|
The word "evangelism" doesn’t appear in any of 24 translations of the Bible, but we know the Lord wants us to "evangelize" from such passages as the quotation from Luke. The phrase "preach the gospel" in these same 24 translations, is used 14 (unique) times and "preaching the Gospel" is found 9 (unique) times. It seems like setting about preaching the Gospel might just be the prudent thing to do. But how to evangelize has generated as much controversy as it has approaches from the "soap box" to handing out tracts at airports. Perhaps the most profound utterance on the subject is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel always and, when necessary, use words." Few take seriously St. Francis’ suggestion – too much effort. Jesus told Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Yet, over 2,000 years later, only 33% of the worlds population is "Christian." Why this is the case is unclear. For centuries, the "church" has sent missionaries into every corner of the world. With the world shrunk by modern transportation, radio, television and now the Internet, only the most remote places have not been reached by this determined missionary effort. Yet, in the very countries reached by Paul and the other Apostles, we are an overwhelming minority. Turkey is Muslim, as is Syria. Greece and Italy are Christian, but the Middle East is Muslim. Israel is only 6% Christian. Less that 5% of Jerusalem is. Before Jerusalem, was converted to Christianity (actually, it never was) the Apostles were off to those "far away places." Peter, for example, visited Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Acts 9:31-32). Mark went up to Antioch and later he and Barnabas went over to the island of Cyprus (Acts 15:39). This type of evangelism by strangers from other countries and cultures temporarily visiting towns and cities is what we must call "leapfrog evangelism." It is the main model that has been used by Christians since. But, according to Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary, "Jesus' disciples are to replicate themselves in the lives of those who respond to the Good News." John Gill’s Exposition reinforces the continuing nature of the Commission, "and besides, this commission not only included the Apostles, but reaches to all the ministers of the Gospel in succeeding ages, to the end of the world." When Jesus commissioned the Twelve, (Mark 6:7) there is no indication He sent them to "foreign" countries. When He sent the seventy out, He sent them into every city and place, whither he himself would come (Luke 10:1c). Instead of "leap-frog evangelism," this was "domino evangelism" – "one to one for one;" parent to child; friend to friend; neighbor to neighbor. Leapfrog evangelism was the Apostles style. There is even some suggestion of "crusade evangelism." Imagine an American evangelist from Sue City Iowa parachuting into the Brazilian tropical rain forest to set up a mission. There he’ll stay for a time and return home leaving the natives he converted on their own to continue with what little they grasped of what he taught and preached. Understand he had no training in their language or customs. He was a "stranger in a strange land." That’s leapfrog evangelism at its best/worst. Might it be better to find Christians living in the United States from such regions and, after teaching them the Gospel message help them to return to their countries as missionaries? But, the Bible also supports one to one – person to person evangelism. If it refused that possibility, how could we to fulfill the Second Commandment Christ gave to us? Letting our neighbors languish in disbelief and thus eternal damnation hardly seems to be a loving gesture. What if we concerned ourselves less about those "far away places with the strange sounding names" and concentrated on our own homes, communities and neighborhoods? After all, the Apostles were to start their "missionary" work in their community - Jerusalem. From there to surrounding towns and neighborhoods. Note in Acts 1:8, the Great commission, Jesus said we are to witness of Him. Could we be so bold as to paraphrase our Lord by saying, "No one shows greater love than when reflecting the Gospel to their family, friends, neighbors and community?" Doesn’t it seem Jesus is telling us to put our missionary/evangelical efforts into our own families, neighborhoods and communities? If this were done, wouldn’t the "ripple effect" reach around the world and back again? And, while missionaries are always transients, our family, friends and neighbors are much more significant and permanent part of our lives. We speak one another’s language, know one another’s culture and customs, missionaries are always foreigners. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. |
|
THE FOUNDING FATHER The sower soweth the word. Mark 4:14 The fourth chapter of Mark begins with the statement And he began to teach (v. 1a) Mark continues by saying, And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine (v. 2). It was His doctrine: that which He received from our Father. Pastor’s studies and seminary libraries are crowded with texts on church history purporting to give an account of Christianity through the ages. It is doubtful that one could pick up one of these texts that would not devote some pages, chapters perhaps to the so-called "Church Fathers" or the "Founding Fathers." There we would learn of the contributions of Ambrose, Augustine, Clement, Ignatius, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian and so many others. Actually our Roman Catholic friends provide a good list. Of course, we would not expect them to mention Luther or Calvin. Indeed, what is interesting about this list is the unanimity about the contributions of these men (with the exceptions noted.) Roman Catholic Church history and Protestant church history seem in agreement. This reminds us that most, if not all protestant denominations were derived directly or indirectly, from what some are wont to call "the Church." So, what was the sower sowing in this chapter of the Book of Mark? Was He telling His disciples about the Trinity, the duties of the clergy, the profit in believing, the efficacy of creeds? The "Church Fathers" were expounding on such weighty matters. Perhaps like Ignatius Jesus was telling them, "that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." Maybe He should be counted among the several "Doctors of the Church" along with such illustrious "Doctors" as