Theology

.
This library is called "Theology" for lack of a better term. But the "Etc., Etc., Etc." should alert you to the fact that articles other than what could/should correctly be considered "theological" might/probably will appear here.
		Discover who these men are by placing your cursor over their picture and clicking. Click on the picture there to get back here. P.S. Don't forget the Cross!
We hear a lot about the "church" and its "history" with little background given to us about which we are speaking. By and large, those who write and speak about "church history" are referring to the Roman Catholic Church since, with very few exceptions, the "church," and the "Church Fathers" were Roman Catholic -- Luther was! We must constantly remind ourselves that the "Reformation," was a "protest" to some of the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism. It was not then and has yet to be a complete break with many questionable aspects of Roman Catholicism. To help in our study of Discipleship, the following website is an excellent source of major writers in "church history" and their "Catholic" heritage.
And, Now on to our Theology Articles
HomeLinks & Rings pageBanners IIFeature PageSecond Front Page
All of Israel Will Be Saved Are there Scriptures commissioning Christians to forthrightly participate in creating a new nation called "Israel,"	Neturei-Karta Guardians of the City National Zionism is selfish, anti-Semitic, because it condemns the Jews of the world who, like other heathens, have not accepted Christ.
The Three Legged Stool With so many opinions, how can we know the Truth?	Give and It Shall Be Given Unto You Lessons on living.
Sin and the Perfect Life We can claim perfection only if we don’t include the full spectrum of sinful behavior in our list.	An Empty Belly and Charity If things were right with Christianity, we would not see hunger and hurting in our communities.
Giving as an Investment Bribery is defined as the act of promising, giving, receiving, or agreeing to receive money or some other item of value with the corrupt aim of influencing a public official in the discharge of his official duties.	The Temple and the Church We must divorce the idea of the Christian church from the old idea of the Temple.
Synagogue It is not an exaggeration to say that no other institution has more affected Christianity than the synagogue	Oh Lord My God It’s getting increasingly difficult to "see" the works of His hands.
TRUE RICHES Or Is 10% Really Enough?" You can't take it with you, but you can send it on ahead"	Where Only the Perfect Dare to Tread Some say that Christians have a "zero tolerance policy" for the shortcomings of others.
Red Letter Christians Its a matter of whom we consider our Master to be.	It Took Two (and it still wasn't enough) No sacrifice done by human hands is sufficient atonement.
Directed by the Spirit or How Strong is Our Faith Contemporary Christian theologians appear to believe in others paying for their ministry	So Continuing Daily With One Accord The "People of the Way" were in agreement
Were You Born in a Barn? – Many slur the poor among us as lazy and uncouth and shun them all together. Jesus didn’t.	A Good Return on Your Investment – Hum, maybe an answer to the first essay.
He followeth Not With Us Should we be so hasty in condemning the beliefs of other Christians?	Who, After All, Is Our Teacher What separates preacher from the throngs of people being preached to?
They Rejected Him They continue to this day in their rebellion.	Harmony What price, what must Christians sacrifice in the name of harmony?
Democratic Christianity Since when do we decide what we believe by popular vote?	False Pretences Are we about to see a TV program called "The Come to Christ Game?"
Gangs Dressed in the Clothes of Religion Apostasy comes in many forms; not always easy to recognize	Twelve Legions of Angels Do you really think He need our help?
Me And My Bible Our "Eternal Positioning System"	Compassionate Giving Is it possible to talk about giving to support the congregation without also talking about a "return" on our investment?
Charismata Should Christians be able to "make a living" from their "gifts?" Are they for sale?	The Prince of Peace Islam preaches, encourages, "jihad" (religious war), war for "just" purposes with promises of heavenly bliss. Does Christ Jesus?
What's in Your Sermon? The "meat and potatoes" of the Gospel or selfish ambition?	The Prince of This World If the preacher is telling us to seek health, wealth and happiness, which master is he telling us to serve?
What's A Priest? What's A Priesthood? It appears we retain the Old Testament’s priestly class without any of its substance.	The Proof of the Pudding Are we are willing to concede that God has authored confusion?
Who Flies Under a False Flag? Who is our ultimate authority, our teacher, our mentor?	Is The Book Open? Whether they do or not, the question is are all Christians capable of reading and comprehend the Bible?
Then And Now Christian worship is no longer confined to a temple – a building.	To Die: To Sleep Do we need an "attitude adjustment" about living and dying?
