect and incomplete "facts" must surely lead to erroneous conclusions. Surely, if we base our lives on what we, together with others think, we are going to "initiate" the wrong plan – launch out in the wrong direction just as these two were on their way to Emmaus. As a matter of fact, how reasonable was the tack Jesus, Peter, Paul and others took?
Would the outcome have been different if, even before leaving Jerusalem, these two as well as the other disciples had knelt in what we used to call "prayer and supplication?" In the record of those events surrounding the empty tomb, Jesus’ followers showed perplexity, disbelief and wonderment. There is no record that they showed any inclination to kneel down in prayer. Instead, they seemed to act as if the best way to get the necessary facts was to talk with one another. Maybe they thought the time for prayer was over and it was time for action. Peter, you will recall, actually had to go stomping to the burial site himself and verify that Jesus’ body was not there. Even then it is written that he departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass (v. 12).
Jesus told His disciples, And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive (Matthew 21:22). Remember that? He said to them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done (v. 21). Paul tells us in Acts 12:5 and in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to "pray without ceasing." In Luke 18:1 Jesus spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint. Does this sound like we should ever feel we are tired of waiting for God to reveal His will to us and instead launch into action?" If it does, maybe we are reading the wrong book. What power there is in the idea of "taking the initiative" but first read Proverbs 16:1 (MSG).
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him
1 Corinthians 2:14
For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians,
than that we should die in the wilderness. Exodus 14:12b
Return to the page
directory
In this passage from the Book of Exodus, the exiles, stranded in the desert, were giving voice to a rarely recognized fact – freedom takes effort, slavery takes none. Freedom requires responsibility; slavery requires obedience. Freedom requires intentional action. Slavery only requires submission. True, freedom presents us with options and opportunities while slavery is narrowly constraining subject to the will and whims of others but, it is essentially mindless. These exiles, runaway slaves from all the viciousness of the Egyptian master race and the demented Pharaoh who seemed to take great pleasure in their miseries were telling Moses that was preferable to their present condition. Please understand, the Egyptian army had been destroyed, they were fed by God’s very hand, "bitter water was made sweet" and they were led by His presence. They preferred slavery.
God was an upsetting influence in the lives of the Egyptian slaves; He was unsettling, downright disruptive. When things seemed to be going their way, when they anticipated freedom from their bondage, that was great. One can only imagine the glee in their hearts when they departed Egypt with full bellies and their wagons straining under the weight of treasure they had taken from the Egyptians. Freedom seemed to offer nothing but the promise of the good life free of pain and suffering. We must also remember that this was not the working of Moses but of the Lord God Almighty. He ordained they should leave Egypt – by His command. By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: yet, but a short time and they "complained against Moses." Through this entire journey from slavery to freedom they did nothing to help themselves; they only complained. Freedom was drudgery for them. Perhaps there is no greater example of the rebellious free will of man opposing to infinite will of God in all Scripture than the Exodus - at least on such a grand scale. When we contemplate all the "misfortune" that befell the Hebrews in their sojourn in the wilderness, we must do so within the contest of that rebellion.
The Lord God Almighty was with them, not just in the person of the prophet Moses but in His awesome power. Aside from the plagues and the death of firstborn He brought down on Egypt and the Pharaoh, didn’t He on their Exodus journey safely conduct them across the Red Sea on dry land? Just three days in the wilderness they complained there was nothing but bitter water to drink and after two-and-one-half months of emancipation they were complaining about not having enough food to eat. Yet, during all of this the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: (Exodus 13:21) and the Angel of God was also before and behind them. Not enough. When we consider all God did for the People of Israel doesn’t it cause us to wonder of He could have done anything to satisfy them? Don’t their demands seem insatiable "mindless?"We’re no different. Truly, we are no different. We are just as mindless. There are Christians in other parts of the world wanting for that which sustains life, but not here, not in the United States. That’s why they come to our shores by what ever means possible willing to trade places with even our most destitute citizens. Yet we whine for more. The greatest gift ever given was not God’s liberation of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt nor was it His great prophet, the Ten Commandments, the Promised Land, the list goes on. The greatest gift was not His presence in the cloud and fire, but in His presence as Jesus the Christ. The greatest gift was His sacrifice of His Son Jesus for our sins – Jesus’ resurrection and ascension.
We moan and grumble about how little we have and grovel for more. Our attitude before His throne is that of "woe is me, my life is so meager I have so little can’t you give me more?" It seems as though everything we do for the "church" is with an eye on the "profit margin" – "if I tithe, what will it profit me?" The tragedy is that such a "bottom line" attitude is perpetuated from the pulpit. John 10:10 I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly is taken to mean material things when a truly abundant life has nothing to do with such. The idea is give, support this "ministry" and God will (fill in the blank.) Maybe this attitude should be called "Groveling Christianity." Instead of a life of gratitude, sacrifice and service with the purpose and intent to glorify our God, we are taught to beg for and mindlessly expect to receive all the material things our little hearts desire just by asking our Santa Clause God.