St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas(among many others) "on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from [His] doctrine." St. Jesus the Christ has a good ring to it.This really gets down to what we believe was Jesus "doctrine" not that of any group of "Church Fathers" or "Doctors of the Church." Protestants seem to suffer from an identity crisis approaching multiple personality if not schizophrenic. On the one hand they decry any association with the doctrines of "Church" and on the other fully embrace them. The word "catholic" illustrates the point. What is too frequently lost in the process is what "seed" the "sower" sowed. While all of this may be good grist for the theologian’s mill, is it good for Christianity? John Gill suggests that the "word" the sower was sowing is "the word of life and truth; the word of peace and reconciliation; the word of faith and righteousness; the word of salvation; the word which publishes and declares all these to be in and by Jesus Christ." A number of times Jesus is rather explicit on what He intended to sow. Among them the following: Perhaps before we enter the esoteric realm of "how many angels can sit on the head of a pin," we ought to first heed the word of our one and only Founding Father. It is not intended as a complete list, but the last one should keep us busy and out of trouble for some time. |
|
Can A
Smart Person Believe in God? Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; According to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, faith is "a belief, trust, or confidence, not based merely on logic, reason, or empirical data." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." The American Heritage® Dictionary defines faith as the "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." In contrast, the Wikipedia Encyclopedia says, science refers to any system of objective knowledge." Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary tells us it is "knowledge obtained and tested through scientific method." The American Heritage® Dictionary "defines it as "the observation, and explanation of natural phenomena." What all this tells us is science studies things that (1) recur, (2) can be seen by the human senses and (3) understood by the human mind. Simply put, if you can’t see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, touch it, you can’t study it scientifically – that’s "empirical." It isn’t so much that the two systems contradict one another as it is they operate in two different realms – science in the material world and faith in the spiritual. Is it possible for a scientist to be a Christian or the other way around? Certainly it is as long as the scientist part sticks to and understands the limitations of what science can and cannot study and make assertions about. "Is there a God," for example, is a question of faith, not of science. By His very nature, our Christian God is not a "natural phenomenon" any more than He may be observed through our "natural senses," understood by the human mind or restricted in what He does by "natural laws." Scientists might but science can never believe in miracles (Extraordinary event attributed to a supernatural power) simply because they are exceptions, quirks, that can’t be attributed to anything natural. They are supernatural. Did Jesus turn water into wine? No science can answer the question. Was the universe created in six 24 hour days? Jesus told Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. That just might make Thomas the first scientist – "seeing" is believing. Outright, Paul told the saints at Corinth, that we walk by faith, not by sight – what some have dubbed "Spiritual Cyclops." As Christians do we, like Thomas only believe in what we can see? Have you seen Jesus? To a man who approached Him to heal his dying son, Jesus, in exasperation said, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. Is that the case with us? It’s a good thing Mary wasn’t a scientist. Imagine that. She would have sought out an oncologist for a pregnancy test and then one to determine His paternity. Blessed is she because she believed what she was told. What her scientific research would have shown her about the angel bearing the news of her pregnancy to say nothing of the One who was to impregnate her is only foolish speculation. How would a scientist account for all of this to say nothing of the six literal days of Creation? If we must accept either the Scriptures or the sciences, what does the "smart person" pick? Some contend that the Christian faith is lowbrow or unintelligent – the standard within the scientific community. There are apologists who argue even smart people can actually believe in God – implying the really smart one’s don’t. "In fact," we are told, "by embracing the discoveries of science we can see God, the universe, and humanity in full, multidimensional glory" – that’s known as "stereoscopic faith." If our finite minds were capable of knowing the infinite universe, sadly we would discover God is not fully revealed there. He created it, He the same as it nor is He in it. In fact some apologists quoting Matthew 22:37 to argue we are to use our "mind" as part of a maturing "faith" not noticing the implicit contradiction any more than grasping the use of "mind" within the Scriptural context. Children used to sing a hymn at bedtime that said, "Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me so." That’s faith. That’s what’s expected of us. Let us just say if we are really smart we believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and all that accompanies the Christian faith. It would be dumb not to. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
|
|
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For