Chancellor of the Exchequer This has to do with a different view of "stewardship." His instead of ours. Is He keeping His set of books?	Unity Brotherhood and Communion
OPPORTUNISTS~CHRISTOTUNITST Faith) The cause may be just, the mission holy and certainly the "flock" righteous.	Good Friday Resurrectionists Christianity sees itself waiting for the Lord (or the vicar/pastor) to do everything. Assuming no responsibility.
Heaven's "Lend-Lease" Program We might be in for a surprise. Some of us, as we approach the Throne of Judgment	The Peter Principle Is there an ecclesiastical Peter Principle; "machinery" to enthrone successors to the "throne" of Peter?
Should A Church Grow? Maybe it depends upon why we go to "church."	Should a Church Grow II? In what way? Why?
The Empty Temple Are we still waiting? When is the Temple to be rebuilt? Where?	The Gospel of Moderation It will get you absolutely no where
Where have all the Christians Gone? Is it God's plan for the overwhelming numbers of humanity to go the Hell?	One Holy, Universal Catholic Church Can one imagine a worse nightmare than such a monstrosity?
Lord I Pray Prayer can change things but more likely it will be our desires and wishes that change rather than His eternal plan.	The Ascension And a greater work we are to do.
The Gospel of Moderation When did Christianity become one of moderation?	A Volunteer Reformation Has something gone amiss if we have to create "a vision that will inspire and motivate your congregation to become committed and thriving volunteers."
Science and Religion – "Both Searching for the Truth?" For the most fundamental question in all creation, science is deaf, dumb and blind – "deprived of practical significance" - moot.	Your Sin Is Greater Than Mine Can we try to excuse ourselves by casting aspersions at other people's transgressions?
Individualism and Christianity What ever happened to individual responsibility?	Your Denomination Where do our loyalties actually lie?
To What Limits? How far are we willing to go to "attract" non-believers into our "churches?"	The Law It isn’t too much to suggest that we are rapidly descending into the pit of lawless anarchy.
LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES Some modern-day "Herodians would have us believe the "church" with its "liturgy" and "sacraments" is the guardian of His Sacred Word.	The Law and the Covenant
Should We Search for Common Ground? Must the "church" accept our sinfulness as a standard for our beliefs?	The Fabric of Our Lives Some people weave burlap into the fabric of our lives, and some weave gold thread
Is It Being Purpose Driven Or The Purpose That Drives Us? Part I (The Foundation) What purpose is driving 21^st Century Christianity?	Is it Being Purpose Driven or the Purpose that Drives Us? Part II (The Church) What was the "church" of the Bible?
Is it Being Purpose Driven or the Propose that Drives Us Part III (The Priesthood) Who are our mentors?	Is it Being Purpose Driven or the Purpose that Drives Us? Part IV (Sharing) Giving comes from a compassionate heart. It also comes from a desire not to hurt and not to exclude or ostracize people.
Something Out Of Nothing Suddenly, everything just went "poof!"	Are we Con Artists? The answer lies in the reasons why we do what we do
Giving – Looks into the nature of our giving. Is there a solid Biblical basis for it?	WHAT? – Do we still have “Judaizers” in our midst telling us to conform to outdated traditions?
A False Face Representing something, anything for other than what it really is fraud. How often do we misrepresent our faith to others in the hopes of gaining converts?	Gideon's Robes Is it the way things start out or the way they wind up?
Nothing to Do It is a question of who is in charge.	The Christ Plan Do we sometimes confuse our plan for His plan?
Pick And Choose (What are the Rules?) The "best" of the Bible - subtitled "Junk Food"	Truth The Scriptures, not some celebrity preacher must be the focus of our lives and the source of our information
Saved To what for what? Questions seldom asked	I Never Knew You Boy, are some folks going to be surprised. Instead of an invitation to sit at the head table, they won't even be on the invitation list.
Baptism Baptism could well be described as the door to Christian fellowship.	Persecution in America If we look carefully, Christianity is under attack in America.
Faith Based Christianity Where is it written that Christians are supposed to know everything and understand everything?	The Secularization of Christianity When did we start looking for human, secular explanations for God’s wonders?
To Tell the Truth Christianity is the most unreasonable faith conceivable – it is truly "blind faith."	The Empty Room How much have things changed?
Judas daVinci Much to do about nothing.	Problems, We Got Problems The world is full of them. American seems swallowed up by them.
Scripture We must take care not to extract a single passage and build an entire theological principle on that one passage.	Practicing Women – Maybe females could ascend to the pulpit if they weren’t "practicing women."