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
Mark 4:19
For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than
that we should die in the wilderness. Exodus 14:12b
In this passage from the Book of Exodus, the exiles, stranded in the desert, were giving voice to a rarely recognized fact – freedom takes effort, slavery takes none. Freedom requires responsibility; slavery requires obedience. Freedom requires intentional action. Slavery only requires submission. True, freedom presents us with options and opportunities while slavery is narrowly constraining subject to the will and whims of others but, it are essentially mindless. These runaway slaves from the viciousness of the demented Pharaoh seemed to take great pleasure in their miseries. They were telling Moses that slavery was preferable to their present condition. Understand, the Egyptian army had been destroyed, "bitter water was made sweet." They were fed by His hand and led by His presence. Still they preferred slavery to freedom.
The Hebrews response to being saved from slavery does, indeed, seem mindless. Maybe that’s why only two of those who left the slavery of Egypt ever entered the Promised Land. But on reflection, how much different are we from these Hebrews? Have we been freed/saved from slavery? We have – freed from the bondage of our sins and saved from damnation. Would we dare to characterize our salvation any other way? The comparison between the devil and the Egyptian Pharaoh is not perfect, but almost. We were the slaves of darkness – the master of this earth. "Well," you say, "what about God feeding and protecting them in the Wilderness? What about that?" Jesus said, seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Have we really, really put Him first? As a matter of fact, this is our promise, Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. (Hebrews 13:5)
Remember as great a leader as Moses was ours is even greater. Moses was human and, ultimately failed his mission to take the Hebrew people into the Promised Land. He died and left them alone. Our leader is God Himself. He will never fail. He will never forsake us. They had external evidence of His presence, pillars of cloud and fire, the Tabernacle and a human priesthood. We have God in our very hearts, but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you (John 14:17). In 2 Corinthians 6:16, Paul tells us And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
There came that day that the Children of God were called upon to act upon their faith – to give witness, as it were, of their trust in Him. They were to occupy the land of Canaan – the Land of Promise, the Holy Land – that which had been promised to Abraham. Instead, according the account given in Deuteronomy, (1:22) they sent spies into the land who, upon their return, gave such a fearful account of its inhabitants that the people refused to enter the land of their inheritance. To this point, they had built a Tabernacle in which to worship and sacrifice to the Lord. Disregarding the golden calf, this was the extent of their doing much more than complaining. They were to step out and they stumbled. These people did not want to expand their territory; they wanted to stay right there in their comfort zone.
Isn’t the "pew" our comfort zone? Isn’t it better to let the "pastor" teach and minister to the congregation while we just sort-of vegetate in our usual place during Sunday morning services? After all, he is trained and it is his job. We have our own jobs and families and things to do. We don’t have the experience or the time to take his place. Even if we wanted to, we really aren’t qualified and we certainly don’t have his credentials or license. He went to seminary; we’ll just leave those things to him.
We all can’t preach or teach or be missionaries or evangelists (or be apostles or prophets for that matter) but aren’t we really supposed to be "pastors" and "ministers?" Every time the Greek for pastor is used in the KJV, it is translated as "shepherd." A pastor/shepherd is one who looks after and cares for others. Care comes in a lot of packages: physical, emotional, spiritual for example. A "minister" is one who serves. Isn’t ignoring our personal responsibilities and relying upon professional pastor/ministers being just as mindless? Isn’t relying on others to tell us what to believe just as apathetic? Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1) If liturgy and tradition rule our faith, are we any less in bondage than these Jews to whom Paul spoke?
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:16
What Goes Around, Comes Around
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure,
pressed down, and shaken together, and running over,
Luke 6:38
It is true as so many people are fond of professing when it comes to others, "what goes around, comes around." It is also true that God cannot be mocked. Those who make such utterances must not be aware of the implications of what they are declaring or that it apples to they as well as to others. A man reaps what he sows – that’s close to "what goes around…" isn’t it? The only question is whether or not such rationalization is or should be the basis for what we do. There is another passage that needs to be considered. It comes from a chapter in the Book of James we often pretend isn’t there, faith without works is dead?
So many times the "pressed down" theme is preached from the pulpit during "stewardship" drives that is suspicious in the first place. The message conveyed is that our "stewardship giving" fulfills the requirements of "giving" meaning money to the "church." The fact that Christianity, in this second millennium, has become synonymous with "church" does not obligate Scripture to conform to this misconception. There are compound errors in such applications. In the first place, the most superficial knowledge of the Old Testament concept of tithing would be sufficient to convince most (with the possible exception of preachers) that tithing had a very special and unique purpose having nothing to do with the "church." Limiting our "giving," even if we were convinced that it should be to the "church" to monetary gifts is simply not Scriptural. The "giving" is to the "indigent," the needy among us and it was in the form of what was "needed," not just a handout of cash. It might be visiting the homebound, shopping for them, bringing them to church or, most importantly, being friends to the friendless. Perhaps it is our "offerings" that could be directed to funding the material things of the "church."
