| If ye love me, keep my commandments John 14:15 UPDATED 02/03/2012 ADD T0 THE BOTTOM
|
|
|
Published at the end of the First World War, "Pack Up All Your Troubles" became synonymous with that brutal war. The lyrics are a sad tale of a "Private Perks" who "went a-marching into Flanders." He had a smile on his face because as noted in the chorus he reckoned, "What's the use of worrying?" We Christians are so much like Private Perks. We don’t pack our troubles up in a bag (for the most part) but, we do pack them off to God much like Bartimaeus did with his troubles with the confidence that each and every one of them will be taken care of "in God’s time." Satisfied, for the time being, we go on our way singing, "smile, smile, smile." Bartimaeus was cured of his physical blindness. Think on that. A blind as a bat beggar, probably for his entire life, encounters Jesus the Christ, not just any ole ordinary magician, but the Son of the Living God and all he can think of is his physical blindness. It is recorded that he subsequently followed Jesus up to Jerusalem. ( Mark 10:52) although Luke, in recording probably the same event, writes, Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God. (Luke 18:43) However emblematic this story may be of how we are blind before our conversion when, presumably, we gain our "sight," think of what could have been. He had a one on one encounter with Jesus and walked away with his physical sight restored. If, Mark 10:52 means he became a follower of Jesus (Some say Christians were once known as "people of the way." See Acts 9:2) he is never again heard from. Like so many of us.We can only speculate our responses with such a meeting with Jesus in the flesh. The first question is whether or not we would recognize Him for who He is, the Son of God, or would we think He was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament about to re-establish Israel and rule over it as most did in those days. Previous verses in Mark’s account of this encounter strongly indicate that His disciples held this opinion. (See Mark 10:35-39) Would we see Him the same as the multitudes who hounded after Him, a talented conjurer making wishes and dreams come true to their amazement and pleasure? Come to think of it, these two questions are dissimilar only in scope. Both are expressions of people expecting Him to work wonders in their lives. So accustomed was He of this reaction to His presence that, on this occasion, when He heard all the yelling and shouting, He probably responded somewhat sarcastically, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? "Aye, there’s the rub," are we really any different? Might our incessant begging and pleading for this or that miracle in our lives be exasperating Him? If Bartimaeus really knew who the "Son of David" really was, and being confronted with the possibility of having one wish granted, would he have wasted it on having his sight restored? Would we?There He was, here He is, before their/our very eyes and all they/we could/can think of to ask of Him is to make their/our lives in this temporal tent a little easier. We’re asking Jesus, one of the Trinity, for all intents and purposes the Lord God Almighty, who knows all for such a pittance. Step into the future, however far is not ours to know, to the day we stand before Jesus; ( Luke 21:36) before His judgment seat; (Rom. 14:10) before God; (Rev. 20:2) with the books open in other words when we are dead, and all we can think to ask Him is to fix this or that. Would that be maddening or what? Well, we do it every minute, every hour, every day of our lives, now don’t we? Mamma’s used to teach their children, "waste not, want not." Maybe there should have been a verse of Scripture, an entire chapter, a whole bible devoted to that saying because we sure are squandering our resources, preoccupied with this "walking shadow" of a life. The mysteries of the universe lie before us and all we want of the Creator, the all knowing, all powerful God is "will you please fix this ache?There’s a lot of "what if’s" here. What if the sons of Zebedee had asked Jesus to move forward with His plan of redemption and how they could speed things along? What if the twelve had paid closer attention to their Rabboni, and learned more from Him while He was amongst them, rather than having to wait upon the tongues of fire to waken their sensibilities? If Bartimaeus had said, "I’m just a lowly, pitiful blind beggar, but I know that you son of David, will save the world. How, can I help? Whatever it is, however mean and degrading it might be, I want to help. Ask and I will do as you ask."That was then; water under the bridge. What about now? Why, having Holy Scripture before us and the Holy Spirit within our bosoms, are we still asking as did the disciples, "What’s the buzz? Tell me what’s a-happening." Why are we still treating Him like a Jeanie in a bottle and expecting Him, like to pop out asking What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And with a nod of His head and a blink of His eyes grant our most inane wish while the universe waits. Let’s just bag it. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him . Matthew 6:8 Some may have more troubles than others |
|
Undoubtedly in this situation Jesus was surrounded by those wishing Him to miraculously touch their lives like on many other occasions. What made this day different is that it was a Sabbath Day; one encumbered with restrictions governing what one could do. According to Jewish Law ( halakhah, Jewish Law or more correctly, "the path that one walks") healing was one of many, many activities prohibited on this day. According to Jewish writers, "Halakhah comes from three sources: from the Torah, from laws instituted by the rabbis and from long-standing customs." It is defended in Judaism because, according to their beliefs, "it turns the most trivial, mundane acts, such as eating and getting dressed, into acts of religious significance." "At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot (commandments) that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible)." Going deeper into the "Law" we learn that in Judaism, "there is complete agreement that there are 613 mitzvot. This number is significant: it is the numeric value of the word Torah (Tav = 400 + Vav = 6 + Reish = 200 + Hei = 5), plus 2 for the two mitzvot whose existence precedes the Torah: I am the L-rd, your G-d and You shall have no other gods before Me." (op. sit.) Jesus would know this.Then, why did He knowingly, intentionally, choose to violate the mitzvot on this occasion? This raises a second question, was he intentionally choosing to violate the mitzvot and not the Ten Commandments (Ex. 31:18) which Judaism refers to as the Aseret ha-Dibrot? They consider them, the Ten, as categories or classifications of the 613 mitzvot. Maybe that was what He was up to. Maybe He was telling the religious hierarchy, that what they were accountable to was the "Mosaic Law, not that pieced together from rabbinic writings and Jewish traditions built up over the centuries. Is that what He meant in Matt. 5:17 when He said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. You see, the Jews to whom He was speaking would understand Him to be referring to the Mitzvot, not just the Mosaic Ten Commandments we Christian think He was talking about. And, in fact, we cannot tell which because the Greek for the word "law" in Matt. 5:17 and other places in the NT can refer to the Mosaic Law, the moral instructions given by the Christ (such as His teaching about love found in Matt. 5:43-44, 19:19, 22:37, 22:39 and throughout the remaining Gospels) the Pentateuch or the entire OT. That certainly "Jabez’s" our idea of the "law."The question still is why Jesus chose to heal the man’s hand when He had just been told it would break the Shabbat? After all, that was and is the most important ritual observance in Judaism, with its two interrelated commandments: (1) to remember (zakhor) (2) to observe (shamor) even though His act probably wasn’t because it didn’t fit in with the 39 activities specifically prohibited. Things become even more complicated when we learn that, "As with almost all of the commandments, all of these Shabbat restrictions can be violated if necessary to save a life." (op. cit.) Maybe, just maybe, Jesus was pointing His finger at these Jewish Scholars and, in effect, saying to them, "You don’t know what you’re talking about! What I am about to do does not break the Shabbat!" A similar confrontation occurred when He and His followers picked some corn to eat. (Mark and Luke) Once more the confrontation and, once again He tells the religious fellows that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Imagine an upstart from some little one horse town telling a preacher that today.Is it even remotely possible that their reaction to what He was doing and saying had less to do with them considering Him a threat to National security and more due to the fact that He has insulted them and challenged their authority in front of everyone? Under their breath, they were probably saying "Where did this guy go to seminary? What does he know of the Law? Isn’t he that illegitimate kid from that dumpy Nazareth? What right does He have to challenge us? He’s an upstart; a nobody." Can’t you just hear them? To make matters worse, He had just told them, referring to Himself, For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. (Matt. 12:8) Wow! Calling Himself God (that is who the Lord of the Sabbath is) must have really been an affront, a slap in the face. In effect, He was telling them that He owned the Sabbath and as such He could interpret it as He pleased, preside over it as He saw fit or dispense with it all together – do as He pretty well pleased. That had to be the ultimate blasphemy. They must have been infuriated. All by itself, this would have been enough to get these religious leaders mad enough to try to have Him killed. Pretty much the same as it is today.And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free . John 8:32
|
|
Anyone who has wondered what is behind the transformation(s) in Christian "churches" found in the so-called " postmodern church" or what is sometimes referred to the "emerging church" or even the "missional church," will find part of the explanation in the passage above from 2 Peter. Although seemingly quite divergent, these three contemporary "church" movements have much in common. What they share is the goal of saving every human being. These "mission-minded churches" are also very closely related to the "seeker-sensitive," "seeker-friendly movements of Bill Hybels, Leonard Sweet and Rick Warren. The "missional minded church" embraces the passage from 2 Peter and Mark 16:15 which says, And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature as their clarion call to action. Based on these and other bits and pieces of Scripture, (also see Luke 14:23, 1 Tim. 2:4) they believe that saving human kind is their sworn and sacred duty, above all else, by whatever means.Recognizing the many differences between what are called "mission minded churches," they do have a number of things in common. If one doesn’t know any other way if they are attending such a "church," the presences of such beliefs and practices as these are pretty good indicators: (1) A belief that Christianity is too restricted, verging on being not just insensitive and uncaring but right down prejudiced. (2) A theology that endorses ancient practices such as contemplative prayer, labyrinths and hospitality (3) A belief that there are no absolutes; labeled "emergent relativism." (4) A belief in "interspirituality," the uniting of all religions and the denial that Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. (5) A belief that reaching the postmodern world requires radically reforming the church’s beliefs and practices to attract postmodernism’s perspectives, (6) A belief in the principle of "contextualization;" that Scripture has no value or meaning beyond subjective moments of "inspiration" [ Acts 16:1-5 is frequently cited as justification for this]. (6) A sure sign that your church is sliding into the muck is an increasing use of the word "conversation," the ultimate expression of which is that truth is determined through group consensus by – as you might imagine – "talking it through together." (7) The final straw, is what most refer to as "social theology;" the belief that the purpose of the "church" is to make the world a better place in which to live. The P.E.A.C.E Plan is the centerpiece of this philosophy. In short, everything that even smacks of traditional Christianity; the cross, the role of Jesus in salvation, the Bible must go.Seldom is the validity of "saving the world for Christ" ever questioned anymore than the tactic of making Christianity more palatable is challenged. Yet, as to the first point, when the phrase, "save the world," is found, in 31 of the translations of the Bible, without exception, the person speaking is Jesus and he is indicating that is His purpose. Furthermore, in so stating, He is not even remotely suggesting that He is in the least bit interested in something as mundane as "Whole Earth Evangelism," any more than He is in making this earthly life more pleasant or just. It is through human transgression, a Hell of a place ruled over by the "prince of this world." Jesus’ job is to atone for those sins; that’s "saving the world." He does not commission his disciples/Apostles, Priest, Bishops, Cardinals, Popes or anyone else to do so simply because they/we are not and cannot become qualified to do so. That is His job. Ours is to PREACH THE GOSPEL as witnessed by the fact that this phrase is found eleven times in the KJV of the NT alone as the task assigned to us. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible can it be found that everyone will be saved. As with "save the world," when the phrase, "save everyone" is searched a passage in Romans, one in Titus and one in Hebrews attach the condition of "that believe (in guess who) to the phrase. 1Timothy 2:4 seems to be an exception. However, without even broaching the matter of predestination, (for which there are ample Biblical foundations, (e.g. Rom. 8:29-30) if this verse from Timothy is taken as the goal of God, rather than the God’s desire, it will be accomplished by their coming to a "knowledge of the truth," not by any other means like putting Christianity through such a "plastic surgery metamorphosis" making it no longer recognizable.As much as we would like to think so, we aren’t Christianity’s plastic surgeons. Saving the world; transforming the world is far and away above our pay grade. We have been given the task which, so far we have miserably failed to do, preach the Gospel by what we say as well as by what we do. We need to leave the "saving" stuff where it belongs with the Holy Trinity and mind our own business. Imagine what a strong testimony it would be if we followed just two Scriptural verses: Acts 4:32 where the saints shared everything, and John 13:34 that we love our brothers and sisters in Christ. What more powerful preaching could there be?For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be comformed to the image of his Son, that he might e the firstborn among many bretheren. Romans 8:29 |
|
|
Samson moved from one predicament to another; constantly in hot water. He “judged,” if it can be called that, Israel for twenty years. Actually the “biography” of his tenure in office was one punctuated with his slipping and sliding from one mess of his own doing into another. Throughout, there was a consistent theme that culminates with his seeming heroic, yet disgraceful final curtain. The theme, put into today’s vernacular could be summarized as “Whatever Samson wants, Samson does.” He started young and never stopped messing up. Regardless of the seriousness of the consequences, he never seemed to connect what he was doing with the disastrous consequences he was suffering. His first marriage to a Philistine girl from the city of Timnath was in complete violation of God’s sanctions against marrying nonbelievers. The “marriage” lasted a week and his little matrimonial foray resulted in his killing a thousand Philistine soldiers but not before they burned his new bride and her entire family alive. His next and last feminine “conquest” was the harlot (by some accounts, a temple prostitute) Delilah from the Philistine city of Gaza. Like his first “wife” she was just as treacherous. Interestingly, “her name is a word play on Hebrew layla” translated as “night.” One source notes, “for as the night overcomes the mighty sun (the name Samson, Shimshon, is related to “sun,” shemesh), so Delilah overcomes the apparently invincible strong man, Samson.” And, she got eleven hundred pieces of silver for her betrayal. (Judges 16:5) The dilemma the account of Samson confronts us with is that on the one hand he appears to be a hero while on the other he is a wretched person more interested in serving himself than God. Yes he tore a lion apart with his bare hands. Yes, he slew a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass. Yes he destroyed the temple to Dagon and killed all the lords of the Philistines; about three thousand men and women, along with many other “heroic” deeds. However, his motivation was prideful, vengeful and self-serving. What is it in the narrative of Samson that made him a hero? He was a despicable character. Even his feat of lighting fire to the tails of hundreds of foxes and sending them into the grain fields, vineyards and olive groves of the Philistines was done for the revenge of a personal affront. (Judges 14:19-15:5) His final demise, however dramatic, was the consequence of his “affair” with the Harlot Delilah. Chapter 16 of the Book of Judges is a lurid tale of lust and personal revenge, and little more. In so many words, he was out of control. As a Nazirite and a judge over Israel, He certainly was a public figure. Some want to use this as the reason God kept saving Samson from the messes he kept getting himself into. That did not excuse nor exonerate him from his transgressions nor wipe out the punishment he was due for his wrongdoings. The destruction of the temple of Dagon and the deaths of the three thousand Philistines was Samson’s personal revenge for their having gouged his eyes out. Judges 16:20 states that Samson didn’t know that the Lord had departed from Him but He had departed. Little wonder. He did pray to God for the strength to destroy the temple (vs. 28) and for some infinite reason, He granted Samson’s last request. Then, Samson died, far short of his potential. With his gift, he could have been the instrument to drive the indigenous occupants out of Israel. Instead, out of a sense of personal vengeance to kill a lion, burn crops by setting the tails of foxes on fire, kill a relatively few of the enemy with the jawbone of an ass and gave up his life in disgrace. His years of judgeship over Israel were not good years. He was the very personification of what it, Israel, had become; expecting all blessing to be granted on demand and obeying God when the occasion was right and it was convenient. Actually, in Samson’s case, he never obeyed God. All he really did was pray for God to get him out of the personal messes he had gotten himself into. His narcissistic wanderings cost him dearly. His death throes were not a victory for God. His death like his life was a gift squandered. How could God ever use a person who was so influenced by the lusts of the flesh and emotional extremes? “Well,” He might tell us, “I use you.” It is not likely that God was using Samson's weaknesses for women to accomplish His ends as some believe? His miserable life and his puny victories were pyrrhic victories; a mere pittance of what they could have been and what he could have accomplished. His strength was not in his being a Nazirite or in his hair; it was a gift from God intended, as with all such gifts, to be used in His service, not for personal gain. Regaining his strength had nothing to do with his hair starting to grow back but with God’s infinite mercy. His life, a mirror of that or Israel’s disobedient history, is to serve as a warning to all. The lesson we are to learn; from Samson’s disobedient life and his disgraceful death is that there is a price to pay for disobeying God. Like Samson, like Israel, like the church today, we must surely know God will not mocked. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30
|
|
There is some good news and some bad news. A recent survey has shown that teen-agers, boys and girls, are far more accepting of teen-pregnancy than ever before. The stigma and fear found in previous generations have been replaced with increased prestige and even something to brag about. Among other results, a 2010 survey by the Center for Disease Control showed that, although there has been a decline in sexual activity from earlier studies, still 42% of females and 43% of males 15-19 are active. It showed that overall, the majority of teens (71% females, 64% males) ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that it is okay for an unmarried female to have a child. This same study showed that of those not sexually active (41.5% of teenage females and 34.8% of males); the most common reason given for abstaining was that it was “against religion or morals.” The good news is the slight drop in teenage sexual activity and the number of them who report that their abstinence is based on religious/moral grounds. The bad news is the dramatic increase in the acceptability of teen pregnancy. This raises the question of what or who is responsible for the increase? Since 71% of teens report they are Christian, it is the most likely of religious and moral values. Has Christianity recently changed in some way that account for this increased acceptability of teen pregnancy? There are some obvious changes. Today, most mainline Protestant denominations ordain women and a surprising number ordain homosexuals. Aside from such obvious departures from traditional Christian values, more subtle changes are taking place with more in the offing. In order to appeal to the masses, in order to grow, churches are becoming “missionary social welfare agencies.” They are missionary in two regards. First, they see their main objective as reaching out to non-believers. In the early stage of this movement, churches (called “seeker churches”) meticulously modified their services to eliminate anything controversial or even having the perception of being judgmental or suggesting that the seekers are at a Christian service in a Christian church. Second, they are “missiological” which is defined as "the science of the cross cultural communication of the Christian faith." Thus they spawn and support over-seas missions in “faraway places with strange sounding names that are calling, calling them.” Increasingly, they offer menus of programs providing a rainbow of choices ranging from programs providing emergency shelter, food pantries, care for families in need, conciliation ministries, helping resolve interpersonal conflicts, financial seminars, divorce recovery workshops, orphan care and adoption programs, career and pre-marital counseling; a panorama of support groups for cancer patients, those suffering chronic pain, depression, eating disorders, mental illness, families with mentally ill members, infertility, food allergies; those infected with HIV and Aids. Probably not recognizing the contradictions, many now offer psychiatric services. Actually, an endless array of welfare and social services is provided right there on the church campus – sort of a one-stop mini-mart of help and aid for everything that could possibly afflict our lives. As one mega-church advertises, “a little something for everyone.” Anything pertaining to Christian beliefs and values are relegated to programs in venues during off hours and outside of the main arena. Any serious Bible study is relegated to such after-thought agendas and well marked so they won’t accidentally ensnare the unsuspecting. Sermon topics also reinforce the “missionary social welfare” motif of today’s mega-churches. Topics include the likes of: “The Importance of Leadership,” “Restoring Hope,” “Five Secrets for Contentment,” “Shrewd Money Management,” “The Benefits of Declaring the Great Things God Has Done in Our Lives,” “There’s a Mystical Side of the Christian Walk,” “Your Miracle Begins Today.” Sometimes referred to as “pabulumonic sermons,” all with sufficient Scriptural references to persuade all but the most discerning Such distractions as these have cost us a generation – and eternally more. Traditional Christian values are being down played, if not completely missing, in today’s mega-churches as they pursue what they see as the Prayer of Jabez. Instead, it’s of Satan. When Christian values were the foundation of our country, we were characterized as “inner-directed.” Those values guided our lives on a sure and steady course regardless of the tides and tempests that surrounded and often engulfed us. Today, as a people, we are rudderless, being swayed and tossed about by every whim and fancy the mob lights upon – what one writer called “other-directed.” Without any counterpoint, the natural inclination is to follow the herd, the path of least resistance. It isn’t the internet that’s responsible for the decline of America; it’s the absence of those uplifting and stabilizing values. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Hebrews 13:8 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed . Mal. 3:6