Satan is the Accuser of the Brethren – He who resists criticism has something to hide.
The Immediate Ascension of the Baptized – If the work of the “ordinary” Christian is finished, why not?	The Last Dispensation – We appear to be missing a few things in our Disciples manual. Why?
Equivocation – How many of us have confused Jesus for the Jewish Messiah – what can you do for me?	The Storm Has Passed – Is the idea of a purpose driven life so new? Isn’t that what the Bible’s all about?
Domino Evangelism Is it time for a less expensive more effective model of evangelism?	The Founding Father Lest we forget, we have just one "Founding Father."
Can A Smart Person Believe in God? Is this even the right question to ask?	A Titanic Fraud - Guess what! The tomb of Mary, Mary Magdalene, Jesus and His son has been discovered. Wow! Scientifically verified and all! So what!
Clouds, Temples and Thrones At one time there were all three. Now all reside in our hearts.	The Sabbath Did Jesus do away with the Ten Commandments or not?
What's Left? If we look at a full spectrum of Scripture that is rejected by science, what's left?	It Began. Where Did It End? We know when and where the Old Testament Priesthood began. Did it ever end?
Lessons From Israel Throughout the Old Testament, the people of Israel were told to keep the Commandments of God. We are too.	Cultic When is a "cult" a cult? Who decides such things? Based on what evidence?
Sugar Coated Tickle their ears. Tell them, and other signs of desperation, anything just to get them to come back next Sunday.	Clues To The Church’s Real Purpose It is so different, the first generation Christians wouldn't recognize what we call the "church."
Should We Yoke About This? I - Doctrine If the First Century "church" at Corinth had made such absurd statements as we hear today, Paul would have thrown up his arms in total despair.	Should We Yoke About This II? (The Congregation) We have invented the "non-church church"
By Whatever Means? Is it anything goes for the Protestant church?	The Proper Support Of Church Edifices And Church Institutions – Part 1 The Church, as it so pridefully calls itself, tries to substantiate its position on "proper support" by the argument that it is a "visible organization."
The Proper Support Of Church Edifices And Church Institutions – Part 2 The median (most frequent) pastor’s take-home salary in the United States today is $79,446	Church Or Synagogue? The nature of the synagogue has greatly influenced the nature of our churches.
Are We To Question Our Leaders Most leaders (pastors/ministers) say no. But shouldn’t that depend upon who they are?	What Is A Toxic Church Leader’s of today’s toxic religions peddle the Word for profit (2 Corinthians 2:17). In Romans, Paul describes them as such,
The Temple of God For generations, Judaism has talked about rebuilding the Temple and reinitiating the sacrificial system not realizing the Temple is already among us - in us.	Scriptural Errancy With all the presumed errors in the Bible, is there enough left that we can trust?
Biblical Originalism Does the Bible need to be updated, brought into the 21st Century to more closely conform to today's standards?	Who? Is there a "lynchpin" to Christian Theology? If so, what is it?
The Conundrum of Israel Scripturally, nothing is said about the restoration of Israel.	The Truth It is not in the wisdom of men where we should seek Truth
A Free Pass Do we need to evangelize Jews and Muslims alike?	Boycott Does legalization of abortion, divorce and homosexuality change God's views on these and other such subjects? Should such action affect a Christian's attitude and/or behavior on them? Maybe instead of boycotting we should just approach those involved in such behaviors and let them know they're playing with fire - eternally.
Are You Saved? Do we "split hairs" over matters of humanly devised doctrines?	Appeasement More and more we are being called upon to soften the perceived harshness of Christianity, its judgmental character, in order not to alienate non-believers.
The Hotbed of Christianity What happened to the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity?
Field of Dreams Telling people what they want to hear or that makes them feel good about themselves may be deceptive.	Brass Snakes Things restrict and confine what they are supposed represent.
Crucify Me on a Gilded Cross I'm waiting for God to out spend me. I tithed, where's my 100 fold?	Is God for Us or For Himself? Some actually question His motives - after all He has done and still does for us.
I Wanna You Gotta Some preachers are telling their followers that we have the right to tell God what to do. In the end, He'll tell them what to do and where to go.	That's What Sells! Why do we go to church? Because it doesn’t challenge us to be any different than we are naturally or to bask in the reflected glory of our famous pastor.
Theological Prostitution To look at the ministry of Jesus as any less than a revolutionary; to believe that our only duty as Christians is to show up and pay up on Sunday are lies.	Ghosts of Christians Past Has the message changed or just the preaching?

