|
The Message translates this passage as, "The whole point of what we're urging is simply love - love uncontaminated by self-interest and counterfeit faith, a life open to God." Maybe it would be too extreme to characterize what is being referred to as "Feigned Faith," but that’s not too far from the mark. Sincerity isn’t the issue because the trademark those whom we might label "Christotunists" is at least their outward appearance of sincerity. Most assuredly, they believe in what they are doing. The question is what are they doing? What is a "feigned faith Christian?" In another letter Paul gives us additional insight on the matter. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:17-18). The "thing" he is speaking of is his ministry from which he does not expect nor does he receive a profit – he doesn’t get paid. The "Christotunist" is just the opposite. In fact, unlike Paul, he expects temporal rewards for their "preaching/ministry." That’s the point what is preached, interpretations of Scriptures is for the express purpose of getting money – fleecing the flock. With sincerity they fleece the flock. They believe what they are doing is spreading the word – their way. The cause may be just, the mission holy and certainly the "flock" righteous. These are not the defining issues – the motives are. Dealing with "major issues like hunger, orphans, poverty and AIDS" are certainly holy missions. Inducing Christians to spend tens of thousands of dollars to travel to a foreign country in order to "implement solutions" to these major issues is not. The thing to do is to stay home, find already established "in country" agencies addressing these issues and financially support them. Adopt an established congregation of Christians and send them your donations now bolstered by the travel and expense money you did not squander. Now, on the other hand, if you want to "trip off to Africa" staying in comfortable accommodations, and shop (not just the ladies) in large "African markets" for "unique custom made crafts and have fun visiting "game parks" do so, but not under the guise a missionary endeavor. Take a vacation if you choose, but don’t elevate it to the level of a missionary endeavor. Remember, you get to come home after your great African safari. That’s a big difference.Enticing congregations to finance the church budget or building program is on the same level as a jihad telling suicide bombers they have 70 virgins waiting for them in "heaven." It’s bribery and nowhere does Scripture tell us that God is susceptible to such or that we should attempt to do so. The expectation of personal gain would seem to lack sincerity just as Paul was writing about to the Corinthians. Don’t such fundraising schemes smack of a "works theology" as well as bribery? Can salvation be sold? Can heavenly rewards be bought? What does using the story found in1 Kings 17 of a widow who gave all her money to the prophet Elijah have to do with church budgets or building programs unless it is intended to show that her "good works" toward him paid her earthly dividends? What is the statement that "You can’t take it with you, but you can send it on ahead" implying other than purchasing "stars for our crown?" Is it true as proclaimed in one "slick" advertising brochure marketing an "Extended Vision" building program for a mega church that, "God measures our faith by comparing what we’ve given with what we have left over after we’ve given" especially when we’re talking about financial giving? How does taking a "vacation with a purpose" or contributing money to a $45,000,000.00 building program fit in with Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart? Surely we must know that "charity" which is the end of Christ’s commandment means "brotherly love, affection, good will, love, and benevolence" (ref.) not money for budgets or buildings. In Hebrews 11:4, we are taught about Abel’s animal sacrifice and because it was made in faith it was deemed greater than that which Cain offered. And our Savior proclaims, But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. (Matthew12:7-8) It is written," he said to them, "'My house will be a
house of prayer'; |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good-Friday-Resurrectionists There are "Prosperity Christians" and "Seeker Churches." As the term suggests, "Prosperity Christianity" emphasizes the blessings of being Christian and channel the proclamations and promises of the Scriptures into earthly materialism. Overlooking the proclamations that true Christians should prepare for hardship and persecution, these practitioners declare to receptive audiences that they should seize what is rightfully theirs as heirs to the Throne of God and settle for nothing less than the best. "Seeker Churches" attempt to use the facilities of the institutional church for evangelism thus reducing any possible worship, praise or learning experiences therein to the lowest common denominator – the unbeliever who may happen into their midst. In spite of the history of the New Testament church as a fellowship of believers and warnings against being unequally yoked, seeker churches use "milk and honey" messages so as not to offend or frighten away non-Christians. Such gives new meaning to the idea of "preaching to the choir." These are theologies of omission – they are missing or overlooking critical ingredients in the Gospel message. But, most Christians and most churches could best be described as "Good-Friday-Resurrectionists." Even those who preach prosperity and cater to seekers usually present this message. They, rightly, emphasize the sacrifice Jesus made for our sins on The Cross. As the consummate scapegoat, He has paid for all our sins leaving us only to accept the magnanimous gift – if even that. Just as correctly, they preach the meaning of Christ’s Resurrection as a declaration of the general resurrection of all people. They may even enter into the disturbing waters of God dispensing justice with the unbelievers condemned and the righteous saved. Hence the central importance of baptism as a symbolic reenactment of this "trilogy" of death-burial-resurrection. Putting all their eggs in one basket, they raise the somewhat disturbing statement, "if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Something is missing. So far, our seeker becomes a Christian with the understanding that my sins are forgiven and that my name is "written in the Lamb’s Book of Life" meaning I am going to spend eternity in heaven. Quite true, but the story is incomplete. It is all "I-Me" centered – what I am going to inherit, what has been done for me. There is another chapter in the book – what I am capable of doing- even what is expected. It is rarely spoken of, rarely heard. It is what we might call "Ascension Christian Theology." A theology of commission – empowerment. This theology centers on Christ’s last act of His earthly ministry –leaving us. Much like the disciples who, at the moment of His ascension asked if He was about to restore Israel to its rightful place (Acts 1:6) contemporary Christianity sees itself in the same light – waiting for the Lord (or the vicar/pastor) to do everything for them. In soliciting funds for his program, one television priest states this position rather succinctly, "Send me your money, your cars, your boats and I will save souls." Jesus said He was going to leave us. We have been taught we are little more than expectant vessels passively following the lead of others rather than active instruments in the service of our Master. Yet, He told us it would be good for us that He did because we would do greater works than He had. That was addressed to us, not the church, the pastor, the minister or even the Pope, but to us. Just a short while after His ascension, this same band of followers would meet in Jerusalem and would, on the Day of Pentecost, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, the Spirit is poured out upon all believers, sons and daughters, young men and old men, men and women (Acts 2:17-18). Peter and John laid their hands upon those who had been baptized in the city of Samaria and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17). As Peter was speaking in Caesarea, the Holy Spirit came upon all who heard his message (Acts 10:44) Jew and Gentile alike. It is He who is the "great equalizer" in "Ascension Christianity." Accordingly He empowers all believers to do the work of the Kingdom. Those gifts we receive from the Spirit are testament of our assigned tasks. Perhaps one may group these gifts into those of speaking and serving (1 Peter 4:11), but to function properly, the body of Christ must possess all of them. In Ascension Christianity" there are no "super stars" or stars for that matter, only servants of the Lord Most High.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Then the King will say to those
on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your
inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Matthew 25:34 Anyone over the age of 65 will remember hearing about the Lend-Lease Act passed by the Congress of the United States in 1941. Most Americans did not want to get involved in the "internal" conflict taking place in Europe and, indeed, we had declared ourselves neutral. Yet, increasingly we saw Hitler’s Nazi forces swamping country after country. It was becoming clear even to the most ardent pacifist that his boundless taste for conquest would not be satisfied with just Europe and Russia. The solution gave Franklin Roosevelt the power to transfer war supplies, to nations whose defense was considered vital to the defense of the United States without sacrificing our neutrality. It didn’t keep us out of the war, but in so many other respects, it was a huge success. "All right," you say, "what does that have to do with Christianity let alone Heaven?" Well, first, let’s admit that there is a war going on – all around us. A spiritual war. And most of our actions suggest we would just as soon ignore it and pray it will just go away. Then, perhaps because of our pacifism, we are ill prepared to do battle. We will survive, but the toll on our eternal lives will be enormous. It might be said that our victory is, at least to some degree, only symbolic. If that sounds like a strange theology, consider Jesus’ admonition to lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:20). What sort of "treasures" could these possibly be, something like "frequent flier miles?" No, it seems more like wealth, "used for doing good is treasure laid up in heaven" according to one source. If we don’t, does heaven have a "skid row?" Paul tells us that all of us will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to answer for what we did in the flesh. One scholar proclaims, "there will be no avoiding this judgment, all ‘must appear.’" (ref.) John Gill goes further in stating that, according to Paul, good works will be presented in the Last Judgment, "as fruits of grace, and as evidences of the truth of faith, which will justify the Judge in proceeding according to what he himself, as a Saviour, has said." (ibid.) And, we are told, "Though salvation be of grace purely, independent of works, the saved may have a greater or less reward, according as he lives to, and labors for, Christ more or less." For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, (Hebrews 6:10). Baker’s Dictionary states, "Salvation is by grace alone, but judgment day registers the verdict on what we have done or failed to do with God's grace. Others tell us that "Christianity deepens the sense of obligation to do right." Now, why should there be a "heavenly lend-lease?" Let us remember Jesus’ own words, I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak (Matthew 12:36.) Any questions? There is this amazing statement from the Prophet Isaiah, But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6). Unless we assume his words are not relevant or that we are a phenomenally unusual exception we might begin praying for someone there in the assembled crowd on Judgment Day with some "good works" to spare and willing to lend them to the rest of us. But we might be in for a surprise. Some of us, as we approach the Throne of Judgment, thinking ourselves well prepared with good works may wind up filling out loan applications, not to avoid damnation but heavenly "skid row," because of a lack of what separates Christian goats from Christian sheep (ref). What are those works – church attendance, contributing to the building fund, tithing? They might help, but not really. Jesus tells us, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me (Matthew 25:40.) Its all there: all the nations are gathered before Him (v. 32), the sheep and goats are separated (v. 33), the "sheep" inherit the kingdom (v. 34), because they: "fed" the hungry, gave them something to drink and took them in (v. 35), gave them clothes to wear, visited the hospitals and prisons (v.36). It is there to be read – and understood – and obeyed. Amen. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another . John 13:35 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 16:19a Dr. Lawrence J. Peters writing on dysfunctional bureaucratic organization in the secular world (actually a redundancy) gave us the concept of the "Peter Principle,". But, there is another Peter Principle in which Peter, the Apostle, is seen in a superior position over the other disciples. Many writers proclaim "there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place among the apostles." (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Copyright 2000) He is called the "primus inter pares or the first among equals." (ref) Of course, the Roman Catholic Church must declare that Peter is the "Head of the Apostles" (ref) since they claim him as their first Pope. For hundreds of years the "church" has been haunted by this "Peter Principle" – that some one had to be in charge; some one had to be the pastor, the minister, the shepherd tending to the flock. One of the signal characteristics of a flagging organization is the "Peter Principle" of Christianity. Even the Protestant Reformation left this "sacred cow" essentially unchallenged. Yet, one noted Biblical scholar, John Gill, claims that the "kingdom of heaven" spoken of in this passage refers to the Gospel. Secondly, he claims that the "The keys" represents one’s ability to "explain the Gospel truths." Put it together and the way Gill interprets Matthew 16:19 is as though Jesus said to Peter, "I will given you the ability to explain the Gospel truths about the kingdom of heaven." This is clearly considerably less than claims made by others about the superior "commission" Jesus the Christ gave to Peter. However one regards Peter’s position, the point is unproductive. For it to be fruitful, and instructive, there would have to be Biblical "machinery" established for a predecessor to Peter. There is no Scriptural foundation for Peter to declare Linus Peter’s successor any more than for Charlie Brown. Citing 2 Timothy 4:21, The New Advent states, "After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus." The only problem is that the verse cited does not say that. It says, Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. Even the account provided by the Church seems to suggest Paul as well as Peter presumably had a hand in turning over "the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus." No other mention of Linus is found in Scripture. Nor, had Peter and Paul done so, is there any account they were authorized to do so. Should we choose to dismiss the accuracy with which the Church uses Scripture and the fact it credits both Paul and Peter in naming Linus "next in line," the Church has not followed that method of selecting the "Bishop of Rome" for centuries. Were that being done today, Pope John Paul II would have named his successor. Instead, as we all know, a "College of Cardinals" elected Pope Benedict XVII. In place of this dubious ecclesiastical Peter Principle, we have a rock solid principle of discipleship about which there is no question and for which there is ample Scriptural foundations. The translated word for disciple is mathetes that is used 252 times in the New Testament. It simply means a learner or a pupil. First, according to Scripture, we are to be students learning about our Master – not the least we can get away with but the most we possibly can. Paul tells us to 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). The last part of the passage is the reason why we are to be diligent students – so that we can know truth from lies. So we won’t teach incorrect or false doctrines. In the second place, we are to disciple and baptize others. Jesus spoke to the eleven disciples (Judas having departed) saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew28:18, 19). Unless we invoke the idea of a "dispensation of discipleship," we must believe He is speaking to us as one of His disciple just as He was then. This is where Acts 1:8 enters the scene assuring us we will be blessed with the power of the Holy Spirit to help us with out commission. There is a third Scriptural trait of a disciple, the most difficult: 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. God save us all. Amen