|
|
For all
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and
the pride of life, Most polls show that well over 80% of Americans are Christian with Protestant denominations making up more than 50% of the population. Knowing this, many preachers are calling for their congregations to go to the polls during election time and vote for those candidates who espouse Christian beliefs and principles. The argument is that, if we voted as a block, we could sway elections at every level of government and, thus, change the direction the Country is taking. Doubtless, even with the many schisms and denominational differences that characterize Christianity, we could. With a concerted effort, we could probably muster a sufficient block of voters to do just that. However, the real question may not be “could we,” but rather “should we.” Are the politicians our “Christian Voting Bloc” would remove from office of other faiths? Are the atheists, agnostics, mystics or of some other persuasion? Is none of them Christian? It is interesting that among the sundry qualifications and details of their political and personal lives, we rarely learn of their religious orientations. Why is that? (A rhetorical question.) It is interesting to note that what information is available suggests the overwhelming numbers of Federal office holders is Christian. In the 109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006) for example, 28.8% was Roman Catholic. Half that were Baptists comprising 14.1% of the members and 11.4% professed to be Methodists. Another 3.9% claimed to be “Protestant" and .9% called themselves "Christian." Unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is more than likely the religious composition of the present Congress is much like the 109th. Historically, the pattern of Christian domination holds for the Office of President including Barack Obama who claims affiliation with the United Church of Christ. This pattern of the overwhelming numbers Christians holding political office is virtually the same for Governors of these United States. The religious composition of the 2006 Supreme Court was 5 Roman Catholics, 2 Protestants and 2 Jews. What is wrong with this picture? Once in office, do politicians disconnect from their Christian heritage or is there a more insidious explanation? Granted the old saw about politicians having just two goals (1 get elected; 2 get reelected) does the problem lie with politicians or somewhere else? We must also consider the behavior of “average” Christians, those not in office. Here we find in everyday life, our behavior is indistinguishable from that of non-Christians. We frequent the same bars, houses of prostitution, gambling establishments as non-Christian patrons. We watch the same movies and TV programs as they do. Christians break as many of the same kinds of laws; and engage in the same immoral practices as the rest of the non-Christian population. The same can be said for those seeking abortions, narcotic and alcohol addictions, As a matter of fact, the major difference between Christians and non-Christians (politicos included) is that Christians attend church more-or-less frequently. This may be a pessimistic but, it is an accurate assessment of what we must jokingly call our Christian “faith.” There seems to be a “disconnection” between our “faith” and our everyday lives. To say nothing about the effect this “schizophrenic faith” has upon proselytizing or the raging theological debate on “works vs. faith.” We need to recognize that without the participation by Christians these activities we rail against would cease to exist. “Get out the vote” campaigns are little more than added distractions; little more than ways of avoiding our real Christian responsibilities. There is no evidence that the direction this Country is going in can be blamed on politicians any more than on the rest of us. How can they be the sole cause when the overwhelming numbers of politicians already in and running for office at any given time are Christian? Rather, it is an internal problem with Christianity itself. Is it our charge to change the world, to make it a better situation for the “huddled masses,” a wonderful “Edenic” place to live? Whether done through the political arena or by some other means, are we charged with the task of solving world problems? Is that our call? Is that our “global mission?” Is “taking on “Global Giants” as promoting reconciliation, equipping servant leaders, assisting the poor, caring for the sick or educating the next generation really things Christians (in or out of office) should be concerned with or are they deceitful distractions? Are we really to focus on preventing abortions, curing addictions? Solving such problems as these as well as all other social ails would be hollow victories if they were to become substitutes for the salvation story. It would be a hollow victory to reform the whole world, free it from all that ails humanity at the expense of the loss of a single soul. Is it not as Jesus said in Mark 8:36, For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? The Great Commandment tells us to love God and others. Is there any other way to fulfill that commission than by sharing the Gospel through our words and deeds? Nothing we can do will reform this world, only the King of kings and Lord of lords will.
Behold ,
he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which
pierced him:
|
|
|
An excellent article, Many believe that they are getting/giving fellowship by faithfully attending church practically every Sunday and participating in a number of its activities including paying their tithes and offerings. "This, they have been taught, is full participation in Christian fellowship. Unfortunately, fellowship is more than "showing up" for "church," shaking hands on cue and participating in this or that "activity. It is not something we do on a "part-time" basis. Nor is it something we put on and take off with our "Sunday-go to church" attire and, when church is over, we go home change out of our "church clothes" and get on with our everyday lives. The very idea of measuring our fellowship by the calendar and the clock shows just how far off the mark we are. Indeed, "church" has become more akin to a temporary "part-time job than "Christian fellowship." Christianity is not a "carrier," a "job," either part-time or full-time. Unlike "careers" or "jobs" "Christianity" cannot (should not) be segmented or isolated from the rest of our lives. It cannot be compartmentalized. It must be our lives. A number of Scriptural passages, in addition to 1 Cor. 1:9 and 1 John 1:3 gives us a good understanding of what "fellowship" in the Bible means. Found in Acts 2:42 and 2 Cor. 8:4, (koinonia) means an association, a community and, communion. The Sugkoinoneo found in Ephesians, Philippians and Revelation is translated as: "to communicate and to be partaker of." (Koinoneo), found in a number of passages translates as; "to come into communion with, to become a sharer, to be a partner, to join one's self to an associate and make one's self a sharer or partner." Finally, the Metoche used in 2 Corinthians 6:14, means to share and to have communion with others. In sum, Biblical "fellowship" means: community, communion, sharing and to become partners with other Christians. None of the uses of "fellowship" found in the Bible suggest a casual handshake and a superficial "hello," anymore than it means that 90% of fellowship is just showing up and occupying a pew every Sunday morning. Finally, and in many ways most importantly, fellowship is a group made up exclusively of Christians. We are explicitly told not to be unequally yoked with non-believers. 2 Cor. 6:14 makes the point unmistakably clear, Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? We are "one bread and one body." Or, as one commentator indicates, this means "A most effectual pledge and note of your joining together with Christ, and ingrafting to him. Our fellowship is limited to those who are saved by the blood of Christ." To consider fellowship anything less than this is missing the mark entirely. Jesus gave a stern warning to those who do and, as a consequence, causes a fellow Christian to stumble. (Luke 17:1) When, we judge others of our brothers and sisters as unworthy to be part of our circle of friendship, (cliquishness) we are "missing the mark;" we fall short of being what we should be. (Rom. 14:13) In the body of Christ, there are no believing strangers; such is a contradiction of terms. "Church" (Ekklesia) is used 115 times in the NKJ Bible. Never, not even once, is there a hint that "church" can possibly be a person sitting in their living room watching a televised "church service." Like the birds of the field, Christians are intended to flock together. Church is a gathering, not a solitary individual. That would be the equivalent of calling a spinster a mom or a bachelor a father. We are not orphans. We are brothers and sisters. We are the adopted children of God. (Acts 3:25, Rom. 8:15, Gal 4:5, Eph. 1:5) A family that doesn’t speak to one another is dysfunctional. We are called the sons of God and part of the family of God. Jesus said to His disciples, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35) In Acts 4:32 we see that, the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Does anyone suppose that these passages only applied to that day and only to the Disciples; that they don’t apply to we who are (or should be) today? He who does, does not believe in the Bible. That which we have
seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship
with us
|
|
|
Is
there Wiggle Room? To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 1 Corinthians 9:22Once (if) we decide that we take the Bible or leave it, is it still possible to interpret the Word in a "kinder, gentler" (liberal) way? Or as some would say, is it possible to " contextualize" it in order to be less offensive to our contemporary cultures? Some say yes; others say no. The verse for the "contextualizers" is cited above, 1 Cor. 9:19-22 they contend that, "What Paul is talking about here is contextualization. That is, when he preaches to the Jews, he puts the gospel in the context of that culture." That may well be the case, but does this "cultural contextualization" involve altering the Gospel message to fit in with the religious and moral values of any and every culture? How would Paul have "contextualized" his message to Sodom and Gomorrah? Would he have endorsed the Baal practice of the sacrificial burning of children? Think of how he would have adjusted the message to conform to the Babylonian custom that compelled every woman of the land to prostitute herself in the temple of Aphrodite at least once in her life. Should he have accompanied Cortés in his conquest of the Aztec civilization, he would have adjusted the Word to take in consideration that, as part of their religion, they practiced human sacrifice. Just imagine how he would have to change the Gospel before an audience of Muslims. Think of what he would say to a group of LDS in the 1840’s to 1860’s heading to the Utah territory to escape the United States. Surely, this isn’t the case. Paul wouldn’t do that – would he?Then, what does 1 Cor. 9:20-22 mean? What was Paul saying if he wasn’t telling us that the Bible is to be understood in "a more dynamic and flexible way?" If he isn’t saying the Bible "is to be seen, not as closed and self-contained, but as open and able to be enriched by an encounter with other cultures and movements" what is he saying? (in short "contextualized") Every single reputable Biblical scholar, interprets these passages as meaning; not changing the Gospel in essentials, but in matters where there was no compromise of principle; to take every measure possible to be understood short of compromising the Word. He was preaching the Gospel in such a way that others could understand it, but preaching the Gospel nonetheless. One commentator puts it this way, "While steadfastly keeping Christ's law he adapted himself to all men in the hope of gaining them." And, another says, "so far as I could consistent with truth and sincerity." To Sodom and Gomorrah, Baal worshippers, the Aztec, Muslims, and the LDS, Paul would have preached the uncompromised truth of the Gospel. This would be like removing his shoes when entering an Asian’s home or having the women accompanying him covering their heads out of respect to Muslim tradition, speaking Cantonese when in China. He adjusted himself, not the Gospel, to their language, customs and ways. Jesus adjusted to the times without changing His staunch embrace of the Word. While in Capernaum (Matt. 17:27) Jesus paid the yearly half shekel for the service of the temple that was originated by an order of the Lord to Moses so as not to offend. Paul, in Romans 14:20 (as in other passages such as 1 Cor. 8:13 and 1 Cor. 10:32) tells us, it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats (EVS) or, we might add, drinks. using simple language and child-related images, sermon illustration and an understanding of the unique needs of old people, does not obfuscates the message.Jesus said, to marry a divorced person, except in the case of adultery, is to commit adultery. ( Matt. 19:9) But with divorce rates hovering around the 50% mark, (67% of second and 74% of third marriages) shouldn’t we rethink that prohibition? Just over 50% of divorced persons will remarry; does that make them all adulterers? Can’t we wiggle just a bit on that one? Most churches do. Since the vast majority of today’s Americans are having sex before marriage, shouldn’t we loosen our moral standards here too? Can’t the argument be made for cohabitation as well? What about this hang-up on ordaining women? Shouldn’t Christianity move forward, quietly and steadily, and catch up with the "gender equalization" in the rest of society? Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists and the American Baptist Churches USA already do. After all, the Bible and the Gospel is the same thing. Surely this gives us wiggle room on issues such as these and other controversial matters that are dividing the Christian community. Wrong!The Gospel is set forth in the Scriptures. They were written for the sake of the Gospel. It is the infallible normative foundation for the Gospel. In saying it is infallible, which most major denominations do, it must be infallible. There is no room to wiggle on any issue. The reasons are simple. Once the line is crossed, the door is open. We are incapable of making moral decisions. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? It is in the Bible that we are given the full knowledge necessary for our justification. The Bible gives us "the ability to oppose corruption, godliness and lust." (2 Peter 1:4) Jesus is revealed to us in the Bible. Through it, we have all required for eternal life. It is the sum of true religion. (2 Peter 1:3) There is no "wiggle room." There is no latitude or leeway for us to decide what is important and what isn’t. We do not have the capability to know the difference between good and evil. It is our guide."tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14).
|
|
|
But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel. Joshua 7:1This was a difficult and troublesome period in the history of the Israelite peoples. Their leader, Moses, had died and his son, Joshua, was their new leader. He was ordained to lead the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan. It was when they are being judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws. That’s what we see happening in this 7th chapter. It starts out with a shocking defeat of the Israelite army by a rather insignificant town, Ai whom they should have easily defeated. What was behind this defeat was the sin of just one man, Achan. The people complained that they didn’t know and they weren’t responsible for his solitary actions. The retort is that God always had the unity of the Israelites. He didn’t consider them as individuals acting alone but, rather, a whole, and inseparable, single unit. In His eyes, the only eyes that count, they, collectively, were responsible for one another. The sin and suffering of one is the sin and suffering of all. The sin of Achan and its consequences was and is intended to teach them and us about the oneness of the people of God. (Joshua 7:11)Is it even remotely possible that this OT account is intended to teach we Christians, just like the Israelite people, are one with one another in the eyes of God? Are we to believe that God considers the roughly 38,000 denominations in the world with its 2 billion followers, worshipping in 3.7 million congregations will become one? He does; most emphatically! Then, isn’t it time we get our act together and stop all this childish bickering? Isn’t it time we stopped reading between every line and syllable of the Bible, stopped interpreting it, and started living it? This isn’t saying to stop reading and prayerfully studying every line and syllable, it is saying to stop reading between the lines and twisting their meaning to suit our agendas. It’s time to ask "what does the Bible say" instead of what we want it to say. It’s time to preach what the Bibles says instead of what we want to hear. That would require our leaning on the Holy Spirit instead of our own understanding. Repeatedly, in 1st (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1-13) and 2nd Corinthians (2 Cor. 1:12) and into Colossians (Col. 2:8), we are warned about relying upon our intelligence the source of our many schisms. Would the 38,000 denominations disappear and become one? Only if we believe that there is such a thing as the "THE GOOD NEWS - the gospel of Jesus the Christ."Should we ever settle on what the "gospel of Jesus the Christ" is, the next step is to start living it. Most Americans claim Christianity as their faith. It’s nearly impossible to discern that by looking around at what’s going on in our once great land. In addition to the diversity of beliefs falling under the umbrella of "Christianity," most of we Americans simply don’t take it as a serious guide for their lives. To paraphrase one pastor, being "fans of Jesus," going to church, sitting for a while, going home and about one’s business as if nothing had happened, just won’t cut it. In the first place, we have to get out of the bleachers and onto the playing field. We do that by following Jesus’ new commandment to His disciples; A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another (Jhn. 13:34) in spite of all their perceived unworthiness and ungratefulness. Not loving our brothers and sisters in Christ is committing as egregious a sin as Achan.And, how do we do that? How do we love our brothers and sisters in Christ? After all we greet most everyone as they enter church and shake the hands of those around us when directed to do so. Isn’t that enough? What more are we supposed to do? Such as this is just sitting in the bleachers. If we want to get onto the playing field we have to look into Scripture (the source of The Good News). When we do, we’ll find such passages as these: (Warning these Scriptures are controversial!) First, from Acts 2:44, And all that believed were together, and had all things common. Then from Acts 4:32, And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Finally from 1 John 3:17, But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? We are our brother’s keeper. Less dramatically, if we know Christians’ who are isolated, unable to get to a worship service, for whatever reasons, several of us get together with them in a "home church" setting. There is no such thing as a Christian willfully living in isolation; perhaps watching "church services" on TV. If two or three aren’t together, He is not in the midst of them. Fulfilling this Commandment starts at home, then in our home worship center and, from there spreads and spreads to the limits of the earth. (Pass it on," is today’s saying) He said it best; By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35) Conversely, if we don’t love our brothers and sisters in Christ no one will ever know we believe in Him. Instead they will judge us by the worst of our kind rather than the best.Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despise not prophesyings. 1 Thessalonians 5:20If we were to accept the cessationists position that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (particularly prophecy) have ceased. Although a superficial examination of the Scriptures used to advance their position shows such a conclusion is unfounded conjecture. Nowhere in the Bible, Old or New Testaments, does it state that certain of the Gifts of the Spirit have been discontinued for any reason whatsoever. Such conclusions are the work of men, not the Word of God. Nonetheless, let us accept the cessationist’s position taken by many/most of today’s denominations. Before we proceed, one misconception must be dealt with. When we hear the word "prophet" we invariably think of someone with a crystal ball, or otherwise, revealing the future. Indeed, that was one of its functions; but not the only one. When we get out of the simplistic "fortune teller" view of prophecy, we find that it reveals the truth in the past and the present as well as the future will of God.Is there a need in today’s church (the present) for His Truth to be revealed or have we reached the unity in the faith spoken of in Eph. 4:11-13? Has perfection come to the church? Do we have a perfect knowledge of God and of Jesus the Christ? (1 Cor. 13:10) Yes, we do have the Word (the Bible) which was written by His inspiration. Yes, it was and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. However, the most superficial examination of Christianity today suggests something is seriously wrong. There are many, hundreds of competing and conflicting doctrines. Even the major branches of Protestant Christianity (23 major denominations are readily identifiable with a countless number of subdivisions of each) can’t agree on fundamental issues. There is the schism between Protestants, Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox each declaring the other in total error. The Mormons declare they are the one and only true Christianity with most of the rest turning the tables on them. The 20th Century has given rise to Jehovah’s Witness, the prosperity gospel, the positive thinking gospel, the purpose driven church, the Latter Rain Movement, the emerging church. Christians can’t even agree on what writing make up the Bible. So, in this morass of differing opinions, which is the straight and narrow path and which leads to destruction? Will the true church please step forward!When a "pastor" speaks, is he speaking the truth? Is it Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth & Gloria Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Marilyn Hickey, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Archbishop Earl Paulk, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren or Doug Pagitt who is "preaching the Word?" They all claim to be. They all declare to believe the Bible, accept Jesus the Christ, etc.. Yet, in this morass of lies, there is the Truth. How are we to know which denomination, doctrines, what preachers are the Truth and which are lies? If all and most do cite Scripture, which is the Way and which is leading us astray? Most, if not all baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Some may insist on saying "Holy Ghost" instead of "Holy Spirit and, heaven forbid, some sprinkle instead of dunk, but at least when it’s done they are supposedly saved eternally or not, with "good works" or not and declared to be Christians. In the Old Testament, the role of Prophet was as much to correct as it was to forecast. When we read, " Thus saith the Lord," we are just as likely to read a warning of impending judgment for wrong doing or an explanation of something occurring which is the result of wrongdoing as we are about a future state of affairs. The yardstick of doing what was right or doing wrong was the Torah or Tanakh. For centuries, (As late as 64 AD, Paul was still writing about it) it was the standard of acceptable conduct against which the Israelites were judged and prophecies evaluated. The Books of the NT were written between the mid 40s and AD 96 complied between AD 360-65. While controversy surrounds the compilation of the Bible it, nonetheless, as written in 2 Timothy 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: In like respect the Bible of today, like the Tanakh of old, serves as the standard for "doctrine reproof, correction and instruction."Even with the Bible, just as during Old Testament times, reproof and correction are needed. Isn’t some of that warning needed today? Look at the condition "Christianity" is in today and still contend that there is no need for prophets to provide that reproof and correction. No OT prophet even attempted to add to or take away from the Tanakh. As agents of God, they warned the Israelites when they strayed from the "straight and narrow path." In like respect, prophets are needed today, perhaps even more so, to perform exactly the same service for Christianity. ( Strong’s 3870 & 3874) Had this Gift not been despised, had it not been quenched, the church would be in better condition. However it, along with the gifts of the Words of Wisdom and Knowledge and Discernment have been extinguished in favor of institutionalized Christianity.Quench not the Spirit. 1 Thessalonians. 5:19.