it is written, Speaking of the relationship between science and religion, a television preacher saw no real conflict between the two because according to him, "both groups were in the same business of searching for truth." Who could disagree with such an overtly conciliatory statement especially today when we see what science has done to advance our knowledge of the entire universe and better our lives? After all Christian apologist and former teaching pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, Lee Strobel’s personal investigation into scientific evidence for Christ led to his conversion. Michel Gullium, former ABC science correspondent and theoretical physicist believes "smart people can believe in God." Who could challenge such erudite and distinguished gentlemen? So the universe wasn’t created in six days. Today, however, there is presumably scientific evidence that Jesus did not ascend into heaven. Instead, he married Mary Magdalene and had a son whom they named Judah. All of this is scientifically documented by the discovery of a tomb containing the ossuaries of not just these three but also His mother, Mary. Just accept the "fact" that scientifically this 2,000-year-old "Lost Tomb of Jesus" containing ten ossuaries has been scientifically proven to have belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. "The scientific evidence comes from DNA extraction from human residue found in two of the ossuaries. The fact that all leading epigraphers agree on the inscriptions. All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find. And statistical study concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family." What if the evidence supporting James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici thesis was incontrovertible? What is the Christian response to this new scientific proof that the Bible is, once again in error? One Christian Bible lecturer stated, "Let’s not be too fast to dismiss Cameron’s claims who is, after all, a reputed researcher." He is on the science team for the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory. Why not take this most recent discovery in stride? We’ve (well some at least) conceded that the six days of creation story is probably a misinterpretation – more likely a "day" in the account is untold thousands of years. Some in the Christian community have made a like peace with evolution or at least with "theistic evolution" if not Darwinian evolution itself. So, why not accept this most recent finding? Isn’t it just as reasonable to believe that the story of Jesus’ ascension is allegorical – not to be taken literally – like so much of the rest of the Bible? Well, then, maybe the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are allegorical as well. Did His crucifixion actually happen or was it a made-up story? The answers we give are at the very core of the believability of the Bible and the entirety of Christianity itself. Is the Bible infallible, meaning with out error, or inerrant, meaning free of errors or spiritual matters, or is it just wrong and untrustworthy? Jesus told (doubting) Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, making him an excellent scientist. Then Jesus went on to say to him, blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. In another instance Jesus said to a nobleman, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe although His remarks might have been directed to the crowd as well. Which are we – a doubting Thomas? Paul said we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Corinthians 5:7) The author of Hebrews said, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1) The Webster’s Online Dictionary defines faith as, a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof – complete trust." The evidence is pretty clear, from the religious and the profane, faith is blind. It comes closest to trust, assurance, confidence and reliance in meaning. That’s about as far away from a scientific mentality as anyone can get. We Christians may say we have a "sure and certain hope/knowledge" in this or of that, but not based on the kind of "evidence" the scientist supports his theories. If we relied on that kind of evidence, we’d be restricted to what we can see, smell, taste, touch or hear. That would leave about 90% of Christianity in the dust of the Talpiot tomb. One news story makes a gross understatement, "If true, the Greatest Story Ever Told will need a serious rewrite." A rewrite couldn’t even begin to repair the damage to Christianity. It would be fatal. In what, therefore, do we place our trust, the wisdom of this world or in the Sacred Scriptures as the very Word of God? Without hesitation, when the contest is between the Bible on the one hand and science on the other, the decision must favor of the Bible. We know that claims such as those made by such as John Cameron are false because they contradict the Bible. End of sentence, there is no further need for inquiry. Of whom would we inquire, theologians, those who fancy themselves as Biblical scholars? Just exactly who? There is one authoritative source, the only one, if we are really troubled by these new revelations, go to God in prayer. Jesus said, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. It is found only in the Scriptures, not in the pages and manuscripts of any scientific journal. If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say
unto this sycamine tree, |
|
Clouds, Temples and Thrones And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a
cloud.
Exodus 13:21
Just imagine what it would be like to have a cloud and a pillar of fire showing us the way to go. Not only that but to see the pillars hover over our "church" assuring that He was there with us. Then to know that within the most sacred place in our church God Himself was seated on His Throne – on top of the "second printing" of the Ten Commandments. Wouldn’t such manifestations as these make our life of faith and worship simple? Think of it, led out of bondage by the Hand of God. Saved by God parting the Sea for them to cross and then drowning the entire Egyptian army pursuing them. They didn’t read about manna, they ate it. They weren’t told how Moses got the Ten Commandments, they were there. They were there the second time Moses came down from the mountain with the second set of tablets of the Law. They saw the transformation of his face. Yet, none of these outward manifestations helped the Israelites keep their faith. They continued in their disobedience. In time the pillars of fire and smoke disappeared. The tabernacle was replaced by a Temple that was destroyed, rebuilt and destroyed again. The very Mercy Seat of the LORD was lost along with the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments inscribed by the very finger of God. Israel sank into civil war and became two nations. For three years Jesus Christ walked the streets of their towns and cities preaching and teaching the good news of the Gospel. All Israel could see in Him as the one they thought Scriptures promised would return to restore their kingdom and rule over them. His failure to meet their expectations changed the adoring throngs who