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes and no. Yes, a church should grow spiritually in order to improve and hone the skills necessary for the work each member has been given. There are many references to the simple fact we do have Kingdom work to do. For example, For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). Paul told Timothy to study (2 Timothy 2:15) and unless we are no longer in that particular "dispensation," we likely should too and for the same reasons. The "yes" to "church" growth has to do with the "congregation" which is the "church" discussed in the Bible – ekklesia – and the "growth is spiritual. Those who chose not to grow experienced Paul’s ire, For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat (Hebrews 5:12). The "no" pertains to the "church" we normally think of, buildings, denominations, organization, land – places and things – for which there is no Scriptural foundation. If we go back to Acts 2, especially verses 42-47, Luke is not documenting the first building program, fund-raising agenda, stewardship plan or any particular pastor’s "vision for the global expansion of God’s kingdom." Instead, they studied; they continued in fellowship and observed communion (v.42). But, speaking of "stewardship" notice what this first "church" actually did, they had all things in common (v. 44) and sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had need (v. 43). There is no mention of expanding the sanctuary, buying more land or anything of the sort or the "church budget." Instead, they took care of one another. Notice what happened as a result of their following His teachings, Praising God and caring for one another (maybe praising God by caring for one another), the Lord added to their numbers. Notice what didn’t happen. They didn’t lease the Temple for Sunday services. They didn’t rent the Parthenon at Athens or the Coliseum in Rome in which to meet. Actually, there is no record of a church building of any kind or any size until around 350 AD. Still, they grew – maybe that’s God’s secret plan, homes not "houses of worship."The Lord God added to the number of saints, not the number of sanctuaries – of which there was none. Instead they, this "primitive church" met in "Houses of Power," "Community Groups" or "Small Group Life" (just three examples of "mega-churches" realizing their shortcomings) - home-based groups. Bill Hybels says, "There is a strong case to be made for churches to embrace small groups ministry. It begins with the Bible…" – really! Actually, the question is why should "churches" be any more than small groups. Wouldn’t you think with his "commission" just after the Ascension Peter would have run out and constructed a basilica or surely Paul as a rabbi/lawyer would have sought an appropriate amphitheater from which he could pontificate to the huddled, awestruck masses. Neither did – why? In fact, why didn’t Jesus the Christ build a "world church headquarters," found a "school of preaching" or seminary of one sort or another? Was there then, is there anyone now more qualified? Yet, He chose as His normal mode a three-year "commitment" to a small group of just twelve men. More to the point, why didn’t He, why didn’t they found the First Christian Mega Church of Jerusalem? What the several "mega churches" say in selling their "small group ministries" provides striking and convincing reasons why Christian congregations must remain small. They "bring a personal touch, they help extend love and compassion, it can strengthen family ties, help change neighborhoods." They, "will be a significant opportunity to take you to a deeper level of personal spiritual growth and maturity for our members and friends in the community." "These home-based small groups will help members and friends connect on a one-to-one level as well as grow spiritually through study and sharing." They will help Christians grow, "in mutual accountability, in mutual submission and in the application of scriptural truth." What a wonderful endorsement of small groups and a terrible indictment of large, warehouse "congregations" and their auditorium/stadium sized "sanctuaries." Isn’t this the same as saying large churches are impersonal indifferent, produce a shallow spiritual life, spiritual immaturity and are disconnected from one another – essentially strangers aggregating once or twice a week. They are entertained, they may learn something which they give no indication of remembering even before they exit the premises. In such crowds, how can we live up to Christ’s urging, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:35), when we don’t even know one another? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Part I of "Should a Church Grow" explored such growth for the perspective of the worshipper. It explored the question from the perspective of why a Christian would be enticed to worship and study in a warehouse or stadium sized "church." What about the same question from the perspective of the "pastor?" Is it fair to ask what pastor in his right mind would take on such an awesome responsibility? According to The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon, "pastor" means two things: First, "a herdsman, esp. a shepherd - in the parable, he to whose care and control others have committed themselves, and whose precepts they follow." Second, it means "the presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly: so of Christ the Head of the church - of the overseers of the Christian assemblies." As a church gets larger, won’t the pastor go through a metamorphosis from "herdsman," "shepherd" to "director," "overseer?" "But a staff and associate pastors will help with the burden of management." Then the "pastor" becomes more and more a "CEO." Even in the relatively small churches the number one complaint of "pastors" is "burnout." They complain there is too much to do; too much responsibility. Increased size of the physical plant and the congregation will only increase the burden, not lessen it. Maintaining a facility with a budget of $100 - $200,000 is one thing. A facility of $100,000,000 or more is quite something else. The size/cost factors are exponential. But we’ll have a CFO and a fundraiser. OK, but then the pastor is not the director/overseer of that part of the operation – he will, however, bear the ultimate responsibility. Pastors of moderate sized "churches" find the demand of endless meetings and requests for them to take part in various church activities very time consuming. They complain that it takes away from their ability to "minister" to the "flock" – first definition. As size increases, by the sheer number of people in the congregation, they are increasingly unable to make house visits," hospital visits, visits to nursing homes and extended care facilities. They aren’t able to personally greet congregants after services, let alone know them. They can’t baptize them, conduct their weddings or preside over their funerals. In short, they become less able to be involved in the lives of their flock. Then why the urgent need to "grow?" Why is the health of a "church" measured by the number of people it crowds into its amphitheater? There is the American value that "bigger is better?’ Is that always true – especially when we are talking about churches? Jesus does tell us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, but did He mean for us to do it on such a massive scale? We don’t know of any such massive gatherings in the early days. None is recorded in Scripture and there is actually no evidence of any "church buildings" for many hindered years after Jesus’ ascension. So what is the driving force behind aspiring to congregations reaching the size, dimensions and character of a herd? The only reasonable answer must line in fame and recognition. The fame the pastor will claim as his doing. The recognition he will relish as a "super start" in his own right. Imagine the exhilarating experience it must be to stand in the spotlight before throngs of adoring fans hanging on you every word. Imagine the exhilaration of being recognized wherever one goes; called upon to advise heads of state; to relish in Hollywood-like renown. It must be irresistible. Perhaps fame isn’t the motivation behind so many "pastors" to strive for size. They may be motivated by a genuine, if misguided, desire to "spread the Word." If that is the case, mustn’t one ask what makes them think they are singly so bless with such Spiritual insights and with such a gilded tongue that only they are capable of doing the work of the Kingdom? On occasion, Jesus spoke before throngs of thousands and we must agree that His doing so was, in itself, miraculous because there were no sound systems. His abilities and gifts are surely not to be doubted and just as surely unmatched. His motives were absolutely pure – to honor His Father and give all glory to His Holy Name. Perhaps we should use Jesus’ experiences with the "mega churches of His day." If a pastor can speak the unvarnished Word of God before throngs of tens of thousands without the aid of a PA system, perhaps (just perhaps) he should. Otherwise could it be remotely possible that, in spite of his golden tongued orations his true motivation? Should a church grow? Why, to feed the pastors ego? Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the
LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place,