Home Page Second Front Page Archives Recent Articles

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

Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. Exodus 4:12

One of the modern translations of the Bible, The Message, interprets Jesus in Matthew 23:8 as saying, "Don't let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates." In the preceding two verses, Jesus tells His disciples, "They [religious scholars and Pharisees] love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called 'Doctor' and 'Reverend'" (vs. 6-7). The New Living Translation renders the same verses this way, And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the most prominent seats in the synagogue! They enjoy the attention they get on the streets, and they enjoy being called 'Rabbi.' Don't ever let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters. If you wish, click on "ref" for the King James translation of these same passages.

Who? Jesus is who; He is our teacher, after all. What could possibly be more plain? Today, when He, our Lord, our Master, our Intercessor sits at the right hand of God, are we without Him as our teacher? Must we resort to lesser means? By no means. It is recorded in the Book of John that Jesus told us, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26. Torrey's Topical Textbook tells us this about the Holy spirit as our teacher: "AS SUCH HE Reveals the things of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10,13; Reveals the things of Christ John 16:14; Reveals the future Luke 2:26; Acts 21:11; Brings the words of Christ to remembrance John 14:26; Directs in the way of godliness Isaiah 30:21, Ezekiel 36:27; Teaches saints to answer persecutors Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12;…Guides into all truth John 14:26; 16:13" He (1) reveals God to us, (2) discloses Christ to us, (3) unveils the future, (4) helps us recall Christ’s teachings, (5) directs us in the paths of godliness, (6) guides us in how to respond to our adversaries, (7) and shows us the Truth. Torrey also indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who enables ministers to teach 1 Corinthians 12:8 and Directs the decisions of the Church Acts 15:28.

Prayerfully we commit those who minister in His name and those who are in charge of the churches in which we worship to the Holy Ghost for His distinctive ministry to them – prayerfully. While doing so, let us note that we are all "classmates" and nothing separates those who lead from those being led lest it be our level of Spiritual maturity and our willingness to hear that "still small voice." Surely, there is no Scriptural foundation other than this for one who "pastors" or one who "ministers." If one is to be "ordained," may it be an indication that the person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit – in short, Christian.

Just as surely, it is Scriptural that man’s knowledge and wisdom is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 1:20). In verses 25-27, Paul continued by saying, Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:25-27).

If, it isn’t the titles and degrees that qualify us to teach, then shouldn’t it cause us to wonder what separates preacher from the throngs people being preached to? By what authority do they preach? If we are all "on the same level," how are they so elevated? What special endowment does a man have that entitles him to preach before 25-30,000 people on a Sunday morning – or even 25 or 30? It can’t be denominational ordination or degrees earned? Aren’t those "works of men? Are we confident in believing that such men are, in that literal sea of faces they stand before, the only ones empowered with the Holy Spirit? What about those receiving the adulation and praise of so many, the focus of all those worshipers? Shouldn’t they be concerned that they are being exalted instead of Jesus the Christ? The disciple, we are told by Him, is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. Luke 6:40. What greater Master is there than Him? What more perfect teaching than His?

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

HARMONY
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. Acts 17:23

Return to the page directory

DEMOCRATIC CHRISTIANITY

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Matthew 7:28
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

"Gangs Dressed in the Clothes of Religion."

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

Ayad Allawi, the current Prime Minister of Iraq used the phrase, "a gang dressed in the clothes of religion" to describe al-Sadr the renegade "cleric" and his armed band of hoodlums holding the city of Najaf and, for that matter, Iraq hostage. How often have we seen conditions in Christianity that could be described the same way? We are warned that "gangs" will subvert the Gospel message for their own purposes. John wrote, Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time 1 John 2:18. Paul writes, Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The New American Standard Bible translates the "falling away" as "apostasy." Indeed the Greek for "away" is "Apostasia" meaning "a falling away, defection, apostasy" or as used in Acts 21:21 "to forsake."