greeted Him on His triumphal entry into Jerusalem into a "lynch mob" demanding His crucifixion. Remember, even the eleven remaining disciples asked Him, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? His closest friends, His most loyal followers didn’t get it either. Nor would they until the Day of Pentecost. Had we been there and seen Him in person, we --. What happened then was a transformation mightier than the opening of Peter’s understanding. A New Covenant had been secured. A New Testament is proclaimed. Not one written on tablets of stone, or celebrated in Temples of marble and glass but on our hearts. No more are we to drive heretics from our midst, conquer our "Promised Land" with the sword. No more are we to pay obeisance to anyone but our Heavenly Father. According to Peter himself we, the entire "body of Christ," are a holy priesthood expected to offer up spiritual sacrifices by praising His Holy Name. Things no longer matter, doing is no longer required. In faith believing and making Him the focus of our lives is all that is required. The work has been done, the price has been paid – in full. In His summation of the Commandments written on stone, Jesus said to love, not an action but a condition.Still, there are those who think what we do can bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. That by our actions the eternal plan and time table of the Lord of the universe can be modified neither of which are we capable of knowing or understanding let alone modify it. Yet of that time it is plainly stated. Twice John declares he saw a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven. Please note the direction of its return is down, not up. Note as well that John did not see the temple in this New Jerusalem. It is the hand of God, not the fist of man that will bring about a new earth, a new Jerusalem and a new Temple There are those who are taking steps to build the third temple or rebuild Solomon’s Temple, again, as the case may be. Some have even contended that it can be built without disturbing the Dome of the Rock sacred to Muslims since the Holy of Holies is not located within or under it. Jerusalem and the Temple will be restored but, not by human efforts. Not this time. Just as we have seen, a "new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Of the Temple, we know this, it will not be found in Jerusalem any more because God and the Lamb are now it. Another cautionary note. Jerusalem may not be a literal restoration of the city of Biblical times. It may not even be in Israel. It may instead be the restoration of Paradise and a theocracy ruled over by God. We may be sure of one thing that, regardless of their lineage, the inhabitants of Israel, the residents of Jerusalem and the worshippers at the Temple will all have accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. Amen. |
|
Return to the page directory The Ten Commandments makes it pretty clear that we are to Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. The fact that most American Christians pay no attention to that command is witnessed by the packed parking lots at malls and shopping centers on Sunday. If we even bother to go to "church" (a little over half of us do) we rush right out afterward to get our shopping done. The other half, those not in church, are just as likely operating businesses, restaurants and entertainment centers anxiously waiting for the crowd to get out of church and into their establishments. The fact that even if we are attending church we are doing so on the wrong day rarely, if ever, enters our minds unless the pastor provides a rationalization for "worshipping" on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath it in a sermon. Actually the word "Sunday" appears in only five of the 27 most popular translations of the Bible and most of those relate to the women discovering Jesus’ empty tomb. This is the number one explanation given for "Sunday worship" – in honor of His resurrection. Recently a second, most interesting excuse was heard – "all of the commandments but this one is mentioned in the New Testament." By deduction, making it a strictly Jewish Commandment – incredulous. We know that the "early church," that described in the Bible, worshipped on Saturday the seventh day, the Sabbath, and for as long as the church is mentioned, that is when the saints gathered. The commandment may not be mentioned in the New Testament, but Jesus observed the Sabbath along with the rest of His disciples. True, He did things contrary to what the religious officials considered "legal," but as an object lesson to them, not as an annulment of the Sabbath. He saw their Sabbath observations as shallow and legalistic and took efforts to point that out to them. After His crucifixion, Mary Magdalene rested on the Sabbath and only then went to His grave. After all, Jesus and His disciples were Jewish. What else would we expect of them? It is interesting that some of the gentile Christians observed the "Sabbath" on Sunday. How did Sunday become the Sabbath? The immediate answer is never, but the transition seems to have taken place over several centuries. According to the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Justin is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday," "Tertullian (202) is the first writer who expressly mentions the Sunday rest," and in the sixth century, St. Cæsarius of Arles said, "the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday." Christians, he said, "must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day." This may be the best answer for the switch, "The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day." (Op. cit.) More an accident of history than an intentional act of God. What’s all the fuss about? What difference does it make whether we worship Him on Saturday or Sunday just as long as we worship Him? Put that way, probably worshipping Him on Sunday is preferable to not at all especially since the "not at all" crowd is a lot of Christians. However, there is a slight problem. We are talking about a commandment of God, not ethnic customs, clerical mandates or government regulations. Therefore, when we do not keep the Sabbath, to say nothing about rationalizing that disobedience from the pulpit aren’t we opening ourselves up for condemnation? In Matthew 5:19, Jesus says, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Even if this fourth commandment could be regarded as a "lesser" commandment, which it is not, Jesus makes it pretty clear that we are to keep them all. So, problem #1 is that we are not listening to Him. Not a good habit. Problem #2 is that we are inserting relativism into the Scriptures and substituting human inventions for the Sacred Word leaving the door open for other substitutions. When/where does it stop? If keeping the Sabbath is a strictly Jewish commandment, perhaps some of the rest of the Bible is not quite as Holy as we’ve been told. Taking such liberties suggest that they aren’t any more given by the inspiration of God than the teaching of Dr. Phil or Oprah Winfrey Wasn’t