Are we so naïve to believe we can deceive God? Can He not see into the very depths of our being? If we "give to get," do we possibly think He doe not know our motivation? Unless we think He is very crass we know he is not subject to bribery. After all, in truth, what is we have that might persuade Him? To think He accepts insincere gifts reduces Him to the level of a corrupt politician. It was Fraud (Freud) who proclaimed that there was no such thing as unselfish giving. If we are forced, upon self-examination to reluctantly agree does not require selfish motivations to be the prime force in our giving. We are commissioned to rise above "human nature," not use it as a "reason" for our actions.
The Book of James is difficult for most of us to read. It has a number of rather troublesome concepts. It starts by telling us not to give obeisance to the rich and famous among us and gets worse as it goes along. Just one chapter later he challenges us with this question, If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Then, he springs the "biggie" on us, faith without works is dead. He is telling us that if we don’t have "works" we don’t have faith in the most emphatic language possible. Yet, we ignore it because it appears to contradict the doctrine of grace. Don’t we say that when a person has been "saved, that they have been converted? The word "converted" means transformed, transfigured and changed. Transformed from what changed into what? Not that the process is ever completed in this life, but that metamorphosis is from being self-centered (selfish) to becoming selfless. Selfless means ungrudging, altruistic, uncalculating, unselfish. It does not mean degradation or abrogation of ourselves. Isn’t it reasonable that Christ expects us to be "uncalculating" in our giving and that giving be directed toward the unfortunate among us without expectation of recognition or reward? It is just as reasonable to assert that our "charity" is spontaneous in the sense of "just doing what comes naturally." Actually, properly translated charity, brotherly love, good will, benevolence is uncalculating. Another closely related word is friendship. How sad it would be if our "friends" were calculating the advantages of being friends with us. If we have ever experienced that kind of insecurity, we know some of what God must feel when we do things in His name thinking that "what goes around comes around" and that if we do His will He will reply by giving to us in good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over. Wow who need Donald Trump or even the charity of Bill Gates?- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 8:36-37
Is
That Enough?
The passage from Matthew quoted above is referred to as the "great commission" what some have dubbed "Christ’s marching orders." Some contemporary theologians want the charge to stay within this narrowly defined group (i.e. disciples = apostles = preachers = missionary/evangelists.) Today, using what is consider a Biblical formula, this "traditional formula" has left 2/3rds of the world’s people believing other religions and 1/3rd claiming to be "non-religious." A map of world religions makes it pretty obvious that tradition rather than any missionary endeavor is responsible for a regions religious affiliation. And the sword of conquest, not missionary zeal has converted those areas that have experienced a change, notable North, Central and South America and South Africa. It is worth noting that the "birth place" of Christianity is now Muslim so while we may have gone into the entire world, we’ve lost home base. There is good news in this – the harvest is still truly great. The question must be why.
In spite any significant impact in 2,000 years, the most popular form of evangelism is still missionaries going off far away places with strange sounding names" as they see Paul doing in Scripture. Over the past number of years, other increasingly popular forms of evangelism have evolved referred to as "mass evangelism." These are the "crusade" evangelists such as Billy Graham who fill stadiums with tens of thousands of "fans" (seekers) and television "ministries by the dozens, maybe hundreds. It isn’t uncommon for a "crusader" evangelist to claim hundreds of thousands of conversions to his credit while the TV types lay claim to millions. Yet, the world’s pattern of religious affiliation remains virtually unchanged. Why?
There are other forms of "evangelism" we hear little about but have a rather solid, if ignored scriptural foundation. Jesus told His disciples to love one another and through that love people would come to Him. Today, this is known as "life-style" evangelism – living Christ-like. We don’t hear much about that – wonder why. Barnabas was described as a good man full of the Holy Ghost and, because of that, much people was added unto the Lord. That’s "life-style evangelism." Probably the way of "winning souls for Christ" with the worst reputation is "personal evangelism." Its bad reputation stems from it being associated with such epithets as "Bible thumping" and "street corner soap box preachers." Related is the image of handing out tracts and pamphlets in bus stations and airline terminals. However unsavory these things might be, they shouldn’t be summarily dismissed nor should they be confused with "personal evangelism." In fact, this is the form of evangelism to which Jesus referred in the "great commission." He was speaking to His disciples and, as such, He is speaking to us all. The "Church" may have focused in on the "missionary" journeys of Peter and Paul for their model of evangelism, but it is an obligation shared by every Christian.