We can recognize "apostasy" in its extreme form. The horrible episode of Jimmy Jones and the Jonestown mass suicide/murder he ordered in the name of Jesus and he regarded himself no less than the reincarnation of Jesus. "The People’s Temple" had thousands of followers – some in government – with "branches in Ukiah, San Francisco and Los Angeles. David Koresh ‘s Branch Davidians, was a cult-like aberration with no real connection to "mainstream" Christianity. The more subtle forms of apostasy contain just enough Scriptural support to appear as the truth. Aimee Semple McPherson and her Angelus mple are an example "The church held 5300 people and was filled to capacity each day, seven days a week." (ref) Yet her personal life was detestable and shameful. (ref) There have been others. The PTL with Jim and Tammy Faye Baker for one? At one point, their 2,300 acre Heritage USA "Christian" theme park was the third largest vacation destination in the United States attracting million tourists a year and employing over 2,000 people. One look at Papal history

"But," we protest, "these are just men and women subject to the same temptations as the rest of us." Indeed they are. That is the lesson. Yet they were put upon pedestals, revered to a point just short of worship. Sadly, they aren’t the only ones nor are they relics of ancient history. There were many, there are many st. How is that so many famous, renowned "men and women of the cloth" have been able to persuade so many "ordinary" Christians to follow them? Why are we such sheep?

Perhaps the start of an answer begins with the meaning of discipleship. There is nothing more fundamental to that concept than what is first recorded in Matthew 16:24, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Excerpts from John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible has talks about these two cardinal principles of becoming a disciple of Christ:

(1)deny sinful self, ungodliness, and worldly lusts; and part with them, and forul companns, deny righteous self, renounce all his own works of righteousness, in the business of justification and salvation; deny the pleasures and profits of this world, when in competition with Christ; drop and banish all his notions and expectations of an earthly kingdom, and worldly grandeur, think of nothing but reproach, persecution, and death, for the sake of his Lord and Master:

(2)cheerfully receive, and patientar, affliction and evil, however shameful and painful it may be, which is appointed for him, and he is called unto; which is his peculiar cross, as every Christian has his own; to which he should quietly submit, and carry, with an entire resignation to the will of God, in imitation of his Lord:

That’s not a pretty picture, but few would disagree with Gill’s assessment. These are the goals we should strive for. There is nothing more demanding so, rather than do that, we go for substitutes. As in the world we "go for the cheap "knock-offs," and imitations – that are less costly. How much of Christianity could be equated with a zircon? False teachers are one of the major reasons for apostasy found throughout the Scriptures. Jesus warned us about them in Matthew 24:11. As does Paul in Galatians 1:7, not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ (HCSB) and Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master as well as 1 John 4:1 do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God.

For many shall come in my name, g, Iist; and shall deceive many. Mark 13:6
Return to the page directory

A Crisis in Faith
Return to the page directory

Father, all things are possiblhee; away this cup from me. Mark 14:36

Most of us who come to the faith do so through the exhortation of someeolo5preacher, evangelist a relative or friend and occasionally a stranger who we meet in a public place or who had the courage to knock on our door. Although correctly speaking, it is the working of the Holy who &quogs us to the Lord," who convicts us, it is common for Christians to say by Billraham or Uncle Henry or whom ever it was who did the exhorting. The question here isn’t those He saves or "predestination" or even the matter of "election." Rather it is a matter of those, however well intended who by design or out of ignorance get us to "accept Jesus" under false pretenses. That which attracts us incorrectly can be a beautiful church, a friendly face, promises of earthly riches and the elimination of all our cares, hurts, wants and needs, anything but the true Gospel message.

what? They’re saved aren’t they? They’ve accepted Jesus into their lives haven’t they? That’s exactly the question, are they, have they? The full quotation of Mark 14:36 actually reads, And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away th: nevertheless . How often is the "all things are possible," and the "take this cup from me" used to "establish a common ground of interest" with the "seeker" while the "what thou wilt" is left out? How often is the "all things are possible used," which they are for God, to "capture their attention" without the context of the Garden of Gethsemane: in which this awesome prayer was uttered on the eve of Jesus’ Crucifixion? This is more than "milk" vs. "strong meat" (Hebrews 5:12) it a near total lack of any foundation for belief although it certainly gets to the matter of how much understanding one must have in order to be saved.

Is there a "mental age of accountability" much like for generations there has been a chronological age? Those denominations that set a lower age limit on "being accepted into the Faith," for baptism, do so because of the belief that before reaching that milestone, one is incapable of understanding what they are doing. Of course, this is precisely why other denominations are opposed to "infant baptism." It is also the basis for believing that the invitation from a TV evangelist and a rote recitation of a prayer or placing one’s hands on the TV set is sufficient for salvation is rejected. If these concerns are at all valid, don’t they establish the concept of a minimum level of understanding of what it is to be a Christian? Jesus did say, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 7:21). Clearly we must know the will of Jesus’ Father before we can ever expect to do it.