Jesus’ entire life "giving
the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect
obedience to all its commands?" Think not that I am
come to destroy the law, or the prophets: |
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good. For years, some in the Christian community who regard themselves as perhaps more "enlightened" or "liberal" than the rest of us have gotten away with straddling the theological fence. On the one hand, they profess to believe in the Bible (may even be erudite Bible teachers) while on the other they accept the scientific rejection of Biblical inerrancy. Thus they may appear to free themselves of what many consider the unenlightened stigma of traditional Christianity. After all people don’t have to put their brains/minds in "cold-storage" when they become Christian. They will contend that science and Christianity are compatible and to "prove" their point they will truck out a list of leading scientists who are "Christian." These smart folks have been around for years, decades, centuries. Since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, they have had a cause celeb - evolution. By the time the Scopes "Monkey Trial" came around in 1925, they were in full stride and haven’t slowed down since. Interestingly, the argument used by the ACLU in this trial is still heard today that, "there was actually no conflict between evolution and the creation account in the Bible." Toward the end of the trial Clarence Darrow, champion of the Darwinist position, attacked literal interpretations of the Bible. During the trial, the length of a "day" as used in Genesis was called into question and that a 24-hour day was not necessarily implied. Sound familiar? However, these challenges to Scripture are only the beginning. We don’t hear much about some of the rest. During the Scopes trial, Darrow also challenged the story of Jonah, the account of the Earth standing still, if Eve was really created from Adam's rib, where Cain got his wife, right down to how many people lived in Ancient Egypt. Perhaps the closing quips by the opposing sides best summarized the trial, Bryan said Darrow’s purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible." He, Darrow, replied, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States." It’s still going on. Since the "Monkey Trial," science has made new discoveries that seemingly make it more difficult for smart people to believe in God. Most recently a Hollywood team one Bible teacher described as credible documentary film makers presented what he described as "an intriguing possibility" that the tombs of Mary, Jesus, His wife Mary Magdalene and His son Judah had been found and, presumably, scientifically verified. Verified or not, the challenge to the Bible is obvious. How could anything so outrageous be described as "an intriguing possibility?" If we look at a full spectrum of Scripture that is rejected by science, we must include all miracles starting with Moses before the Pharaoh. According to science, none of those plagues ever happened or if they did it was coincidental to a natural phenomenon. The parting of the Red Sea never happened. There was never a burning bush that was not consumed by its own fire. The pillars of fire and cloud were a concoction as is the story of Jonah living for three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish. We must understand that science out of hand rejects the Virgin Birth, the star of Bethlehem and everything else associated with the "Christmas Story. To science, it is just that, a story. "Virgin birth is correctly called, parthenogenesis. Above the order containing turkeys, it has never, never happened – never. Absolutely scientifically proven. Jesus the Christ is not a turkey. We continue on to Jesus’ miracles. From first to last, they never happened. He didn’t turn water into wine any more than He raised the dead. None of them ever happened. Neither did His resurrection and ascension. Anything that defies the laws of nature is out-of-hand rejected by science including God, life after death and heaven. As one source puts it, the scientific "view of Nature is incompatible with religious views of nature and with our common sense view of nature." What’s left of the Bible and Christianity science can accept? Nothing is left, that’s what. We can no more pick and choose what we accept of scientific knowledge than we can Christianity. We are taught that the evil one is subtle. He is. Get us to concede a little, say about the definition of the length of a "day," then we are in a position to uncritically accept the idea that the tomb containing the bones of Jesus, His wife, son and mother will indeed seem to be an intriguing possibility. It does come down to which master we will choose to serve. God has made it perfectly clear that we cannot serve Him and others. Straddling the fence is not good for your health. as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Joshua 24:15 |
That’s where it began, with Aaron and his sons being called by God. The intercessory priesthood was established. It was an exclusive fraternity. All except seed of Aaron were excluded from being priests. (Numbers 3:10; 16:40; 18:7) It was to be in perpetuity (Exodus 29:9; 40:15). All others were prohibited, on pain of death to even "draw near" to God lest they suffer what happened to a character named Korah who was rendered a pile of cinders for challenging the authority of Moses and Aaron. Well, actually the earth swallowed them up and they descended into the "pit" – same thing. Even these chosen priests had to exercise extreme caution when they "came near." Just to illustrate the point, or maybe to make the point, two of Aaron’s sons made an unauthorized offering and they were fried as well – two sons left. Aaron wasn’t just to drop by the Holy of Holies either. God was then and is now very picky. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace,