With "official missionaries" jetting off to distant lands, "crusade evangelists" filling arenas and stadiums while "TV evangelists" fill the airways, what field(s) there is room for the "ordinary" Christian to participate in the "harvest" other than by answering the call to "support my ministry" with your money. As a matter of fact, that isn’t enough? Missionaries and "mass evangelists" are deserving of our support (Who would deny that Billy Graham has done a work and a wonder in his life-time.) but it does not excuse us from our own responsibilities. There is too much Scriptures telling us each has a role to play in God’s work here on earth to be deluded in such a way – convenient, yes Scriptural no. Why else other than our involvement in His work would Jesus say, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works? It is true that His comments were addressed to the disciples. Those who believes that only the "priesthood" are the heirs to the words of the great commission must also think we should return to those days when only the priests were allowed access to the Sacred Word. John Gill believes that "Light was not given merely for their own private use, but for the public good of mankind." The disciples weren’t the prototype Christian priesthood, but the prototype Christians. What was said to "them" is said to all of us.
- Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitat
- For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread
1 Corinthians 10:17
It is difficult to draw any parallels with the meaningfulness of the celebration of communion. It is the celebration of unity, Baptism comes close because it is the "entrance" into the "family of Christ." So often in the things we do in "church," the meaning gets swallowed up in the ritual. As found in the New Testament, "communion" is the Greek word "Koinonia" that is translated as, "fellowship, association, community, joint participation" with one another as well as with Jesus the Christ. It was He, after all who gave the eating of bread and the drinking of wine its sacred nature. Yes, we are to eat and drink in remembrance of Him, but in fellowship with others in the community of believers. We are, after all, brothers and sisters in Christ. Come communion service, we are told to remember our Savior and the fellowship is almost always forgotten.
We don’t go to church to be entertained, at least we shouldn’t, although increasingly the sanctuary/pulpit area is referred to as a "stage." We go to worship and praise our Lord and to be taught the Word - together. Communion means togetherness. That’s the essence of Christianity. There is no better evangelical tool than our togetherness if it is there. That’s why not going to church simply doesn’t cut it even if we watch a half dozen or more "church services" on TV sitting at home alone – we are missing out on the fellowship. There is no better way to honor Him than to keep His commandments. He said, A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you. Now, that is a tall order to fill. In that same passage, He went on to say, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. If that weren’t sufficient, in Matthew He speaks of two "new" commandments, the second of which is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And, again to stress the significance of what He was saying, He said, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Wow, it is how others will know we are His followers and it is the very foundation of all of the laws and all of the prophets.
If staying at home and watching a televised church service doesn’t cut it, going to church and ignoring those who are our brothers and sisters doesn’t cut it either. Is it surprising to anyone that communion means fellowship, sharing, togetherness and something known as synergy which is all of that in one word? If we up look "synergy" in a dictionary, we’ll be told it means, "The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects." It also means, "Cooperative interaction among groups, that creates an enhanced combined effect." Communion is synergistic. In Child Psychology there is the concept of "parallel play." It’s often observed in babies. Babies, say 2 or 3 years old, in a sandbox together. They had just as well be alone. They are playing in the same sandbox, but they aren’t playing with or cooperating with one another. One seem oblivious of the other. For all intents and purposes, they had just as well be alone. Ever watch folks in church – parallel play. And, sadly, the larger the congregation, the bigger the stage, the more the spotlight (literally) is on the "preacher" and the more we’ll see "parallel play." That’s not synergistic, that’s not communion.
Russell Benjamin Miller has an interesting article in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on communion in which he contends that the "acts of fellowship" found in the Bible and called "communion involve clearly the "Lord’s Supper" but, also involve, the "community of goods, "alms giving" and "cooperation." "From the very beginning," he states, "the early Christians experienced a peculiar sense of unity. Christ is at once the center of this unity and the origin of every expression of fellowship." If we think Christ can be the centerpiece of the Lord’s supper in which the unity of the congregation is missing, we are sadly mistaken. To walk into church, sit down in our pew/chair, partake of the elements, while ignoring those around us is classic "parallel playing" at being Christian and, even more sadly, playing at "taking the Lord’s Supper" – in vain. Hear what He says, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22 17-19 It is an interesting conundrum that Christianity is a singular individual experience in a unified body of believers. You is singular and collective.
THE LOST ART OF HUMILITY
God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. James 4:6
There was the occasion when Peter was asked if Jesus paid the "Temple Tax" required of every adult male Jew for the maintenance of the Temple. Peter responded that He did leading to a most interesting exchange between the two winding up with Christ telling Peter to go catch a fish and pay the tribute from the money he would find inside the fish’s mouth. Hum, another miracle seldom noted. Some how this got twisted around into the disciples asking Jesus, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? That is, who among them is the greatest. It seems money to have that effect on people. This little question raises many question not the least of which is their impression of what the "kingdom of heaven" actually consisted. Possibly, in spite of His teachings to the contrary, they were still operating the illusion that the restoration of Israel as a nation was imminent. Recall that some time later, they were still operating under this same illusion – Jesus’ mission, as the Messiah, was to do exactly that. He certainly wasn’t supposed to die.
It is at this point Jesus called a little child to Him and said to the disciples, among other things, Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. He repeats that same lesson in Matthew 23:12. Undoubtedly these are the lessons Paul, Peter and even His brother James draw upon to extol others to be humble. Shouldn’t this be sufficient?