Using beautiful grounds and magnificent buildings or a "Santa Clause Christ" to attract people to Christianity is so typically American. What once was so sacred an institution, marriage, degenerated into a deceitful marketing strategy correctly named by a degenerate television program, "The Dating Game." Americans use exactly the same techniques for "selecting a mate" as they do for buying cars or persuading consumers to talk to their doctor about the latest craze hyped by the drug cartel. Billions are spent on everything from the "right" neighborhoods, cars, clothes, "make up" to plastic surgery to make one "presentable" to a prospective "mate" while hiding one’s "real self." It is as though we are saying, "if you really knew me, you wouldn’t like me." Perhaps it is such "let’s pretend" that is responsible for the divorce rate in this country roaring past the 50% mark well on its way to 70%. We may be able to maintain the illusion of our assumed disguise on a date, but the unrelenting day in/day out contact of marriage will dissolve the best cosmetics and expose one’s true self how ever much we try to hide. Marriage isn’t a case of "let’s pretend."

Now Christianity has entered the market place. Are we about to see a TV program called "The Come to Christ Game?" It’s already here. Tune in some Sunday morning and you’ll discover the "champion in you," "we believe you were born to win," "Living the Abundant Life If you want to be emotionally stable, spiritually strong, physically healed, financially whole and prosperous then….You Can Have it all," "God wants us to prosper," "Think big enough. Think so big that there's room for God to fit in to your dreams and your vision and the picture you have for your life," "We need to stop that business. God isn't a thief. He isn't going to let us pay for something and then refuse to give it to us." In the name of God, what did we ever, ever pay for? In each of these false pretenses, there is a foundation of Gospel truth with enough "mascara" to make Christianity palatable to a materialistic, self-centered world. Didn’t Jesus say, For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36. How can we love Him if we don’t know Him?

Return to the page directory

TWELVE LEGIONS OF ANGELS
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

Me and My Bible
Return to the page directory

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hebrews 1:1-2

Twelve times the word "book" is used in the New Testament; four times in Revelation alone. The Greek for "book," interestingly, is bivbloß – translated "biblos" from which we get the word "Bible." Jesus speaks of the "Bible" in Mark 12:26 and again in Luke 20:24. However, the "book" He is referring to in these passages is not our "Bible" simply because it did not exist. Decades, hundreds of years would pass before the bivbloß we know came into existence. John was referring to what we call "The Book of Revelation" in Revelation 22:19, not the "Bible" as we think of it. Actually, it wasn’t until the 13^th century that the earlier "The Books" (ta biblia) became "The Book" (biblia, singular)

Although the process of collecting and preserving doctrine, documents and teachings were underway from the very beginning (2 Peter 3:16), it wasn’t until 393 A.D that the Synod of Hippo officially listed the 27 books we know as the New Testament. Our familiar chapters and verses weren’t added until the 1,200’s and 1,500’s. Some, not all, of the letters written by the Apostles were gradually collected along with other source materials to be eventually "codified" into our "Bible." Even the Old Testament "evolved. "Some books, such as the Genesis, originated orally and were later written down."(ref.) There were/are disagreements as to the OT’s composition. There were the "Holy Books" and "outside or extraneous" books. (ref.) Even the number of "Biblical books" varied from 24 to as many as 974. (ref) Important to its possible content is the fact that the Roman Catholic Church had sole possession of the Scriptures for over 1,500 years. According to them, "Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and parts of books (viz.: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament." (ref.) It wasn’t until the middle of the second century that the "New Testament" writings were even considered Scripture. (ref.) While some vigorously object to giving the Roman Church such a central role in creating the Bible we use, it is an historical fact that their councils determined its composition. It was their scribes who translated it into Latin from the Greek and from the Hebrew.

Where does all of this leave us? How often have we heard or been told that were not supposed to take it literally or that it was written by people, just like us and just as subject to error as we? How frequently are we told it is just a book like any other? We cannot ignore the history of our very own Bible at the risk of looking foolish to those who know it. After all, the few historical facts presented here, only a "taste" of what is actually known about it, are not secret. But does all of the literal libraries full of such information about how our Bible came into existence destroy its credibility? It shouldn’t. Even in the face of unlimited opportunities for the introduction of error, we must remember that it is part of God’s plan and He will not be thwarted. One of the most constant themes throughout the Bible is the demonstration of God’s superiority over anything human. Paul writes, the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Corinthians 1:25). In 1 Corinthians 1:27 he writes, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. And, in 1 Corinthians 3:19 he writes, For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. How many times are these statements shown to be true in Scriptures?