that we may obtain mercy, |
 Lessons From Israel We don’t have to read too far into the Biblical history of the Jewish people to discover they didn’t observe or do many of God’s commandments if any at all. Before they had crossed the Red Sea, when the spotted the Pharoah and his army approaching, they started complaining to Moses, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? Mind you, this was with the Angel of God and the pillar of cloud right there with them. Two months after leaving Egypt, having miraculously crossed the Red Sea on dry land and witnessed the total destruction of the Egyptian army, they were whining again. This time about not having enough to eat. They wanted to go back. They got manna to placate them. It didn’t for long. Even before they could get started down the road again, look what happened. They were told not to keep the stuff for the next day. They didn’t and it turned rotten. A month later, they had gotten to the Sinai and Moses went up onto Mt. Sinai to get the Ten Commandments directly from God. Now it wasn’t the first time he had gone up there and the Israeli People had seen all kinds of things happening while he was there and Moses had reported much of his earlier conversations with God from there. But this time, he was going to bring down the most important document of all time. Well, he stayed too long for their liking and you know what happened. With Aaron, his son’s help, they built a golden (molten) calf to worship figuring an idol in the valley was better than a prophet up on the mountain. No sooner done than down comes Moses with the first printing engraved on two stone tablets. Boy, talk about blasphemy. This is what the people of Israel said about that idol, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. God’s own words, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: So, what have we learned from the Israelis so far, and we haven’t even gotten to the "land of milk and honey" promised to them way back in Exodus 3:8? Well, it certainly wasn’t obedience. Let’s try God’s mercy instead. Proof of that is in His willingness to give them yet another chance. He carved a second printing of the Ten Commandments. They still hadn’t learned. Their disobedience didn’t stop there. Remember two of Aaron’s four sons were burned alive for making an unauthorized incense offering. Israel just taught us, and not for the last time, about God’s judgment. There was an interesting character, actually a heathen god, named Molech first mentioned in Leviticus who played a central role in what finally happened to Israel. David may have, Solomon clearly built temples to his "worship" and for other heathen gods as well. One such shrine was on a mount facing Jerusalem. Solomon of all people. But then he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Not very wise. The lessons don’t stop because the disobedience doesn’t stop. From all that happened during the 40 years they spent needlessly wandering in the desert, from the simple fact that Moses was not permitted into the promised land, one would think the Israelites would have learned their lesson(s). They didn’t. Because of wickedness of the people of Canaan God ordered, without exception, that they all be destroyed. Were they? No. Early in the invasion, the people of Gibeon "tricked" Joshua into signing a treaty with them. When the dust settled and Joshua was an old man, the account given shows much of the promised land yet to be taken. Israel (the Promised Land) was never fully taken. This failure frequently led to the people to intermarry with the indigent populations and adopt their pagan religions – witness Solomon. In 586 BC, the Babylonians conquered the land of Israel. In 70 AD Rome put a final end to any pretense of a nation left. We who call ourselves Christian are no different. Throughout the Old Testament, the people of Israel were told to keep the Commandments of God. We are too. Very succinctly Jesus said, If ye love me, keep my commandments. How often have we heard preachers tell us, "the mouth speaks the heart?" So do our feet and our hands – actions do speak louder than words. A nearly universal criticism of Christianity is that we can be told apart from non-Christians – we act just like them. Perhaps this statement could be stated, "If ye love me, it will show in what you do." This has nothing to do with faith v. works. It has a lot to do, maybe everything, with gratitude. Even Paul says if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, as does John. How can we ignore such Scripture on the pretense that we are saved by faith? It isn’t a matter of being saved by faith, it is a matter of because of our love for Him we are "new creatures. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:14 |
|
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Return to the page directory There are endless lists of what this group or organization considers being cults and there are endless attempts to define what they are. One group, purporting to be the leading experts on the subject present an exhaustive list of characteristics in place of a definition. On the other hand, Merriam-Webster Online defines "cult" in such as way that all religions are included. Among the features it offers are: "religion regarded as unorthodox, a system for the cure of disease based on dogma and great devotion to a person." Britannica defines a cult as "Collective veneration or worship," and notes that, "In the West, the term has come to be used for groups that are perceived to have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice." The first, like Webster’s includes all religions. The second would have Protestantism regarded at one time as a cult. Finally the Columbia Encyclopedia tells us, "The term cult is now often used to refer to contemporary religious groups whose beliefs and practices depart from the conventional norms of society." Most sources, frustrated with the inability to succinctly define the term resort to a list like the one provided by The Rick A. Ross Institute: Scientology, Heaven's Gate Cult, Jonestown, Russian Sects, Polygamist Groups, Landmark Education, Skinheads, Hate Groups and Extremists, Herbalife, The Mormon Church. We might agree that the Ross list is at least a good start. But is it acceptable to label a group because we (or others) consider it "unorthodox" or not "normative?" In today’s world, wouldn’t normative and orthodox definitions