even under the wings of the cherubims 1 Kings 8:6 Often ignored is the fact that the Temple didn’t symbolize God presence among the Jews rather, it was the Ark of the Covenant. That’s why only the High Priest, and only once a year, could enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple. to make sacrificial offerings. He was, at least symbolically, entering into the presence of God. As you know, David wanted to build the Temple as a home for the Ark, he was forbidden and instead the honor fell upon Solomon. The passage above from 1 Kings is the occasion when the Ark was "installed" in the Holy of Holies within the Temple built by Solomon The point is it, the Ark, was the sole reason for and the very heart of the entire Temple complex. That is why there was only one temple – there was only one Ark – only one God. By all accounts, no one knows what happened to the Ark. It disappeared in 586 BC when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. It was not in the second or third temples that were built, the last by Herod that stood at the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry. "The Holy of Holies was empty; only a stone stood, as in the temple of Zerubbabel, on which the high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement." (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). God had departed; departed from the Temple; departed from the nation of Israel. A calamity for Israel, a boon for the world. Phase II of God’s eternal plan for humanity came to a close. Phase II? Yes. Phase I was the Garden of Eden before the snake’s betrayal and Adam’s disobedience. Phase II led us into the first step of reconciliation designed to return us to our "before-the-fall" relationship with God. Remember that delicious passage that shows us that "He walked with them and He talked with them," And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: (Genesis 3:8). A view of heaven to consider. Imagine had the Jews not so carelessly lost the Ark, how could there have been a Phase III? Phase III? Wait. Just suppose that each year at the Day of Atonement, the High Priest was not only able to enter into the Holy of Holies but to actually make a sacrifice in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. Meanwhile, out in one of the courtyards is this upstart, Jesus of Nazareth, proclaiming Himself the Son of the Most Holy God. Now, wouldn’t that have been confusing? Would anyone have believed Him? Just for fun, imagine on this day the High Priest who must be without physical flaws and who must undergo ritualistic cleansing before enter the Holy of Holies takes a misstep, overlooks part of the ritual, and is instantly vaporized as he enters. The word of his untimely demise races through the Temple complex. Although tragic, it would be incontrovertible proof that God was still with them. Now who would believe that pretender out there shouting and wrecking the moneychangers’ bookstore? With God in the Temple, how could He be out on the street? The Ark had to leave so that Jesus could come – Phase III. You guessed it, Phase IV announced by Jesus the Christ Himself, Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, guess what, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you (John 16:7). Where would this "Comforter" reside? Not in a temple of stone but in our hearts. Not in Jesus the Christ, but in each of us, handpicked before the beginning of time as His holy priesthood. And we will do a mightier work than the ancient Temple of Solomon, the High Priests and the Ark of the Covenant combined. So we are told, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do (John 14:12). Please notice what Jesus says, "He that believeth on me." Then note Peter’s confession of faith, And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Praise God Peter believed in Him! Then followed one of the most well known passages in the Bible, And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; (Matthew 16:18). But the "church" is those, because of their confession of faith in Him are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do more than He because there are more of us living in different nations, cultures and peoples. The "place of worship?" We aren’t restricted to an inner sanctum to be visited by some High Priest once a year (or once a week). The last thing we need is another temple, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of themDo you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy
Spirit who is in you,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where Have All The Christians
Gone?
Return to the page directory With the rise of "mega churches" boasting weekend attendance figures in the tens of thousands, and Christian television programs and televised "church" services reaching audiences in the tens of millions, doesn’t one wonder where they all go for the rest of the week? As a matter of fact, where are they even on Sunday? One writer, meeting this apparent criticism of the "church" cites Matthew 9:39, Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest, pointing out that Jesus did not say for the "church" to fill the granaries but that God would send laborers. Therefore, the church has not failed. While tacitly admitting that the "granaries" of Christianity are not full, the writer suggests that this is not a flaw in the "paradigm of the church" that has been in existence for over 1,700 years. Since it is not the "church" at "fault" for such a "poor harvest" in must either be God’s fault or His plan. If it is pointed out that the "church" was not being addressed by Jesus but He was addressing His disciples, he leaves us with the same conclusions – either God’s failure or His plan. Actually, any attempt to explain the "empty granaries of Christianity" would undoubtedly be met with the same response. Perhaps all well and good if the methods used to "send forth laborers" is correct. It would be, therefore, either God’s problem or His plan. Let’s see if it is His plan for the overwhelming majority of the Human race to go to hell. Is that Scriptural? Is it His plan that even those who embrace the Good News evince little if any difference in how they behave from those who have not. In short, one needs a "scorecard" to know who is and who isn’t. Is that Scriptural? If we look in the passages just prior to Christ’s plea for prayer, we discover he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Now we must take care even here not to interpret His lament as desiring a "pastor" for them. He, after all, is our Great Shepherd, not the officiant of a local church. Indeed, these people were precisely in the same situation we find ourselves in: (1) Because our minds and souls weary with all the disparate cannons and doctrines taught by our so-called "church leaders." (2) Because rarely do we find "wholesome doctrine" in our churches and, as the "marketing of the church" begins to bear fruit, there will be even less. (3) Because our "pastors," are not strengthening the spiritually sick and diseased, nor seeking to recover those of their "flock" who have strayed. Rather they are more concerned with "feeding " and "caring" for the pecuniary needs of themselves and their "church" rather than the saints in their "charge." Our writer can get away with his illogic if we uncritically accept the fact that through the "church" workers (missionaries) have been sent into the field. First he wants us to believe the "church," through the centuries is teaching the Truth and preaching the Gospel. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Indeed the flaw in this logic is that the "church" and the congregation are two distinct entities. Laying responsibility for the inability to distinguish a Christian at home, at work, at play, the "freeways and byways of life" at the feet of God may exonerate the "church" but it certainly does not advance the Kingdom. Where is it written that there is to be a class of vicars distinct from something today called the "laity – "the mass of the people" as distinguished from the professionally "skilled" tradesmen ("merchant, businessman, dealer, merchandiser, trader, trafficker.") Is it an unreasonable question to ask the difference between the priesthood existing at the time of Christ and the one existing today? Is it unreasonable to ask the difference between the hollow, meaningless Temple worship of His time and "church services" today? What about a comparison between the temporary sacrificial system then and the yearly (unless there is a building campaign in progress) sacrificial "tithes" of today? If "workers" go into the field to harvest with a dull and broken scythe, is it fair and reasonable to lay the responsibility for empty granaries and indistinguishable Christens at the feet of Almighty God? We must remember that God struggled with the "chosen
people" for centuries upon centuries. He gave them every opportunity to
follow His plan. Yet, in the final analysis, the "granaries of Judaism"
were empty. His failure His plan or ours? Did He intend for an entire
generation, millions of people, to expire in the desert – for Israel to
disappear from the face of the map? Was that His plan? It happened. Is
this His plan today that billions should remain unsaved while billions are
spent on churches and "Christian Media?" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ONE HOLY, UNIVERSAL, CATHOLIC
CHURCH Can one imagine a worse nightmare than such a
monstrosity? Picture one man, one "College
of Cardinals," one "consistory," one denomination, one church,
deciding the doctrine of Christianity – its orthodoxy? Suppose there was
no antidote to such madness as Jimmy Jones and his "Jonestown, Guyana.