In Hebrews 11:3 we are taught, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Just as much as the theme of God confounding the "wisdom" of men is His insistence upon our accepting Him upon faith, not fact. By faith we accept the Story of Creation. By faith we accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus the Christ, His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension – by faith, not reason. What, pray God, is reasonable about the Trinity? Are we to reason through our salvation; think it through; make a rational decision? Surely to goodness and mercy, if the Lord God Almighty wanted to inscribe every single syllable of Sacred Script with His very hand and call 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^1,0000th witnesses to His doing so He could have. That He chose not to should, in itself, be sufficient evidence of His intent for us to accept upon faith all His marvelous works. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known 1 Corinthians 13:12

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

Return to the page directory

COMPASSIONATE GIVING
Return to the page directory

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.Matthew 5:7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

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

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Ephesians 4:11

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

THE PRINCE OF PEACE?
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

WHAT’S IN YOUR SERMON?

But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:14
Return to the page directory

The obvious answer, prayerfully, is that the Holy Spirit drives the sermons we hear from the pulpit on Sunday. Prayerfully, but is that the reality we Christians encounter – knowingly or not? We may not be able to answer this most vital question. Perhaps we need to ask the pastor. Pastor what motivated your words today? What inspired you; what agenda were you advancing?

The passage cited from Hebrews speaks of strong meat. Most agree he is talking about the Gospel instead of something to eat. Sooner or later, we should get off the pabulum of Christianity and onto its more important matters. The point is simply stated in verse 11 he writes we should have many things to say about Jesus our High Priest but we don’t because we’re not off the milk toast yet. He says that we should be so well informed about the Gospel, about Jesus that not only could we, but we should already be teachers. We aren’t? Why not? Have our teachers failed us? In verse 13 we are told that those still using the first principles of the Gospel that are easy to understand don’t know much. They probably need to go back to remedial reading. Surely the Holy Spirit wouldn’t tell a preacher to teach "baby food." Pastor was your sermon meat or pabulum? Pabulum so as not to offend the "seeker" who might have dropped by? If so, aside from being unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14), where do Christians get the strong meat?

He’s writing about those who are full of age referring to those have been Christians a long time and are "grown-up" in their faith rather than chronologically "old folks." But, so many long-time Christians still sit in their pew-pens sucking their pacifying, prepackaged sop from the pulpit. They’re not "full of age." Why is that? It’s easy. We’re being pampered, attended to rather than attending to the spiritual needs of others. We don’t have to do anything we aren’t expected to do anything to advance the maturity of others. The television Priest asking for your money, your old car or trailer or whatever so that he can save souls is telling us "it’s not your job, its mine." We hear that so much we have come to believe it – maybe because we want to. That’s easy, that a "no-brainer." All we have to do is go to church now and then, pay our tithes, sing in the choir. Were good. Is this the Holy Spirit? Pastor, is your sermon for those "full of age?"

Hebrews 5:14 speaks about those of us who by reason of use, after hearing the Word, we study it, believe it and we get in the habit/practice of obeying and faithfully using what we have learned from it in our daily lives. It is not just the hour or two on Sunday we devote to studying Scriptures, not just restricting being Christian to church, but, carrying it into the "by ways" of our lives. What’s in your sermon?

Do we have our senses exercised. Don’t the Scripture tell us that we should be teachers (ref) as well as students of the Word? How else are our "senses" to be exercised? It is our "spiritual senses" the author is referring. John Gill's Exposition of the Bible puts it this way, "as by seeing the Son; hearing the voice of Christ; savouring or smelling a sweet odour in the things of God, and Christ; tasting that the Lord is gracious; feeling and handling the word of life." Our "senses" also men our ability to perceive and understand (ref). One source describes the qualifications of a teacher as a Christian, "who has a considerable store of knowledge; is capable of interpreting the Scripture to the edification of others; is able to explain, lay open, and illustrate the truths of the Gospel, and defend them, and refute error; and who is not only able, but ready and willing, to communicate to others what he knows" (ref). Our responsibility is to mature to the level described above. That takes effort and instruction. Preacher, do your sermons encourage us to become "Gospel potatoes," spiritually inactive," "fat" on "spiritual junk food or students/teachers of the Word?"