It doesn’t seem so. Humility seems to suggest a lack of those personal traits we Americans admire so much such as self-esteem, confidence and determination. After all, who wants to appear to lack self-assurance, conviction; to be apprehensive and uncertain? That’s almost un-American especially to the "discover the winner in you" crowd at your local church. If we answered honestly wouldn’t most prefer to be seen as assertive rather than meek? When does self-esteem turn into egotism, confidence into boasting and determination into aggression? In fact humility suggests someone who is submissive or timid, servile and even docile. Jesus wasn’t a milk-toast wimp, but He was humble. Who would we rather emulate Him or Donald Trump? remember Donald is a winner, while Jesus the Christ was executed as a subversive criminal.
Jesus exemplified what He taught, and He was a model of humility. Often, unfortunately, the examples weren’t understood – at least initially. Remember the "foot-washing" episode? By the way, Peter’s reaction to Jesus starting to wash his was, Thou shalt never wash my feet! Why not? It was, in his opinion, demeaning, beneath the dignity of the Messiah savior of the Jewish nation. What would people think should the word get around that the Christ was washing people’s feet like a common servant? After all, He was Rhabboni, Master, Rabbi not a servant slave. Bear in mind the row set off by the mother of Zebedee's children asking that one of her sons sit on His right and the other in His left? She probably didn’t understand even after He said, And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant (v.27).The Greek word for "pastor" is translated "shepherd." In John 10:11 Jesus says, I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Most of us, have a romanticized impression of shepherds. In actuality, the job of shepherd in Jesus’ time was not as some depict them today, "he to whose care and control others have committed themselves, and whose precepts they follow." It is true the shepherd was responsible for and had control over others, but the "others" over whom they exercised such care and control were smelly, dirty sheep. Perhaps that describes some congregations but, nevertheless, the occupation of shepherd was demeaning dirty, lonely and dangerous. It was the lowest of occupations, not the highest. It was left to the least and the youngest among the tribe not the best. It was menial labor. Remember that the prophet Samuel rejected the seven of Jesse’s sons who were "at home with their dad" looking for the next King of Israel. When question about others, Jesse told Samuel, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. Then shouldn’t those called to be shepherds/pastors earnestly strive to emulate the humility of our great shepherd rather than display the arrogance of wealthy men or the conceit of those who are famous? Shouldn’t we all who call ourselves by His name?
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
- When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
For right now, let’s put aside the priestly hierarchy of ministers, pastors, bishops, elders, deacons and the rest of the maze of officialdom in Christianity and look within the congregation itself. Will we find there the same stratification, perhaps not in any official sense but realistically will we find some that are just, well, ordinary and others whom we might call superior or extraordinary Christians? There might be a host of reasons for such distinctions, one’s prayer life, reading and understanding of Scriptures, longevity and, not to be over-looked, one’s giving record to the "church." This is more than recognizing the oldest mom as meaningful as that is. This is preferential treatment that bears the mark of an established hierarchy of preferential treatment – unspoken, perhaps, but understood by all.
Did you know that the only place in the New Testament where deference is spoken of is in Peter’s lecture (NRSV) on slaves obeying their masters? The word appears only in three translations and there only in six verses. Does this give us a clue about the propriety of preferential treatment which, by the way, does not appear at all – in any translation. This isn’t just word games where preference is given to one Christian over another in Biblical times but referred to in some other way. Certainly we can point to Peter’s seeming preferential treatment by Christ, as Roman Catholics are wont to point out but even the Herodians recognized His impartiality. Beyond that, however, the Bible counsels against favoring one over the other especially on the basis of fame or fortune. One could hardly make the case that he were obeying the Second Commandment Christ gave us while playing favorites.
Paul in Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 3:25 tells us not to be respecters of persons. James in 2:1 and 2:9 says the same thing as does Peter in 1 Peter 1:17. Jude, probably Jesus’ brother, cautions against having men's persons in admiration. In Acts 10:34 Peter writes, that God is no respecter of persons. On the flip side, Jesus tells us, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. In a similar vein, we are told by Him, Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. So how do we begin? Do we ask why our fellow Christians put others on pedestals or do we ask why those up there allow themselves such distinction? It is doubtful that it makes any difference. In all probability those who out of awe or avarice feed the egos of others in such fashion are no less at fault than those who "sop it up." One thing is certain, flattery or being flattered is not wise or prudent. Here we are with the model of behavior such that our modesty is such that we even pray in secret tempting others by our bragging or ourselves or others.