include all Christianity in the "cult" camp? After all, "Christianity" can only claim about 33% of the world’s people if we include the LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and don’t figure in Judaism. Is it possible the Roman Catholic Church considers Protestantism a cult? Within the ranks of Protestantism, wouldn’t the 250,000 member Reformed Church of America (when compared to the 8.4 million U.S. Lutherans and the 36 million Baptists in the U.S.) be considered deviant from the "norm?" What is all this normative stuff except someone’s or some group’s opinion? If we can’t define it, how are we able to develop a list? If we choose to continue to use the word "cult" then we need a new frame of reference to define it. Currently, it seems the "court of public opinion" and "pseudo-science" is used exclusively. Yet in the hands of every Christian is the very tool needed for this purpose – the Bible. Maybe instead of being so concerned about labeling this or that group a cult, we should be concerned with groups and organizations with views opposed to or that are not Biblically supported – heresies. Cults are heretical. Big help because the Bible is subject to so many interpretations. If that is what we think, we’d better get to studying and get to praying – maybe praying first. That’s the same shallowness that leads believers persuaded that "science and religion are in the same business of searching for truth." Taking that step is like Israel sending spies into Canaan. It leads to comparing human wisdom and knowledge to that of God. We start questioning the Truth from Genesis on – the six days of creation could have been six thousand or six million or more. The ossuaries found of Jesus’ brother James, of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and His son Judah have all been proven scientifically and may now be used to refute Scripture. We are not open the fraud perpetuated upon the world by Dan Brown’s and more recently Josh McDowell’s "Da Vinci Code" lies. If we are so easily duped, what kind of witness are we? By the way, of those who accepted the spy’s assessment and thus did not enter Canaan, how many lived to do so? Jesus says, the mysteries of the Gospel are given to His people while it will not be to non-believers. He tells us the Gospel and the Holy Spirit draw us to God. Our duty is to hear the Word and learn from it. How often have we confessed that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. If we believe what we say we believe, what need have we of sorcerers, scientists, spiritualists or soothsayers? Do we believe it when we confess the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible? Paul declares, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Perhaps the first indication of a cult is rejecting or contradicting the Bible, in its entirety, as the Word of God. This would automatically exclude so-called "cafeteria Christians" who pick and choose what they will believe. And Jesus answering said unto them,
Do ye not therefore err,
|
Imagine a well-intentioned small-group mission project encountering an isolated tribe of headhunters in the Amazon rain forest. Because they woke up on the right side of their mats, they were receptive to these strange visitors in their midst. Despite the many violations of taboos and other blunders as well as the visitor’s inability to say a word in their language, these kindly headhunters were forbearing and graciously accepted the many gifts from the intruders. Eventually, the natives began to understand that the visitors wanted them to replace their sacred beliefs and practices for that of the visitors. They couldn’t quite understand a three-headed god or how it was possible for a grown person to be born a second time, but they got the idea. With much difficulty the visiting missionaries figured out the natives were saying, "No, no the gods of fire, wind, rain and sun will be angered." "We must make sacrifices of human heads to appease them or wind rain and sun will go away. Go now before you anger the gods even more and we will have to offer your heads for atonement." There are other "jungles" where "missionaries" have ventured, the jungles of the "unchurched." Reportedly, these "natives" don’t go to church because they don’t have fancy clothes, they don’t like being asked for money and they don't see how the sermons are relevant to the modern world or to their personal lives. They don’t feel comfortable in church. The big catchword "missionaries" in these urbane jungles use to draw the so-called "unchurched" into the fold is relevance. They do their best to address perceived problems in the "seekers" lives, keep the message positive and upbeat and the cultural context and feeling comfortable. Using themes of acceptance, help, hope and encouragement or simply meeting "your audience" where they are. Preaching only "positive things" and giving "messages light on liturgy and heavy on successful principles for living" – as how to discipline children, how to reach professional goals, how to invest money, how to reduce debt, even how to shake a porn addiction. Some of these "missionaries" are as crass as to suggest they’re doing what Ophrah and Dr. Phil are doing only better. In 1964 Mary Poppins was singing "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down in the most delightful way." All well and good for someone who could scoot about town with an umbrella, but can the same be said for preachers of the Gospel? Will a spoonful of deceit make the Truth more palatable? In spite of the improbability of it all, sugar coating the Word of God is the in-thing among in-pastors of in-churches. In so many "seeker friendly," accepting churches, we find "Bit-O-Honey" sermons - a whole lot of honey and a very little bit of Gospel. Church has become a place where the hurting and the downhearted, can find love and acceptance. These BOH churches seem to believe this means toleration of contemporary life-styles, society and culture. They think their sermons must be relevant to the people and, above all, interesting. It must make sense to them and it must be supremely valuable to them. Is that’s what the Bible teaches, right? Do we really think that preaching the Word today is any different than in Jesus’ day? We must, because no where in Scriptures is it recorded that He or any of the disciples used such evasive tactics. History records that "preachers of the Word" were often persecuted and put to death for