|
|
|
The Family of God Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God Ephesians 2:19Part of the lyrics of an old hymn was, "I’m so glad to be a part of the family of God." Years ago, church members regarded one another as "brothers" and "sisters." We don’t sing that hymn much anymore nor do we regard other church members "brothers" and "sisters," if we speak to them at all or they us. Who knows maybe these things have become the victims of the dispensational-Cessationism disease and became despised, along with prophecy and other of the Holy Spirit’s "miraculous gifts," extinct. Maybe it’s something much less exotic like "megachurchitis." It certainly would be awkward to call someone "brother" or "sister" as we shoulder our way through the hoard to get out of church. So maybe we should ask in the past tense, "Who was the "family of God" the hymn spoke about? Who were those we used to regard as our "brothers" and "sisters" in church?Turning to the Bible we’ll find some guidance on these matters. If we turn to Eph. 2:19, we learn this; "family of God" is the "household of God." Those who are saved are a family of believers with God as our Father. That’s it then. The family of God is made up of the followers of Jesus the Christ. 1 Tim. 3:15 equates the "house of God" with the "church;" an assembly of persons, not things. But, not just persons, through the spirit of adoption, we are brothers and sisters in the deepest and most meaningful way. So now, from Scripture, we know that the "family of God" is supposed to be our "brothers" and "sisters" in the faith. What happened? Why aren’t we the adopted children in the family of God any longer? In the abstract; sermons may declare such, but that’s the only time such an idea is heard about or seen. The closest the church comes to being a family is as a dysfunctional one. The normative interaction between members is superficial lip service.Previously, the "staff" and "pastor" were church members. Their expertise came from exercising the Gifts of the Spirit. This arrangement has become as antiquated as the idea of the "family of God;" "brothers" and "sisters." In simple terms, the "church" of today is no longer the church of yesterday; no longer the Biblical church. It has become institutionalized; a business-type organization. The office of "pastor" has become professionalized. In like respect, the staff in now paid and credentialed by school and college degrees. Most often, pastors and staff are full-time, paid positions requiring a formal educated. In the process, the church has become depersonalized. Has God changed or have we, the church, changed? A rhetorical question. If we could go back to the Biblical church when we were brothers and sisters in the family of God, how would we have treated one another? Tertullian portrays how outsiders saw Christians, treating one another; "See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner be put to death." ( Apology, Ch.) In I Pet. 4:8-9, Paul tells us to have fervent charity among yourselves and to be hospitality one to another without grudging Paul in his letter to the Philippians writes, Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. To the Romans he said we are to have loving affection for one another, help provide the necessity to church members. Jesus said, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.Where does our biological family and those of other church members fit into the picture? We might be (are) inclined to think that our concern, our charity begins and stops at the church doors. That is until we read 1 Tim. 5:8 which unequivocally states, But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Nothing here suggests they must be members of our "church family." Gal. 6:10 takes us a step further saying, all men who are in need. That certainly would include members of our "biological family" whether they were of the household of faith or not. Rom. 12:20 carries our responsibility even to our enemies. Luke 16:9 tells us to use our worldly resources to help others without regard to whether or not they belong to our church. What about the "biological families" of other church members, must they be included in our charitable concerns? The answer lies in Luke 10:29-37. Whom should we emulate; the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan? How then should we treat the children and extended families of church members? Are they not our cousins, nieces and nephews saved or not? Which is the better way to help them find the Truth; to give them a Gospel tract, preach homilies, invite them to a church give-away program, a crusade or show them the WAY by the way we treat them; the concern and assistance we offer in their time of need? Someone once said, "Preach the Gospel continuously and occasionally use words." Is it not a blessing to be able to give? The Bible says it is. Then why would we be stingy toward our brothers and sister in Christ?For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
|
|
|
Pure religion and
undefiled before God and the Father is this, Earlier, ( v. 22) James tells us we are to be doers as well as hearers of the Word. If we aren’t, we are deceiving ourselves and only giving lip service to our faith. According to this passage there are two central ways in which our religiousness is, "pure" (Strong’s 2513) and "undefiled." "Pure" religion has nothing added or taken away from it. It has not been corrupted, debased, or made impure by any additions or deletions. The Greek for "undefiled" is Amiantos which is translated as unsoiled by which anything that is deformed, debased or lacking truth. Evidently, the "pure religion" James had in mind was uncorrupted by things added or taken away from it causing it to lack the Truth.James continues by telling us what characterizes "pure and undefiled religion:" First is our visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction and That was quite enough to put orphans/ fatherless into the category of being in "affliction." "Affliction" ( Thlipsis) is translated as: oppression, tribulation, distress, etc.. Today we would describe such persons as "unemployable;" that they are without any visible means of support. Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary explains that orphans and widows were "the epitome of the poor and deprived of society, the personae miserabiles." "Visit" as used here (Strong’s 1980) is translated as; "to look after, help, benefit and provide for." Who these poor might be is unqualified. They are anywhere we find them: in our own family, our church, neighborhood, etc., etc. The amount of help we provide is sufficient to get them back on their feet. Perhaps James had Jesus’ words recorded in Matt. 25:35-36, For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. The "visited" here is the same word as "visit" in the passage from James.Remember the imagery of "orphans" (fatherless) and "widows" are as much metaphorical as they are literal. It can also mean "comfortless;" ( Strong’s 3737) the same word we find in Jesus’ promise to His followers when He said, I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you (John 14:18) which we can understand as meaning we aren’t "spiritual orphans." In a similar way "widows" is used both literally and metaphorically. (Acts 6:1-6)What in the name of "pure religion" should we do on our visits to the "fatherless and widows." This brings us to the sticky part as it applies to both our biological and church families. James says to "visit" them. What did he mean by that? At the top of the visitation list must be prayer. That, however, is only the beginning; not the end as is so often the case. After praying, most of us sit on our hands and wait for God to do something when He already has done something. We are that "something." He has sent to help those who are economically poor as well as the poor in spirit. More often than not, we are whom He sent to respond to the prayers we offer up, just as surely as He guides the hands of doctors in the care for physical ailments. Not in so many words, but this is essentially what Jesus told His disciples to do (His "spiritual spiritual family") as recorded in John 13:34-35A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. The "evangelism" would be from others seeing the love we have for one another. That love would be expressed in such areas as: (1) hospital visits; (2) providing food supplies to those in our congregation unable to afford such necessities; (3) supplying meals for congregants in need of short term assistance with food due to illness; (4) provide practical services in lieu of money such as for individuals and families in need that are members of our congregation. That would include, among other things, home repair, light house cleaning and yard work; (5) short term financial assistance with rent, utilities, etc. This would be how "pure religion" would be expressed in Christian churches. That is how we would fulfill the "Great Commission to "teach all nations;" one family at a time. There is no effective evangelism apart from John 13:34-35. Imagine how many orphans and widows (the poor and deprived) live in a city of moderate size to say nothing of how many are in the Nation. Just envision how long it would take to pay pastoral visits to such an enormous number. Before going global to address "spiritual emptiness" and "the global giant of poverty" what if we started addressing those "under your own roof:" our own family and members of our own church who are facing spiritual emptiness and poverty? Church membership is losing ground all over this nation. Our very own children are abandoning the faith. For what shall it profit a man, if he should win over the whole world to the kingdom of God, and lose his own family? "Pointless" says the teacher. "Utterly pointless! It would be completely meaningless."Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 1 Timothy 4:6
|
|
|