As shameful as the Hollywood "red carpet" may be for both "fans" and "stars," it pales in loathsomeness when such idolatry is brought into the Christian congregation. In turn, those who feed such fragile egos desperately needing human accolades to gain advantage over such sickly ones are contemptible beyond description. Tom Cruz is to be pitied, not admired. Bill Gates must question the motives of everyone around him. Are they clamoring for his attention to get money or because they like him? That’s pathetic. Those who would treat him and others in such a way for money are despicable. Yet, it goes on, doesn’t it, right in the middle of probably most congregations in the United States. It is the number one fund-raising technique in use in "churches" today. Like so many other things we find, its frequency is not an endorsement. Christianity is not a popularity contest and its morality is not determined by majority rule – or it shouldn’t be. The fact the every "church" "rewards" its major financial supporters, in such a way, elevating them and setting them apart for the just plain ordinary members of the congregation, in no way makes it anything other than morally reprehensible. Ends do not justify means – not in the Christian Bible. Perhaps the real shame is that there are those in the congregation desperate for such attention. Something is wrong with a theology that leaves some so desperately insecure. It is the ultimate in the wanton marketing of human misery.
To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress. Proverbs 28:21
PARABLES
Jesus was a master story teller. He told dozens and dozens of them – although in the Bible they are called "parables" rather than stories. He just may well have been the greatest story teller of all time. This was neither an accident nor incidental. It was intentional. At one point He said, "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world." (Matt. 13:35) It might be added, that, for the day, he often spoke before large groups some to learn some to snare.
One day, His disciples approached Him about His use of this somewhat oblique method of teaching. They asked, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? (Matt 13:10b) He answered, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Matthew 13:11) He continued saying, Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (Matthew 13:13) Jesus did say to "let the little children to come me." (Matthew 19:14) However, no where is it recorded that He "taught down" to their level anymore than He intended His Truths to have entertainment value. On this occasion, He may have sat down with the children around Him and told some "Bible stories," but it is not recorded that He did. Nor does it seem that His intent in using parables was to make the Good News less threatening or intimidating to "non-believers." If anything, they made his teachings more difficult to comprehend. After all, this isn’t an intellectual exercise but a spiritual journey founded in faith.
It is a generally accepted fact that salvation depends upon God’s mercy rather than our intellect, our perceptions or our reasoning – certainly not on anything we do. Paul, in this regard, wrote, Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:9) Perhaps understanding Jesus’ teachings fall under this umbrella – without the help of the Holy Spirit even His words only seemed to make sense – for most they really didn’t. Paul wrote that preaching the Gospel was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). In 1 Corinthians 2:24 he says that But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. He also wrote, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect (1 Corinthians 1:17).
What is meant by the cross of Christ be made of none effect was that it should not be trivialized into mere words (MSG); that the Gospel be so eloquently and elegantly preached that we are distracted from its message by the performer and the performance. One commentator put it this way, "The preaching of the gospel depends for its success on the simple power of its truths, borne by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of people; and not on the power of argumentation, and the charms of eloquence." (Barnes' Notes, Copyright 1997) We might extrapolate from this that treating the Word as entertainment falls into this "no-no."
It is correct to portray the Gospel message as a struggle between good and evil as far as that goes, but it is so much more. The resurrection of Jesus is a corner stone of the Good News as is His ascension but they not the most central themes. Repentance is fundamental to the "story" but the Gospel is more. God’s love for us is the overriding essence of the Bible. It is the precursor to that which is most fundamentally Christian – salvation. It is Christ bridging the Eden-made breach between humanity and our God. It was done as the The Message plainly states, "He paid with Christ's sacred blood, you know. He died like an unblemished, sacrificial lamb" (1 Peter 1:19). We are living as "strangers in a strange land." We were not designed for this life hot cold or otherwise nor is it a condition of any permanency. We were created to live eternally glorifying and worshipping our Lord God Almighty but the disobedience of our ancestral parents put that purpose on hold. He, Jesus the Christ the Messiah has put it back on course, set it back on track. Any telling of the story that detracts from or obviates this fundamental truth, however cleverly, skillfully told or portrayed is deception of the first order. So it is with lions, witches churches and stained-glassed windows. Only preaching/teaching that shows us the wardrobe to salvation is worthy of note needing no eloquence, special effects or elaborate staging and has no entertainment value.
- Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth
- Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For God is not the author of confusion,
but of peace, as in all churches of the saints 1 Corinthians
14:33
Return to the page
directory
Webster’s defines a conundrum as "a question or problem having only a conjectural answer: an intricate and difficult problem." This pretty well describes the Christian "church" in America today. We are confronted with several basic problems having only theoretically possible answers making them very complex and difficult to resolve because any resolution would dramatically change the "church" as we experience it. Our conundrum has many faces that produce issues ranging from annoying to dangerous.
Although there are many facets to our Christian dilemma, there are a very limited number of roots – perhaps just one. In the most general sense, the cause is that Christianity has become a religion suffering from as much legalism as the "church" Jesus encountered in the practices of Judaism contemporary to His ministry. In so many ways, He was a reformer intending to break the choking legalisms clogging the arteries of what Judaism had become. His is a "relational" faith – a "Schullerism" says it, "one to one for one." Two thousand years later, it has become every bit the priestly temple of money changers religion He found so disgusting then and doubtless does today. Rigid, inflexible rituals, liturgies, creeds and doctrines of all descriptions abound. It isn’t enough to be a Christian, one has to be the "right" kind of Christian. Denominational lines are so inviolable that one dares not/cannot cross them. Congregational life, the source of so much strength and guidance, is denied those from the "wrong" Christian background. In the midst of these distracting "domestic" squabbles, the world is dying – literally – starving for want of the Bread of Life.