What if there were no counterpoint to
Aimee Semple McPherson and her "Angelus Temple?" Not to be excluded
from this montage that is the contemporary Christian "scene" is
Brigham Young’s
"Mormons." The "what-if" consequences of his little band (actually not so
little anymore) being in charge of Christian doctrine without any contrast
is frightening? But no less than an unchallenged Roman Catholic Church. We came close to such universalism with the
Church. Even after the Protestant Reformation, many vestiges of this kind
of religious "parochialism" remains. For example, a priesthood and the
principal creeds of
the Catholic Church, The Apostles', Athanasian, and the Nicene, all
Catholic documents, are to be found as foundational creeds in the
"churches of the Reformation." Even when the phraseology of these creeds
is somewhat awkward such as, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy
*catholic church" found in the Apostles’ Creed, is retained necessitating
an awkward explanatory note to the effect that, "*The word
"catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal
church of the Lord Jesus Christ." Roman Catholics reject such
interpretation. None more forcefully that
Augustine, "Whether they wish or no", he says, "heretics have to
call the Catholic Church Catholic" ("De vera religione", xii). "Although
all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the
Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his
own "Religious individualism" is, fundamentally incorrect. There is only one Way, one Truth, one Life (John 14:6). There are so many conflicting doctrines being espoused by men, so many diverse "prophets" foretelling of the "last days" and "pointing the way to salvation" that one must be cautious. Jesus warned us many times of their appearance. He is the Truth, not doctrines and liturgies. He is our High Priest and our King eternal. He is the One Holy, the one universal church. It is He who will save the world. A plan devised by man, however well intended cannot even begin to succeed let alone compete with the Way He ordained. To believe such is arrogance. Only He is ex cathedra. Only He is infallible. For a man, any man or council of men, to assume such a mantle is to presume perfection which, in and of its self is heretical. He is, they are presuming to be Christ-like. In like respect, I don’t, you don’t we don’t save souls. He does. Lest we forget, He has no "vicar." In that spirit, we are not, we are, by definition, parochial. Theologians often speak of "dispensations," what might be called "fashions" in the history of Christianity. Some have even labeled the time in which we are living as the "Dispensation of the Church." It is not. If there is such a thing as a "dispensation," then this must be regarded as the "Dispensation of the Holy Spirit." After all, Jesus, in proclaiming he would not leave His followers alone did not promise them churches, popes, bishops, pastors, preachers or even ministers. He did promise them the Holy Comforter. Wasn’t His arrival to be anticipated? Wasn’t His arrival contingent upon Christ’s departure? Where is anything written about His making a promise
about the arrival of the "church?" Even when taken in the most
Scripturally "pure" sense of the word
Ekklesia, used by Jesus to
Peter, in the
111 times in the New Testament, does not mean the corruption we see
today. Where does Jesus promise upon His departure He would send a
refurbished priesthood? Only
twice is the "office" of priest mentioned;
twice the "body" of priests and the
four times it is used in Hebrews, it refers to Jesus. Now, Jesus was
intimately familiar with the concept. In His pronouncement upon Peter, why
didn’t He ordain Peter as the "new high priest" or, for that matter, His
disciples as the new "holy priesthood" while He was commissioning the
reconstruction of the Temple? Most New Testament references to a "high
priest" are found in the
Book of Hebrews. Most of them refer to Jesus. What could be more
instructive, more revealing than the simple Biblical fact that when the
concept of a "holy priesthood" is used in the entire Bible, it is
found in the
Book of Peter and the reference is to us? This is what
Peter says to us:
1Peter 2:5 -Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to
God by Jesus Christ.
1Peter 2:9 - But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an
holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth
the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous
light:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation Acts 17:26 A well intended Christian recently said to a group that every day she prays that she not die until she has completed the mission God has given to her. Her heart is certainly in the right place, but what is Luke telling us in the passage cited from the Book of Acts? If this is true, that where we live and when as well as how long, do we imagine He will be frustrated? Surely this does signify that each of us has a mission the exact nature of which we can only surmise. However, we may be certain we will live how, when, where and for just as long as He has pre-ordained. Our God is omniscient, having total knowledge; knowing everything, isn’t He? He is omnipotent, all powerful isn’t He? How else are we to understand what Paul wrote to Timothy about Him, Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9)? Predestined – we’re not in charge, He is. Does this mean the death from a defective heart of a little five-year old child is part of the plan of God; that a young woman living in a vegetative state as a result of an accident for fifteen years; that an old woman lingering and lingering in the depths of Alzheimer’s for seven years; that these are all part of that plan? It does, this is part of His providence. It isn’t fate, chance or fortune that sets us upon our course of life, but, "the sovereign will and pre-arrangements of a living God." (ref.) Paul writes that everything, that is everything, coincides with God’s purposes and His will (Ephesians 1:11-12) – and that plan can never be frustrated. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). Paul also writes that, For now we see through a glass, darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12) and, makes a number of other startling statements. He tells us that prophecies will fail as will speaking in tongues and knowledge (v. 8). Why? Because now, we know in part, and we prophesy in part (v. 9). Therefore, we should not try to reason why 2,973 human beings died on September 11, 2001 or why 168, including babies, died in Oklahoma City in 1995. Nor should we ever, ever hold Him responsible for evil. That He may appear to permit something evil or that we may think we can thwart His will or persuade Him to change His mind is evidence of our myopia rather than any comprehension of His will let alone His exalted nature. To do so is to expect to comprehend the incomprehensible Truth. Perhaps we should satisfy our selves with what Truth has been revealed. Maybe, in our prayers, we should seek His guidance, ask for help in aligning our desires and wishes with His purposes, for strength to trust in Him – ask for forgiveness. Maybe we could even praise His Holy Name. In the Book of Hebrews, we are taught that, without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is (Hebrews 11:6). Believing that he is must involve who and what He is – all knowing, all powerful, ever present – perfection personified. We should really cometh before him as a worshiper full of adoration, with reverence and homage toward Him, with veneration as a worshiper. Under these conditions we may trust that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. To illustrate the point, the next two verses in Hebrews 11 give us examples of believing in Him; By faith Noah did as he was told (v. 7). By faith Abraham went where he was directed (v. 8). Oh yes, Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive (v.11). Prayer can change things but more likely it will be our desires and wishes that change rather than His eternal plan. In the Book of Matthew 21:22 we are taught, And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. All things? Anything? Then we should, like the "Man Of La Mancha," dream impossible dreams