Never Heard About That! Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. We are told that Christian tithing has Scriptural foundations. To get started, what is meant by "Christian tithing?" Well, everyone knows that it means giving 10% of our income to the Lord. (1) Really, is everyone set on the 10% figure? (2) If so, does it mean 10% of one’s "gross income" or "net income?" (3) To whom is the tithe paid? (4) Once given, how is it to be used? (5) Is it possible that tithing, as with the position some have on the Gifts of the Spirit, has ceased? By the way, it is tithes, not tithe. The singular refers to a specific tithe.In answer to the first question; most churches (e.g. MTBC, GBC) set the figure at 10%. Which is partly right, but it just isn’t the full story. At the minimum, there was a 10% tithe on crops, another on livestock and every third year, another 10% for the care of orphans and widows. This would add up to a yearly tithe ranging from 23.3% to 33.3%, not 10%. About the next question; (#2) regarding tithing on gross or net income, the jury is split. Some sources (e.g CRTA) put it on the net income. Others (gracethrufaith) present a persuasive argument for it being on one’s gross income. (3) In the OT, tithes, with an "s,: were "paid" to: (a) the "Levitical tithe was "paid" to the 48 Levitical cities. Since land was not provided to the tribe of Levi in lieu because of their priestly duties. In lieu of an inheritance of land, they were given what is known as the Levitical tithe. (b) The "priestly tithe" went into the Temple to care for the priest "on duty" in the Temple. (c) The "poor tithes" were kept in the towns and villages throughout Israel to feed and clothe the poor. (d) the "rejoicing tithes" were kept in Jerusalem, separate from the Temple, to cover the expenses of the three yearly mandatory trips to the Temple.(4) There is a problem with how the tithes were used in Biblical times and how they are used today. In summary, (see 3) the tithes were used in the OT to provide for the Levitical tribe, to care for the priest on duty in the Temple and to supply the needs of the poor. Since there is no Levitical priesthood, no Temple requiring priestly duties and no mandatory trips to Jerusalem there is only one Biblical place for tithes to be expended – to care for the poor. None of the Biblical purposes amounted to anything even remotely connected to raising money to meet the budgets of the "church." If the OT tithe is to be collected, shouldn’t it be for the same purposes as back then? How is it that only a part of the "Mosaic law on tithing" is applicable today? Has there been new revelation(s) changing all of this? If so, where is it written? Who received it? Ever thought of that? The last question (#5) poses the greatest problem. The short answer, the one preferred by theologians and preachers alike is "no;" no it hasn’t ceased. Almost universally they vociferously support NT or "Christian" tithing. However, the Bible does not support their enthusiasm. In the NT five Greek words relate to tithing. (see table) Together, they appear a total of ten times. Two (see table) of these may be disregarded because they refer to singing hymns and reading psalms. The remaining three; (see table) appear ten (10) times in the entire NT. Check it out, not one, not even one of these ten (10) times says anything about New Covenant (Christians) tithing. The remaining four (1181) concern Abraham’s tithes to Melchisedec. Not one of these, not even one, is there the slightest suggestion that Christians ought to tithe. In spite of the overwhelming Biblical evidence it is still preached in most of today’s churches. Other verses frequently used to support the doctrine of NT tithing say nothing at all about tithing. Rather, they have to do with alms: (see table) mercy, pity, begging, to be a servant, an attendant, a domestic servant The "give" (1325) in frequently cited passage Luke 6:38 in support of Christian Tithing has nothing to do with tithing. Although one could certainly "give" his tithe, in most instances this "giving" is "open-ended;" without any stipulations as to amount or two whom the "gift is to be given as is the case with tithing. Note what Luke 6:38 says; For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. That’s not tithing. Ever hear that before? Why not?Today those teaching that tithing is required by God are saying its purpose is to support all of the Lord’s work. This would involve the church budgets for the "pastoral" and office staff, purchase and upkeep of the church and church grounds, the various activities sponsored by the church such as Sunday schools, evangelistic activities, missional work and, if anything of the 10% (sic) is left over once these expenses have been met, is left over, some miniscule aid to the poor might, just might be forthcoming. One writer has this to say, "God is at war and He needs to support His volunteer army during this war." He further comments, "If the people do not adequately support the ministers then the pastors are forced to take on other jobs and their loyalties will be divided. This is not God's plan." Never heard that before. He’s right, it is not God’s plan.Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,
that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith,
|
|
|
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:16 We don’t need government intervention or supervision to reduce or eliminate alcoholism, drug addiction, spousal abuse, promiscuity, pornography, smoking, abortion or even gay "rights." We don’t need Big Brother to censure what we watch on television or see at the movies. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to turn there for either solace or cure. Not once are we told to turn to government to settle such moral and ethical issues. What we need, instead, is the conviction of our faith to personally stand against the immorality sweeping our Nation. If we acted in accord with our faith, none of this would be happening. Although the numbers vary from one study to the next, all show The majority of Americans declare themselves to be Christian. By far, the largest "religion" in the United States is Christianity. Most of those in the U.S. Congress claim Christianity as their "religious" affiliation. Now, just imagine if 50 to 75% of the American public professing to be Christian refused to buy products, watch TV and movies, behave immorally, or vote for immoral laws, what impact that would have on the market place and government. The results would be revolutionary. Why then, is the United States in the condition it is in – moral decay? Blaming government for the decline in morality is scapegoating. It is a convenient way of blaming someone else for our own actions or lack thereof. Scapegoating may have Biblical origins, but there is nothing Biblical about how it is done today. It is a complete evasion of personal, individual, responsibility. We have a "republican" form of government. We have a "market-driven" economic system. These mean: (1) we elect those who, in representing us, make and enforce the laws. If we don’t like the way they are doing, we have the right to vote them out of office. (2) In a "market-driven" economy, the consumer determines what is sold and at what price. If we don’t "buy it," it isn’t for sale. What we value is what we pay for; we vote in the market-place with our wallets. Just imagine how much alcohol would be for sale if Christians didn’t buy it; how much smut there would be on TV and at the movies if no Christian watched such programs or attend such movies. What if Christian women stopped buying provocative clothing, how much would be for sale at Abercrombie and Fitch or Victoria’s Secret? The answer is NONE! What if Christians, individually, voted against every single politician who endorsed legislation prohibiting prayer in school and other public gatherings, the display of Christian symbols in public places, gay rights legislation? How many politicians would espouse such an agenda? The answer is NONE! Just one note here: we’re not talking about rallies and boycotts, we’re talking about individual responsibility for what we do, say, buy and watch as well as for whom we vote. We seem to be amazed by the fact that in this country Christians do not suffer the persecutions they do in much of the rest of the world. We place responsibility for this lack of persecution on the historical Christian roots of this Country. Probably, closer to the truth is that, by and large, the actions of Christians, whom they vote for, what they buy, how they act, and what they watch is indistinguishable from the non-Christian segment of the Country. In some instances, we actually lead the pack – we set the trend. Remember 50-75% of the U.S. We may be certain that with conviction comes persecution. Paul wrote that way to Timothy saying, Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12) Why would that surprise us? Wasn’t our Lord and Savior persecuted even unto death? Why should things be any different for us. In many ways the badge of a Christian is the persecution he will suffer for living out, day by day, his convictions. Is the servant greater than his Master? No; it is written, The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. (Matt. 10:24) In these last days, Christianity has become too comfortable, too acceptable. In order to keep and gain members, "pastors" have resorted to tickling the ears of those attending church services; telling them what they want to hear and, not only come back themselves, bring family members and friends with them. The "church growth movement" is the purpose that is driving the modern "church." Its single-minded focus is on increasing the size of the facilities and the number of people in the audience. It is fulfilling the American standard that bigger is better – virtually the watch call of every "pastor" in the Country. The price paid for this tenaciousness is the avoidance of controversy. Anything, anything at all, that could be controversial; anything that might alienate anyone, anywhere, anytime is avoided at all cost as if were the plague. It’s called "marketing the church" and "seeker friendly church;" the ultimate expression of which is the "emerging church" which, that the traditional view of hell, "is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message." (Love Wins) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2 Peter 3:3
|
|
|
Multiple Personality is now called Dissociative Identity Disorder. In
everyday language, we could call this "twofaced."Most Christian
denominations seem to be suffering from DID. On the one hand they claim to
believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity through which we
learn about Jesus. A sampling of several major U.S. denominations verifies
this statement: The While professing that the Bible is the "infallible Word of God," these denominations and many more simply ignore major principles clearly stated therein. For example, 1 Cor. 14:34 tells us: (1) women are to keep silence in church and (2) they are to be under obedience according to the Law. (see Gen. 3:16) In 1 Tim. 2:12 women are forbidden to (1) have authority over men and (2) teach or (3) not to have authority over men. These two verses would make it impossible for women to be "pastors" or "teachers" or serving in any other capacity in which they would be in a position of authority over men. 1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks against homosexual conduct as does 1 Tim. 1:10, Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. Two Greek words, Arsenokoites and Malakos refer specifically to such conduct. Although the Greek Porneia is usually translated as "fornication," it means "homosexuality" as well thus adding many more prohibitive Scriptures. To illustrate significant denominations going against these two prohibitions, one of the largest denominations, AG, on the ordination of women seem to be looking for wiggle room. The PC(U.S.A.) practices the ordination of women. The SBC also seems to be looking for wiggle room with respect to the ordination of women. The UCC supports the ordination of women and "honors variations among men in their political loyalties, lifestyles, and sexual preferences."The Wesleyan Church endorses the ordination of women. The UMC ordains women and more of its clergy are blessing same-sex unions. The ABA believes "that the Gospel of Jesus Christ liberates all persons, female and male, to serve in any ministry to which they have been called by God and for which they have God-given talents." ELCA ordains women and affirms "that gay and lesbian people are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." The RCA ordains women. How can this be happening in some of the major denomination in the United State s while proclaiming the Bible is the infallible word of God? Yet each in its turn declares the Bible to be fallible? How can this be? These are classic illustrations of "Biblical dissociative identity disorder" or what some might call Biblical schizophrenia. However we choose to refer to it, it is pure insanity. The ordination of women and gay rights are only the "hot potato" tip of the iceberg. There is a general disregard for John 13:34-35 and 1 John 3:16-18. We do not treat fellow Christians like our brothers and sisters or that we are adopted into the family of God. Most denominations deny the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit. They give major consideration to "tithing" while ignoring its Biblical structures and purposes. Several of the denominations mentioned above downplay the primacy of Christianity and the fact that Jesus is the way. They do not adhere to the two offices in the church; that of deacon and elder. Increasingly, denominations are doing everything but turning summersaults in order to con the "unchurched" into baptism. This involves the "itching ears syndrome;" telling them what they want to hear. Increasingly, churches are striving to be "politically correct" in what their preaching and teaching. The following denominations use or endorse Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life/Church writings. (AG, PCUSA, SBC, UCC, WC, UMC, ELCA, RCA) Is all of this "two faced" or not? For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,