Finally, the passage suggests we are able to discern both good and evil. Paul regards discernment as a spiritual gift. That does not mean the rest of us won’t have this gift as Hebrews 5:14 suggests. Discern means to be able to discriminate, to scrutinize, question, and investigate. It means the ability to make assessments and to judge the correctness of something. To discern is to know when spiritual truths are being taught and spoken and when they are not. It also implies the ability to disapprove, reject and repudiate. We should be able to detect false motives and selfish ambition. We should be able to you know. Why we can’t, won’t or don’t is another matter. Pastor, what’s in your sermon that will help us become more discerning?

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: Matthew 5:19
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Proof of the Pudding

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Die: To Sleep
O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory? 1 Corinthians 15:55
Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: Luke 10:41 KJV

Return to the page directory

Unity

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

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

SHOULD WE SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND?
Return to the page directory
Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. Mark 13:48

More and more, Christian commentators and pastors are speaking/writing about trying to find "common ground" with one cause or another ranging from Islam through sexual immorality and beyond. An article for a publication of the Reformed Church of America was titled "Search for Common Ground" (The Church Herald, July/August 2005, p.46). The issue here was sanctioning homosexual marriages within the "church" resulting from recent RCA action deposing one of their "pastors" for conducting a homosexual marriage. But the issue could have been any number of equally other "hot potato" topics.

In so harshly sanctioning the pastor in question, the author of the article believes the denomination missed an opportunity to "affirm both our commitment to Scripture and our commitment to gay people". In the words of Shakespeare, "Aye, there’s the rub," should we, could we? True, as stated, we are (were) all made in the "divine image, not some cosmic error" but somewhere along the way the "Garden of Eden syndrome" came into play. Are we to seek common ground with our post-garden sinful dispositions and try to reconcile/justify making concessions by carefully selecting Scripture that is seemingly supportive? We could just as easily be talking about gluttony, avarice, adultery, heresy or denial of the Holy Spirit. Surely homosexuality has not risen above the rest of the things afflicting carnal man. Today, the Christian community "accepts" divorce almost unconditionally. No one is in danger of deposing a pastor from his ministry simply because he is divorced. Is this "searching for common ground" or appeasement – what some might call heresy? While the Scriptures sternly warns about the fatal dangers of amassing wealth, increasingly it is seen as a positive Christian virtue – more common ground? Where do we draw the line in the sand and say, go and sin no more (John 8:11)?

The mother of the gay daughter spoken of in the article stated, "She’s my child and I love her. I will never turn my back on her. We’re family, and that’s how families act." Well said. The mother probably was referring to her family, but shouldn’t the same standards of "unconditional love" apply even more stringently to the family of God? After all, as we are so fond of saying, "He forgave me, so He’ll forgive you." Indeed. But this is compassion. It is not searching for common ground. Mom was right. Otherwise, we are simply condemning ourselves. And Jesus said, Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? (Matthew 18:33). How often do we need to remember (to be reminded) that, indeed, all of us sin and fall short of the expectations of God?

But, if we recognize the Biblical Truth of this statement, does it mean the "church" must accept our sinfulness as a standard for our beliefs? Isn’t to do otherwise likely to open us up to the criticism that we are intolerant? Does the fact that so many young people in the United States "live together" justify the "church" taking the stance that its OK and speaking out against it is tantamount to bigotry? What is it that we Christians represent – anything? It is one thing to be compassionate, loving and kind. Its another to endorse, enable, sanction or approve. He had compassion on the adulteress spoken of in John 8. He did not condemn her adultery nor did he condone it praise it or held it up as an example to follow. We are to have compassion on the alcoholic and the drug addict alike. Nothing in Scripture tells us to praise or exemplify such behavior. We must also remember that if God’s truths are eternally unchanging to legitimate any immorality is to eternally endanger the person(s) in question. Where is the compassion in eternal damnation?

The question for today’s "church" isn’t whether or not "there is a patch of common ground" but whether or not we have to become sinners in order to win them to Christ. It is quite true that the "fish we have to fry" is a monster - winning the world for Jesus Christ." That’s not the issue. The issue is to know for certain what "winning the world" for Jesus Christ really means. Capitulation or surrender to the standards of this world just does not seem to fit into that vocabulary. Do these words resonate with our understanding of what Christianity means - acquiescence, concession; compromise; appeasement, conciliation? If so, why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t He have acquiesced to the demands of the Pharisees?

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2 Corinthians 2:17

Return to the page directory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to the page directory

Home Page Feature Articles Second Front Page Current Articles Other Articles