of gigantic proportions and "believing" carry them to God fully expecting them to be realized. Believing so and praying so and being so disappointed when they were not answered, how many "Christians" have turned from Him? John Gill has a different slant on "all things" for this verse. Any thing, "which may be for the honour of God, the interest of religion, the spreading of the Gospel, the enlargement of the kingdom, of Christ, their own spiritual good, and the welfare of immortal souls." Isn’t that more reasonable than on "bended knee" praying for a $55,000,000 house in Palos Verdes Estates, in California knowing that when I get it, it is from God? There may be two players on the field but He is in charge. The "tent" we live in was sown by Him, planted on His sacred ground according to His will and His timing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. Acts 1:12 We are familiar with Jesus’ remaining eleven disciples gathering in what we know as the "upper room." Later, others including His Mom and His brothers joined them. In this place, lots were cast and Matthias was selected to fill Judas’ place (v. 26). Shortly after, on the Day of Pentecost, tongues, like flames of fire that were divided, appeared to them and rested on each one of them (Acts 2:3). But, how familiar are we with where this momentous journey began? They returned to Jerusalem, but from where? Olive groves just short of a mile from town? Were they on a picnic? Luke tells us a little of what was taking place just before they returned from Olivet as recorded in Acts 1:12. The resurrected Jesus had been with them and talked with them about many things. It was then, for example, He instructed them not to leave Jerusalem until they had received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 4). They had inquired about when He was going to restore of Israel (v. 6) and He basically told them it was none of their business. He commissioned them to be witnesses Jerusalem then Judaea and only then to Samaria and the rest of the world. But, they weren’t to do anything just then. Instead, they were to wait upon the power of the Holy Ghost before they even started to witness in Jerusalem (v. 8). He was empowered in His ministry by the Holy Ghost shouldn’t they be also? Considering how nonplused they were at Olivet, aren’t we thankful for that? When we get all pumped up with our ministry, our visions and our accomplishments, when we brag about the number of souls we, or our ministry, have saved it would be well for us to remember that these men had been personally tutored by the Master. Yet after three years of relationship with Him, after all the miraculous things they had seen Him do, after His Crucifixion, Resurrection and now, His Ascension, they were essentially clueless. "Are you now gong to restore Israel" – indeed. Such is not a condemnation of His teaching, their intellect or resolve. Rather it is eloquent testimony of how truly incompetent we are without the presence of the Holy Spirit. Remember in John 16 Jesus told His disciples He was returning to His Father and that this was a good thing? He said, Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you (v. 7). They evidently forgot, because there, in the olive grove, they seemed mystified at His departure. They forgot what, not too long before He said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (John 14:12). Have we forgotten these words also? They are spoken to our hearts just as surely as they were to those disciples 2,000 years ago. Success to the disciples was the restoration of The Promised Land to its place of rightful prominence. What’s our conception of success - earthly health and wealth? Is that what we aspire to and pray for – self-fulfillment? Is it recognition, fame that we secretly covet – praises from others? What if it is only our salvation – and that of those we love? Is that a worthy life’s ambition? We must have forgotten. Such as these must be the spiritual goals toward which we strive. They must be since we end the significant part of Christ’s earthly ministry with His resurrection. Rightly we say that, "were it not for His resurrection,
all we believe and all we teach would be foolishness." But all of that is
what He has done/is doing for us – what we can expect – the "perks" of being
a Christian. Here, the sermons seem to stop. As needed, we are reminded of
"financial obligations" we presumably have to support the "church" –
including church based "missionary" programs. Beyond that our obligations in
modern Christianity if they exist, seem unworthy of mention. Yet Jesus did
not convert significant numbers of people. He has left that to us – with the
help of the Holy Comforter. Let us understand the actual nature of His
commission. It is not corporate. Some contend the reason He showed such
little concern for corporate structure that awaited His ascension and the
arrival of the Holy Spirit. At best, half right. More completely, we must
realize it is not His plan. We are to be touched by the Holy Spirit. He is
to inhabit our hearts, not the labyrinth of the corporate church. The focus
or salvation is on the person, not on a nation. The focus of ministry is
personal. Collectively we gather for worship, praise, study and admonition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We are told by a prominent television minister that,
"There does not need to be a conflict between intelligent people who endorse
the process of evolution and intelligent Christians who endorse the Holy
Scripture's account of creationism in Genesis 1. The key is to avoid extreme
positions." That’s what the squabble between creationism and evolution is
all about, he contends, extremism to the left and right. After all, says the
voice of moderation, Genesis "is meant to be allegoric or
figurative." Supposedly, the statement that God created the earth in seven
days is only a figure of speech rather than a Biblical fact – moderation.
That’s certainly reasonable now isn’t it? Anything in Scriptures we
can’t comprehend or take exception to can simply be dismissed as figurative,
allegorical, metaphorical. That will prevent a lot of arguments. Clearly,
the only intelligent thinkers are the "moderates." "Extremists aren’t very
bright. As to the matter of extremism, one minister writes, "Any
time there is an issue; there are those who are the moderates in the middle.
There are those who take an extreme position for the right and on the left
are the extremists who take a position far to the left. Yes, there are
extremists on both the right and the left." Where should Christians fall on
this dimension? Without bothering to define "right" or "left," should we be
in an "extreme" or "moderate" position? Increasingly, "churches" seem to
tend toward the center so as not to "scare off" or offend non-Christians and
"seekers." Our preacher in question is proud of the fact that he was taught
in college and seminary to be "moderate." Who should be our teacher –
college professors? Pray, pastor, what does this mean? Here is wisdom. Let
him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the
number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six
(Revelation 13:18.) So much for human wisdom and understanding. To "dream
the impossible dream" is to believe human reasoning and wisdom can fathom
the unfathomable. Yet, we are being encouraged to supplement our ignorance
of God’s Plan and His Will with our own understanding perhaps even to the
point of setting those aside when we disagree – moderation. Jesus was an extremist. Remember what He said,
No man can serve two masters (Matthew
6:24)? We have here two masters. On the one hand "rational humanism" that
rejects things spiritual believes that one’s dignity, worth and
self-realization can be achieved through reason. The other "master" is
Christianity that rejects such human efforts and, instead relies upon a
deep, uncompromising faith and trust in the Lord God Almighty, in His Son,
the Holy Spirit and in the Word. One’s dignity, worth and self-realization
is only possible through accepting Jesus the Christ as our Lord and Savior –
our one true and everlasting friend. His First Commandment is immodest,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy mind (Matthew 22:37).