|
|
|
Why Bother With Church? And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10:24-25 What to be gained by taking the trouble to go to church when we can stay at home and watch a large and varied selection of TV preachers. Think of the time, effort and money that we would save every Sunday. As a matter of fact, in keeping with the electronic revolution, more and more churches provide the current sermon as well as a collection of older sermons free or for a minimal fee that is usually less than what we’d drop in the collection plate. Contrast having church in your own home with going to an arena sized church and the mob of "worshippers." The only way to get a look at the "pastor" is by watching him/her on a monstrous TV monitor. Making going to church even more unattractive is the increasing number of "satellite churches." At some remote location, they actually have jumbo-TV screens hooked up for simultaneous broadcast from the "mother church." In these "churches," the size of the TV is the only difference between staying at home and going to "church." Either place, we’re watching a preacher on television. Of course, at "church" you can’t select who is preaching and have to put up with the crowds and finding a parking spot, etc.. Why would anyone bother? Why, on Sunday, do we get up at a time dictated by the "church’s" service time(s), fancy up in our Sunday best, load up the car with kids, fight the traffic, scramble for a parking space to sit in a building, large or small, surrounded by people we neither know nor care to know. Then, when the singing choir is finished, the collection taken, the preaching is over and the announcements are completed, to turn around and repeat the process in reverse order? Does this make any sense? Why do we bother? Is it customary, expected, habitual, doing what we think we should be doing as Christians, (showing the flag as it were) to be part of the "right" crowd? Why? We can get the preaching without ever leaving home. What else is there? Oh, wait a minute, there is one huge difference. If we stay home, we miss out on a "greeter" warmly welcoming us, shaking our hand (sometimes wearing gloves) and handing us an agenda of the mornings activities as they usher us into the "sanctuary." There just might be, on the busy schedule, time designated for attendees to greet those around them. That’s about all the sociability we’ll experience. Is that worth the effort? Is it worth sitting in an uncomfortable pew, giving up the comforts and conveniences of home TV for all this? Only the MSG version of the NT uses the word "pastor" in Eph. 4:11, 2 Jhn 1:1 and 3 Jhn 1:1. In the KJV, it is found just one time. (Eph. 4:11) Among other "duties" that of "pastor" (Poimen) involves loving the gathered saints, sharing their lives and earning their trust. The equivalent word used in most translations is Presbuteros which, among other meanings is the presiding officer over the assembled church. In the church environment most of us experience, the so-called "pastor" is the presiding officer rather than a "shepherd." The "pastor" Paul said was one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is of the "shepherd" variety rather than that of the presiding officer. (Presbuteros) In 2 Tim. 1:11, Paul refers to himself as a preacher, a teacher and even possibly an an apostle. These, along with the role of "presiding officer," aptly describe the "pastors" we find today. This is all good because the person we see on TV whether in an adjunct room on the "church" campus or at a satellite church is a preacher, a teacher, possibly an apostle; but he certainly isn’t a shepherd. Now if that’s what you come to church for, you won’t be disappointed. But why would you bother? Why not just get something to drink, some snacks and settle into your easy chair and flip in the TV with channel changer nearby. Then there’s the womder of the internet church now available like Rick Warren whose services are available seven days a week. Wow! Talk about convenient! As for the cautionary note found in Hebrews 10:25, how much interaction is there between church members; to say nothing of the exhortation Paul writes about? Should we realistically expect this in a "congregation" the size of Osteen’s, Hybels’ or Laurie’s? Their average attendance is well in excess of 22,000! The only "exhortation" we could expect is someone telling us to get the blanket-blank out of their way.All this is interesting in the light of the fact that Jesus always referred to Himself as a " shepherd" rather than as an administrator, teacher or preacher. He had a "congregation of perhaps as many as 500 along with the 12/11 disciples/apostles. That’s a far cry from the growing monstrosity of the "mega-church." It certainly flies in the face of the "church growth" movement, the fantasy of small "church" "pastors." They are enchanted with the "star syndrome" and dream of a "congregation" of Warren’s, Osteen’s Hybels’ and Laurie’s to make that dream a reality. Yet it is axiomatic that one cannot "shepherd a flock" of 22+ thousand or, for that matter, many more than 4 or 5 hundred. They dupe their small congregants into believing it is their Christian Commission to grow. As for me and my house, we’ll just stay home rather than endure the hustle and bustle of a big church.I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. John 10:11I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine John 10:14
|
|
|
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Ephesians. 4:11 Imagine the chaos if a corporation didn’t have clear objectives; or even worse conflicting objectives. It wouldn’t be able to organize or know who was qualified to fill its offices. If one of the corporate offices was vacant or those filling them are unqualified for their jobs its work wouldn’t get done; the corporation would collapse. Unlike businesses, church has several purposes. It is, or should be driven by purposes, not a single purpose. Paramount among these are: a) "soul-building" (Acts 20:28-32), b) teaching (Matt.28:19-20; Acts 2:42), c) feeding the flock (John 21:15-17; 1 Peter 5:2), d) helping the saved become more Christ-like (Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:13-15), e) teaching the Bible in its entirety ( Matt. 28:20; 2 Tim. 3:16) f) preaching on how to live (2 Tim. 3:17). Of these, the primary purpose is to build up believers and equip them for the work of the ministry and edifying the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). Unfortunately, apostleship and evangelism are virtually the sole focus of today’s churches, particularly in the "seeker" and church growth movement," more than discipleship.Just like becoming a Christian, becoming a pastor, teacher, apostle, evangelist or any of the other offices of the church ( Rom. 12:1-7) is a life-long undertaking. Spiritual Gifts do not replace, they enhance study and training. The spiritual life of a Christian doesn’t begin and end with accepting the Gospel. In the same respect, we aren’t born pastors or teachers; we become these through guidance and diligence. Guidance is provided by the Holy Spirit and our brothers and sisters who are more mature in the faith and their own diligent effort. This is the very core of discipling. If the church becomes fanatical over evangelism, it is simply going to produce more milk Christians in a downward spiral of mediocrity. (Rev. 3:16)Paul put it this way, For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: ( Rom. 12:4) In 1 Cor. 12:29 he asks a rhetorical question, "Are all apostles," etc. indicating by the question that we are not.. There are distinctions, significant distinctions, between the various Gifts spoken of in Eph. 4:11. For example, an apostle is a messenger; a prophet discerns what is best for the Christian cause, a pastor is the presiding officer; the shepherd of the church and teacher is one who, accepts the vocation of instructing and coaching with the help of the Holy Spirit. An evangelist, on the other hand brings the good tidings of the Gospel to the lost. All are quite different. All are quite necessary. Everything in the Bible about the "church" tells us that each of us has special gifts, talents and abilities somewhat unique to us. These gifts are designed to be used to further the purpose of the church which is multifaceted.Today’s church has become one of most members doing the work of one or two offices – apostle or evangelist as if these two were all that had to be done. How exciting it is to be an apostle or an evangelist: one a world traveler, the other a stay at home. What if the apostles and evangelist do their jobs and bring loads of people to the Lord who are then baptized into the church? At that point, is the job finished? We act as if it were. We move right on to the next bunch of unbelievers as though our work was completed with the first bunch. What’s even more problematical is that these recent converts think and are led to believe that they’ve done all they need to do; their work is done. On the next evangelical outing, it is entirely possible that these recent converts are now taking part in "spreading the word."In church after church, contrary to the teachings of Romans 12:7, we find members believing and acting as if they were instant jacks of all trades. That makes them masters of none. They have no sense or expectation of needing to learn more of the faith they have just accepted. Certainly, they aren’t encouraged in that direction. If they have any awareness at all of Spiritual Gifts, they are likely confusing them with fruit of the Spirit. And, sadly, they are not likely to learn otherwise. Oh there may be classes, certainly there is Sunday morning preaching, all to no avail since they have the goal of making Christianity more appealing to the world.What’s the consequence of all of this concentration on saving the world? Simply put, the rest of the Spiritual Gifts ordained as necessary for the operation of the church are ignored. This means such gifts as ministering, teaching, (unless the pastor is to be burden with teaching every class offered) helps, government, discernment, faith, exhortation and giving, are missing. Of course gifts such as speaking/interpreting diverse tongues and prophecy are missing. What contribution to the church speaking and interpreting diverse tongues could have made is unknown; they are gone. Prophecy, by "cessationists theology" has been read out of Scriptures. However a cursory look at the condition of today’s "church" provides ample evidence done by its dismissal.Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was
given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
|
|
|
Let
nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let
each esteem other better than themselves.