Stuck, the average Christian, like the average Jew in Jesus day is uninvolved – by design. That makes us stuck with what we don’t understand and can’t change. On good days, the pulpit is "preaching to the choir" in an attempt to make "church" "seeker friendly" without considering that "church" would probably be the last place a "seeker" would be found alive. And those who do chance to wander in are presented with such a maze of requirements to "join" they must be overwhelmed. No thought is given to those who have heard the same "lessons" dozens of times before; who have "accepted Christ" but have no direction of what to do with their lives. They can't’ strike out on their own because they have been carefully tutored to look to the preacher as the ultimate authority. Classes emulate the same style as the pulpit with little opportunity to participate beyond filling in blanks on a prepared outline. Seldom is opportunity provided to question. Even less often the chance to lead. The effect is the laity sees its role as to listen passively and pay profusely for the right and honor to be entertained and bored.
While we give lip service to the "priesthood of every believer" and that every Christian is called to "full time Christian service," little is done to promote either of these statements. To the contrary, virtually everything is done to block them. We are encouraged to "become involved in the ministry" – as volunteers under the careful supervision of the "paid staff" in those areas of a "non-pastoral" nature. Who has ever been to a church where volunteers regularly preach, give communion, perform other "priestly" duties? There is little opportunity to learn more than the "basics" of Christianity, less to discuss and none to question. Many "churches" use Paul’s caution to the saints at Ephesus to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace to make challenges to priestly authority a cardinal sin – that along with not fulfilling one’s tithing pledge. There is little encouragement for the saints "spend time in the Word." Few references to the Holy Spirit as our teacher and comforter, and no assistance in being able to discern the Truth for ourselves.
The average Jew on the street of Jesus day saw nothing wrong with the moneychangers in the Temple. It didn’t bother them. Actually it was a convenience. The average Christian today sees nothing wrong with leaving "spiritual" things in the hands of "qualified" priests and preachers. Actually it is a convenience. We can get on with our worldly lives not troubled with such matters. The clergy has job security, we can snooze through "church" convinced that "supporting the ministry" means money in the collection plate. Meanwhile the blood and body of Christ (actual or symbolic; crackers or bread; juice or wine) remain on the communion table for want of those to take it to the world whose starvation is eternal.
Truth About Discipleship
Much like the often misused “saint,”
we have a distorted view of what a “disciple” is. Most commonly we associate
it exclusively with the twelve later referred to as His apostles. Just like
“saint” and even “apostle,” primarily as a result of the questionable antics
of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries, these terms have acquired a
halo of exclusivity not substantiated in Scripture. In the Bible, a saint is
“a most holy thing.” “Holy,” by the way, means several things including
essentially the same as “saint;”
or
undefiled
by sin or
consecrated to
deity. If we accept the power of His sacrifice, His blood,
we are all saints. We are all disciples too.
Disciple (Mathetes)
appears 252 times in the New Testament but, interestingly disappears after
Acts 21:16 never to be heard from again. Still, this last hurrah is
excellent testimony that the use of “disciple” in Scripture is not limited
just to the famous twelve that were the companions of Jesus the Christ. They
referred to themselves as the disciples, brethren, believers and simply,
“the church.” Others called them “the
Nazarenes,”
and “Galilaeans.”
But “disciple” is the only name other than “apostle” that is used by His
followers to refer to themselves. Later, the disciples adopted the
derogatory name, “Christian”
that many of their detractors were calling them.
We are just as much disciples as we are Christians. Nazarenes or Galilaeans.
What is important is not the name but the meaning behind that name. Jesus
had this sort of thing in mind when he said to His disciples,
Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The passage concludes but he that doeth the will of
my Father which is in heaven. On reflection, this is a rather
harsh statement seems to preclude Sunday benchwarmers from the group. “Do”
is active, not passive. Doing is an act we execute, something we accomplish,
something that we finish, complete. It is to “put forth,” to “exert,” to
try. Something we bring about – that we do our best for. Disciples are
doers of the word,
not just hearers. This message is repeated throughout the Gospels (Matt.
7:21, 12:50, 28:20, Luke 6:46-48, 11:28, 12:47-48, John 13:17), in Romans,
Philippians, Colossians, James, 1 John, 3 John, Revelations.
By the way, the bodily representation in today’s world of the Holy Spirit is
us, His disciples. So also are we the embodiment of the
Fruit of the
Spirit which we are told,
is in all goodness
and righteousness and truth; but also of
Spiritual Gifts.