Moderation? Who persecutes one who is moderate? Yet, Jesus said,
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and
persecute you (Matthew 5:11a). Which invites the "blow of the
hammer," the "chameleon" or the "nail that stands above the rest?" Five
times the Greek word for moderation (epieikes) is used in the KJV of the New
Testament. In Philippians 4:5 it speaks of humility and modesty; in 1
Timothy 3:3 it means patience; Titus 3:2 it tells us to be gentle as does
James 3:17 and 1 Peter 2:18. Jesus was humble, modest and gentle – the
Prince of Peace – but He did not preach a gospel of appeasement and
moderation nor was that what He told His disciples to preach. He did tell us
to expect the "blow of the hammer."
Eight times in the KJV of the Gospels Jesus
is recorded as speaking about persecution. Read this -
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute
you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought
before kings and rulers for my name's sake (Luke 21:12). He also
said, If they have persecuted me, they will also
persecute you (John 15:20). It isn’t by our moderation that we are to be known but by
the love we have for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Speaking to
His disciples He said, A new commandment I give
unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love
one another (John 13:34,
also). It isn’t loving to let errors
affecting one’s eternal life go uncorrected. We aren’t loving or even kind
to "seekers" by catering to their misconceptions thinking in so doing we
will win them to Christ. A Christianity of moderation is as much value as a
ship without a compass. It is dependent upon the winds of human opinion for
its course. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor
hot, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Volunteer Reformation These words from the Book of Mark, Jesus said in the town of Galilee just before His ascension. There is no doubt He was speaking to His disciples. The question is, whether this commission was intended only for them. We can only begin to unravel this 2,000-year-old puzzle by understanding who these eleven men Jesus was addressing were. Today, they are just as often referred to as "apostles" as "disciples." Let’s review what most already know. The Greek we translate as "disciple" means "learner" or "pupil" – a student. It is used 252 times in the KJV in this way. "Apostle," used 80 times, means a messenger or one who is sent on a mission. A student, disciple, learns his lessons and teaches what he has learned to others. Nothing too difficult or mysterious. But, before going further, it might be well to refresh our memories – Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Hebrews 3:1. Lest we forget whom we should focus upon. Because, now, the "fun" begins. Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, most recent book is titled, The Volunteer Revolution, not accidentally similar to the title of this article. Hybels writes about creating "a vision that will inspire and motivate your congregation to become committed and thriving volunteers." He writes of the "church body" flourishing, a deeper sense of community and "increased ownership." Among the advantages of this "revolution" are such wonderfully positive things as loyalty, involvement, commitment and giving to the church - even evangelism and small groups. To advance this "revolution" a Living Beyond Myself: Launching a Volunteer Revolution Kit may be purchased for as little as $499.00 - $749.00 for "non-members." As worthwhile as these objectives are, they are tragic. First, notice the subtly of what is said about the "revolution" from Hybels’ book, "your congregation." The idea of a "volunteer revolution" raises the specter of some in the "congregation" being "non-volunteers." There is to be "increased ownership" and a "deeper sense of community" suggesting some degree of lack of such within a "congregation" interested in participating in this "volunteer revolution" as with loyalty, commitment, evangelism and, perhaps most importantly, giving. The picture that evolves from this briefest examination of Pastor Hybels’ book is two camps (1) the paid "your" group who owns the congregation and (2) the unpaid "volunteer" group who will, hopefully, become motivated to assume more of the responsibilities of the "body politic" than they do – evidently. But Hybels is no more to blame than he is alone in his attitude. It is the prevailing mind-set. It is the "church" in 20th Century Christianity. No where in the recorded words of Jesus the Christ, our Apostle and High Priest, does He elevate His "disciples," then "apostles," into some ethereal realm that sets them above other believers. Yes, He taught them, ordinary men, and He taught them in what we would call a "small-group" setting. He then instructed them to do as He and to teach others who were to teach others in an unbroken chain. To assure the chain remained unbroken, He sent to them as He does to us, the Holy Spirit, as our teacher, counselor and comforter. Remember, Jesus promised the Comforter shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26). That promise extends across the centuries to each and every one of us. Just as there were no "Apostles" only apostles, then, there are no "Saints" among us; only "saints." Remember, that Judas Iscariot was counted among the "apostles" listed in the Book of Matthew. That is especially noteworthy in light of the passage in which Jesus "commissions" the "apostles." Judas was so commissioned. The disciples abandoned Jesus after His arrest and fled to go to their respective homes after His crucifixion. They were men who had no claim to being special other than through the endowment of the Holy Spirit. Clearly they did not understand His teachings without that special faculty. Because the belief that "apostles" became "Apostles," is so deeply entrenched in our Christian way of thinking, nothing more than a reformulation of this overpowering attitude will be sufficient. Actually Hybels, Rick Warren and others, in a backhanded sort of way, are recognizing that the existing church paradigm is not meeting its proclaimed goals or living up to any other of its stated expectations. Some of us may chose to rest in the certain knowledge of our salvation and not grow and mature spiritually, but the potential is there. We must begin to comprehend that each if us is commissioned as students of the Word – disciples. Each of us is ordained to preach, teach and exemplify the Word in what we say and in what we do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can anyone imagine a Christian, a pastor at that, saying something like "And when it comes to the subject of science and religion there is no problem because both are in the same business of searching for truth." Wrong. Only science is in the process attempting to discover it. Religion – Christianity – knows the Truth. Search means to investigate, examine, inquire into, scrutinize, sift, question. "Seekers," prayerfully will do just that, but, even more prayerfully, Christians will know. To know means we understand, perceive, and recognize the Truth. Seekers ask "Who is this Jesus you keep talking about?" Prayerfully, Christians know who He is. The process of searching ceases with conversion and the process of refinement begins. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "knowing is to be aware of the truth or factuality of to be convinced or certain of: to have a practical understanding of" something. It is a fact that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. We are convinced that He is our savior. We are certain of our eternal salvation. Aren’t we to have a "practical understanding" of basic Christian beliefs to be able to apply them to our live and in our relationships with other? We know, science seeks. Look at the contrast. Britannica tells us, searching is "to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as to examine in seeking something." Are Christians carefully looking into the possibility that Jesus is our savior? Are we trying to discover if He is really the Son of God as He claims? Do you know that God is loved or are you still exploring the proposition? Are you saved or are you still questioning? Reverend Dr. Pastor, where is your faith? And what of those still searching, seeking, possibly even that pastor? How are we to discover the truth through scientific methodology? Jesus tells us Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Isn’t this the "scientific way?" Well, first, He is telling us to ask God in prayer, not in the laboratory. Second, we are being reassured that if we faithfully ask, not systematically or objectively investigate, He will answer us. Third, it is through God’s mercy, not our intellect that Truth will be revealed to us rather than the scientific paradigm of probabilities and correlations being surmised by us. In Christianity, we know that we see through the glass darkly but with a sure certainty we know all His glory will be ours to behold. Science will never know more than the darkness of the glass. Most emphatically, we Christians know through faith and prayer. What little science knows is transient, illusory and limited by the capacity of our finite brains to comprehend the unfathomable nature of God. Let us propose the question our pastor did. Is There a God? Can science even offer an opinion? It cannot. But it does and scientists do. Legitimately? No they cannot. For the most fundamental question in all creation, science is deaf, dumb and blind – "deprived of practical significance" - moot. Scientists in their personal lives may be, and prayerfully are, Christians as schizophrenic as that would be. However in their professional capacity, "ex-cathedra" as it were, they cannot answer the question. Science only studies natural phenomena; God is super natural. Science may only study phenomena knowable to the human brain; God is incomprehensible to the human mind. Science may only study that which is discoverable through one or more of the "natural senses." Only through His choice are we allowed to sense what He deems necessary of Himself. Science may only study that which obeys the laws of nature (natural laws), God created them, is not subject to them and may, as He desires ignore them, change them or eliminate them. He is unpredictable. And now, there is the matter of intelligence. One Dr. Michael Guillen Emmy awards winning correspondent for ABC News, a physicist, and author asks the question, "Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" Actually, Dr. Guillen has the question backwards. Dr. Guillen proposes a strange dichotomization between being smart and being a Christian. Then he proceeds to show one can be both. Fortunately, he does concede it is possible, just possible for an intelligent person to believe in God. Once more, his basic premise is false. Being Christian is the intelligent, smart thing to be. Only smart people can figure that out. And, unlike his book, it takes far more than genius to read His Book. To read His Book requires the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t religion that is on trial, science is. This I know because the Bible tells me so.