Philippians 2:3
The movie, Field of Dreams, was about an Iowa farmer who
thought he heard voices, telling him that if he built a baseball diamond in
one of his field’s people would come. And, in the movie, eventually they
did. Many churches have the same dream. This could well be called, "The
Field of Dreams Church Growth Strategy." Being a simple "farmer" in the
service of the Lord isn’t enough for them. To get there, as in the movie,
they are more than willing to plow under their fruitful crop for fame and
fortune. Many churches, many "pastors", have build their "field of dreams.
The shining star of them all, the yardstick against which others measure
their success is Joel Osteen. Many have and are succumbing to the elusive
dream of stardom. Here, it is not a baseball field they covet but a
mega-church; stadium sized with tens of thousands of dolthead fans swooning
over their every word; worshipping the very ground upon which they walk.
Such a vision is hard to refuse to give in to if not impossible. Just ask
Robert H. Schuller. There is nothing like the "sweet
smell of success." The fans in the "church of dreams" are just as much
mesmerized by that sweet smell as is their "pastor." What could be better
than going to a baseball stadium sized church and, along with 45-50,000
others, singing and shouting to their heart’s content while ogling their
star-studded pastor on one of a number of huge TV monitors? What could be
better than being instantly recognized by practically everyone you meet, the
common people, politicians, stars of screen and television and the 1%? This is all done in the name of
evangelism. But, from the "pastor’s" point of view, what’s the dream? Is it
evangelism or unmitigated self-centered ambition? After all, what
self-respecting pastor wants to go unnoticed and be stuck in a little
one-horsed church nobody ever heard of and where nothing of interest or
importance ever happens? Just imagine how embarrassing and depressing it
must be after scraping together enough money to get there and have no one
recognize or even speak. And then, adding insult to injury, to have the show
stolen by the likes of A "growth" mindset has no Biblical foundations any more than the various popular marketing schemes. The term evangelism ( that blanket phrase behind the "church growth" rhetoric) doesn’t appear in the Bible. But a closely related word (see Strong’s # 2099) does. It means "a bringer of good tidings – the heralds of salvation through Christ who are not apostles." In each of the Gospels as well as in the Book of Acts ( Matt 28:16-20 ; Mark 16:15-18 ; Luke 24:46-49 ; John 20:21-23 ; Acts 1:8 ) Jesus tells His disciples: (1) to Teach all things whatsoever I have commanded you, (2) to preach the gospel, (3) that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, (4) that as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, (5) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Nowhere in any of the accounts of the "Great Commission" is there even the slightest suggestion that it is to be accomplished by "growing" or "marketing" the church. Nowhere is it written that "Everyone has mission to 'grow the church," as some theologians suggest. Increasing attendance and building larger structures is not fulfilling the Great Commission. We aren’t called to multiply members or to build buildings. Nor are we told to use "street teams, door hangers and cubic toys, T-shirts, Twitter/Facebook accounts, giveaways or free babysitting services. We are called to make disciples by teaching, preaching, and witnessing; not by "growing." The consequence of decades of this "growth/marketing" mentality has resulted in Christianity losing ground, (see also The Christian Post article) not gaining it. The way we go about "evangelism" today is almost as if the Great Commission said, "don’t teach, don’t preach, I won’t send you, don’t witness. It is not teaching children and adults the Bible as so many stories either. You see, the idea isn’t to "grow the church" at all. Instead it is to convince people: (a) of their need to repent and (b) that Jesus is the only way to eternal salvation. Perhaps Spurgeon said it best, "That very church which the world likes best is sure to be that which God abhors." Both Satan and the "church growth movement" comfort sinners in their sin. Doesn’t this raise the question, "If we build it and they come, to what for what?" Building a baseball field is one thing; building a baseball sized "church" is quite another. Paul cautions us to flee such mercenary views in religion. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and
follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
|
|
|
There is a question if this promise of a Comforter is for all Christians or just the eleven remaining disciples. The occasion was a "private meeting" between them and Jesus just prior to His crucifixion. Because of this, some theologians would like to limit the gift of the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, to the eleven disciples. (Soon to be Apostles) If this were the case, think how much of the Gospels would not apply any longer since all of the original disciples are gone. The Great Commission," for example, would not apply to us ordinary Christians since it was also "given" with only the disciples present. (See Matthew 28:16-20) Such "exclusivity" suggestions seem motivated more to fit one’s philosophical position rather than a Biblical truth.Rest assured, Jesus was and is and will be teacher to all of us who love Him and keep His word. ( v. 23) He was from the beginning. He is now and has been since the beginning. He will be through all eternity. The only interruption was for that very short period of time He dwelt with us in the flesh. Why this interlude? Because of the sinfulness of all humanity, a blood sacrifice was required to wash away those sins. That was possible only through His becoming flesh, becoming one of us in the flesh, suffering and dying on the cross. Then the sins of those who accept His sacrifice are forgiven.Today, as before His incarnation, He teaches us through an intermediary. That intermediary is the Holy Spirit as He promised in John 14:26 It is His mission, the Holy Spirit’s, to teach, interpret, and explain that which Jesus taught; making them more plain and understandable. In the "Great Commission," we are told not only to teach and baptize the nations, but to do so in the name of the Trinity; one of whom is the Holy Spirit. There is a reason for our being baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit along with the other two facets of the Godhead. While present in the flesh, Jesus was our teacher. While absent from the flesh, the Holy Spirit is our teacher. It has been ordained that He, the Holy Spirit, will teach us through the Gifts. In Hebrews, we have that "dispensation" of His teaching methods spelled out. First, the word was spoken by angels. Then there was the interlude of Jesus teachings while He was here on earth to pay for our sins. Then what was spoken and written of His teachings during His earthly stay was confirmed by those who heard him. (The Apostles) Finally, it is through the diverse miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor. 12:6-12; and Eph. 4:11-12) The fact that this is the purpose of the Gifts is testified to by Paul in Romans which says, all members have not the same office. In the citation from 1 Cor. Paul writes, But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal In like respect, in the citation from Ephesians he states the purposes of the Gifts of the Spirit are for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. It is interesting to note in the citation from Romans Paul refers to the Gifts of the Spirit as office(s), a word over which there is much ado about these days, i.e. the "office of deacon," the office of elder" etc. Perhaps there is a greater number of "offices" in the church other than just these two. One might even be inclined to suggest that there are as many "offices" as there are Spiritual Gifts.Isn’t it tragic for the church that most "Christians" don’t know their Spiritual Gifts let alone use them to edify, "profit" 1 Cor. 12:7 the congregation? This ignorance clearly indicates the importance we place on them. Through such ignorance, let’s suppose, just speculate, that of our own volition we choose to ignore the Holy Spirit; our Teacher for this "dispensation." What if we would declare some or all of the Gifts by which the He teaches us null and void? By refusing so many of the "offices" He deemed necessary for the church to operate correctly, would that not leave some of the vital work of the church poorly done or undone? Would that not grieve the Holy Spirit? In so doing, have we not, just like the Israelites, rejected God and put our faith in human knowledge and institutions? That would explain the "dark cloud" over the church. It certainly would explain why the church has strayed so far from its appointed duties and wandered into the wasteland it is in today. It is not doing its ordained job; it has taken on a life of its own. So many, many churches today are more like the church at Thyatira (Rev, 2:18-29) than at Philadelphia. (Rev. 3:7-13) Think not? Think this is too harsh, too critical? Take a look around at what is going on, and what is not going on in our "churches" today. Here are the websites of the ten largest "churches" in the U.S. See for yourself: here’s the largest, #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. You will likely find there Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea; churches that are rudderless with a clouded vision. How things would have been different if we still had the Holy Spirit as our Comforter.Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin
and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:
|
|