In Christianity (at least in reformed Christianity) these gifts are not the
exclusive property of a priestly class anymore than the empowerment of the
Holy Spirit. They are the “inheritance”
of
all saints,
disciples, Christians to equip us for service in our congregations, our
families, neighborhoods and places of work – in the byways of life. Every
Christian is called to service, not just a few, not just those who feel
called to “ministry.” Correctly we honor and celebrate Christ’s birth, death
and resurrection. Unfortunately, we pay little to an equally important
milestone in His ministry on earth – His ascension. He said,
It is expedient
for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you. Instead of walking beside us, He is within
us to help and guide us on our ministry.
How often we ignore this most blessed gift. Our congregations are misshapen
because we ignore the gifts intended to strengthen us. Teachers teach
without the gift of teaching; those with the gift of prayer are set to
filing while those with the gift of organization or put in charge of prayer
teams. And through out, rather than a ministry, these gifts, however
misapplied are treated as a means for personal livelihood and
self-aggrandizement - more often than not their motives are their salaries.
In today’s “churches” (that’s why they’re called “church” instead of
ekklesia
– congregation) about the only opportunity for His disciples to activate off
the bench – to get into the game – is on a “voluntary” basis in areas that
are frequently peripheral. The “professionally” paid staff carries out the
“real work” of the church. Actually, our work for the glorification of God
is to be voluntary. We are not for hire. Discipleship is
For the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ, not for profit. Unless, of course, we consider
ourselves more worthy than the 12 disciples whom Jesus sent out to minister
saying,
Provide neither
gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey,
neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy
of his meat. These instructions are repeated in
Mark 6:8-9
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
(Or Maybe How You Ask)
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt
fall down and worship me. Matthew 4:8-9
Return to the page
directory
Theologians tell us, and I think we would be quick to
agree that the Bible does not contradict itself. If it did, we wouldn’t know
which passage to believe. Then those contradictions we seem to notice must
be due to our lack of understanding rather than actually existing. It is the
same reasoning that leads us to contend that the Bible is inerrant. If it
weren’t, we’d be in the position of having to pick and choose what to
believe was the Truth – a position that so many willingly assume anyway.
This isn’t to say we understand all that is in the Bible or, more
fundamentally that we agree with everything. No one has ever said it was
completely comprehensible or that it was written in such a way that we would
all agree with everything it said. Regardless, it is our source for seeking
the Truth. Therefore when it comes to the matter of prayer, it is our source
of information on that subject as well.
In those passages relating to Christ’s temptation (Matthew 4:1-11) He rejected Satan’s "offer" to satisfy His personal needs (v. 3), His personal safety (v. 6) and his offer of untold riches, fame and glory (v. 8). Let us remember this is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God who refused to bargain for or accept such gifts. He reinforce His rejection of such that Satan offered in Matthew 6:25-34. He tells us not to worry about what we will eat or drink, what we will have to wear or even about tomorrow. Instead, we are to seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness (v. 33). Isn’t that what He said?
Therefore, if I "confess" all these things and "claim" them for myself, wouldn’t that be contrary to what He just told us to do? Is it likely when Jesus said, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me, (Matthew 16:24) that what He was saying was to go to the nearest Jaguar dealership and pick out the most expensive Super V8 on the lot or a $30,000,000 Brentwood, CA "cottage" to live in? Probably not any more than He told the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-22) to pay "tithes" to His church because, "you can’t outspend God!"
There are really two vital issues here, what we pray for and how we pray for it. For most of the history of Christendom, it has been universally understood that "taking up His cross" was not assuming the "burden" of worldly lucre. It was to deny such worldly lusts and instead expect persecution and even death. And, who would follow Him should expect no less treatment than He received. The history of Christianity was illuminated by the sacrificial lives of martyrs not self-indulgent millionaires. But now, in the land of unimaginable material prosperity, gluttony has been elevated to a fundamental right of every Christian. This new Christianity believes that if you are ill or handicapped it is an affront to God just the same as if you are poor and humble. Only the healthy and wealthy reflect faith in God. Some have called it a "prosperity gospel," others call it a "positive confession" gospel. It teaches us to "pray" for health and wealth.
In the Greek of the New Testament, "prayer" takes many forms. Deesis is "a seeking, asking, entreaty." Enteuxis found in 1 Timothy is a petition or supplication. Euche is a vow; Proseuche is to pray or worship earnestly and Proseuchomai means to offer prayers. That’s it! The 141 times prayer, pray, praying, etc. is used in the entire New Testament means these things; nothing more; nothing less. Jesus, the Son of God Himself taught us to pray … thy will be done (Matthew 6:10). We weren’t taught to pray "my will, my desires, my demands" but thy will. At the Cross, Jesus earnestly petitioned His Father, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done (Matthew 26:42). Not once, not one time did He Himself nor did He ever counsel anyone to demand or command anything from God – not once. Yet, in this new Christianity "the favors you demand of God - must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer." Let us also remember, based on the Temptations of Jesus, Satan is also capable of granting wishes and maybe even "answering" prayers. Perhaps it is time for us to revisit the rebuke Jesus gave Peter,
Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men
. Matthew 16:23