Can anyone imagine a Christian, a pastor at that, saying something like "And when it comes to the subject of science and religion there is no problem because both are in the same business of searching for truth." Wrong. Only science is in the process attempting to discover it. Religion – Christianity – knows the Truth. Search means to investigate, examine, inquire into, scrutinize, sift, question. "Seekers," prayerfully will do just that, but, even more prayerfully, Christians will know. To know means we understand, perceive, and recognize the Truth. Seekers ask "Who is this Jesus you keep talking about?" Prayerfully, Christians know who He is. The process of searching ceases with conversion and the process of refinement begins. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "knowing is to be aware of the truth or factuality of to be convinced or certain of: to have a practical understanding of" something. It is a fact that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. We are convinced that He is our savior. We are certain of our eternal salvation. Aren’t we to have a "practical understanding" of basic Christian beliefs to be able to apply them to our live and in our relationships with other? We know, science seeks. Look at the contrast. Britannica tells us, searching is "to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as to examine in seeking something." Are Christians carefully looking into the possibility that Jesus is our savior? Are we trying to discover if He is really the Son of God as He claims? Do you know that God is loved or are you still exploring the proposition? Are you saved or are you still questioning? Reverend Dr. Pastor, where is your faith? And what of those still searching, seeking, possibly even that pastor? How are we to discover the truth through scientific methodology? Jesus tells us Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Isn’t this the "scientific way?" Well, first, He is telling us to ask God in prayer, not in the laboratory. Second, we are being reassured that if we faithfully ask, not systematically or objectively investigate, He will answer us. Third, it is through God’s mercy, not our intellect that Truth will be revealed to us rather than the scientific paradigm of probabilities and correlations being surmised by us. In Christianity, we know that we see through the glass darkly but with a sure certainty we know all His glory will be ours to behold. Science will never know more than the darkness of the glass. Most emphatically, we Christians know through faith and prayer. What little science knows is transient, illusory and limited by the capacity of our finite brains to comprehend the unfathomable nature of God. Let us propose the question our pastor did. Is There a God? Can science even offer an opinion? It cannot. But it does and scientists do. Legitimately? No they cannot. For the most fundamental question in all creation, science is deaf, dumb and blind – "deprived of practical significance" - moot. Scientists in their personal lives may be, and prayerfully are, Christians as schizophrenic as that would be. However in their professional capacity, "ex-cathedra" as it were, they cannot answer the question. Science only studies natural phenomena; God is super natural. Science may only study phenomena knowable to the human brain; God is incomprehensible to the human mind. Science may only study that which is discoverable through one or more of the "natural senses." Only through His choice are we allowed to sense what He deems necessary of Himself. Science may only study that which obeys the laws of nature (natural laws), God created them, is not subject to them and may, as He desires ignore them, change them or eliminate them. He is unpredictable. And now, there is the matter of intelligence. One Dr. Michael Guillen Emmy awards winning correspondent for ABC News, a physicist, and author asks the question, "Can a Smart Person Believe in God?" Actually, Dr. Guillen has the question backwards. Dr. Guillen proposes a strange dichotomization between being smart and being a Christian. Then he proceeds to show one can be both. Fortunately, he does concede it is possible, just possible for an intelligent person to believe in God. Once more, his basic premise is false. Being Christian is the intelligent, smart thing to be. Only smart people can figure that out. And, unlike his book, it takes far more than genius to read His Book. To read His Book requires the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t religion that is on trial, science is. This I know because the Bible tells me so.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
True enough there are more serious consequences to an actual murder than to one we imagine. Caught in an actual murder,one might go to jail and might be executed. But is the greater social condemnation sufficient ground for saying the one we imagine is any less serious? Is covetousness any less a sin than actually stealing? The police think so. If we developed a paradigm of sin, think of the sermons we could write. Well surprise, we already have that paradigm thanks to the Roman Catholic Church:
Can’t one just see the marketing possibilities? We could have a handy pocket version to carry with us and accurately chart the sins we see in others (never ourselves). In church, points could be awarded and grades given on a semi-annual or quarterly basis and those with the least points could be privileged to be invited to pastor’s home for dinner or be promoted to elder, priest or bishop. Stars and awards could be worn with the annual winner given a "Crown of Stars" award with his name engraved on the chancel steps. Why would we even want to entertain such an idea – not of the pocket sin index but of such a hierarchy of sins? What’s to be gained maybe, more importantly, what’s to be lost? How much is our Christian discipleship journey advanced? A parable, Jesus teaches tells us, There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (Luke 7:41-42) Isn’t He teaching that, when we accept Him, all our sins washed away – from say a "sin of omission" to a "mortal sin?" Doesn’t the parable suggest that those of us with the more egregious sins are, in fact, more grateful? Then, we be remiss (sin of omission) if we didn’t quote that fascinating passage, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5) Yes, it speaks of "levels" of sin. Of what use is that in our discipling journey? Without His saving blood, could any of us enter into His Eternal Glory? And if the one with much debt has a greater sense of gratitude, does that imply he who is nearly perfect (if only in his own estimation) is less grateful? Isn’t the Truth that, as Paul writes in Romans 3:23, all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God? Isn’t a miss as good as a mile? What reward is there in bragging – isn’t there something about boasting?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||