preaching the Truth. Just imagine what relevance would have meant in Jesus’ day or the Greece of Paul’s. There was a time when Jesus was teaching a crowd in the synagogue at Capernaum. He was urging them to believe He was the savior for whom they had been waiting. And, they "murmured at Him," and said they not only knew Him but His mother and father. They knew full well who He was and He was no savior. (John 6: 40-42) Did He stop teaching this to them? Obviously, they were being alienated by His words. On another occasion Jesus was lambasting the Pharisees again when someone said, "your folks are outside and want to talk to you." They were upset at his ranting. He probably seemed a bit fanatical claiming, as He was, to be the Messiah. Did He stop, "change His tune," try a different tack? He asked, Doth this offend you? (v.61b) and increased the tempo of His teaching. He wasn’t relevant, positive, upbeat, or light on liturgy. He didn’t mince words, He didn’t cater to their beliefs or opinions but taught the unvarnished Truth. Should we do any less? Pray to God we never forget He was crucified for living and teaching the Truth. |
Clues To The Church’s Real Purpose And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matthew 18:17 Return to the page directory Of course, most of us probably have memorized the first time Jesus uses the word "church" if for no other reason than the frequency with which it is quoted. Its when Peter recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, the oft quoted, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Contrary to what so many have concluded in the dearth of use of the term by Jesus, and others, in the Gospels, He gives every indication of having something rather definite in mind. It is clear that one can lose membership in the "church" of which He speaks. It is just as clear that membership is based upon one’s confession of faith. We could even go so far as to suggest such confession was not the result of anything Peter (or we) did. Jesus the Christ told Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Peter may have done the actual confessing, but the driving force was divine. There is more we learn about the "church" through its brief appearance in the Gospels. For example, it will last forever and prevail against all enemies. And the power, the power given the "church:" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. That is awesome power. And does He not love His church as a bridegroom His bride? (Matthew 9:15) The "children of the bride chamber" are the friends of the bride (the church) and the bridegroom (Jesus the Christ.) not their offsprings as some suppose. Yet, if we are to believe the scholars, the meaning and nature of the "church" had to wait until after Pentecost and the writings of Paul, principally. Is it possible that "church" was so familiar to Jesus and His disciples, like the "wedding party," that it is taken for granted in much of what He says. Wasn’t the "first church" Jesus and His disciples – He the groom and they the bride? When He told 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 was He addressing the church? Was that just thrown out there in a vacuum or was He speaking to the church about the church? Actually, He seemed to be establishing the principle of evangelism in the "church" didn’t He? By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Hum, seeing the great love these friends had for one another, non-believers would seek them out to discover their secret – what made them so loving. We might even want to consider John 17 as a pastoral blessing, maybe a benediction on the church – read it again in that light. Lord, if we could only measure up to such standards as these whose purposes, indeed, would be driving our assemblies and our very lives? The fact of Jesus’ adverse reaction to one of the most
decadent and structured religions in the world should not be dismissed
anymore than His incessant struggle to reform that religion. His efforts to
reshape Judaism are the very essence of the Gospels. It is obvious that He
opposed meaningless structure and pointless, mindless liturgy just as He
opposed an entrenched and aristocratic clergy. He incessantly preached
relationships and championed them over pointless liturgy and useless
organizational hierarchies. Is it conceivable that He would leave as a
legacy that which He struggled to reform? Here’s an example of His attitude
toward Judaism, Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed
appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of
all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:27 That’s what He
came to save them from. |
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion
hath light with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14 Many applications have been made of this verse, especially in marriage counseling. There is, not surprisingly, something of a divided opinion as to just exactly what he was implying and how widely it should be applied. Some commentators suggest a too generous application is not only impractical since we must have commerce with the world, it would also seriously limit possibilities for evangelism. Others see it applying just to marriage. Paul on the other hand was writing to a "church" deeply troubled over doctrinal issues. In First Corinthians, he writes at length about existing rivalries indicating the more prevalent by the name of its principle advocate. He spoke of their heresies (11:19) and reminded them that this was about Christ not men. He confronted difficulty over communion and warned them of taking it "unworthily" (11:29). Because of their heritage, some saw this as just another occasion for having a drunken party. In their culture such things as trances, speaking in tongues and prophesying enhanced the person’s prestige. He had to remind the Corinthians Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Some have described the Corinth that Paul knew as the "Gomorrah of Greece – a "nest of evil." Not only was it incredibly wealthy, it was just as pagan being overshadowed by the temple of Aphrodite. It is not surprising that the Christians of Corinth who had been a part of the prosperity, philosophy and paganism of this Greek city would find it difficult to follow the "straight and narrow." In fact, Paul writes to them about this saying, for example, that he had been told there was such immorality among them that couldn’t even be found among their pagan counterparts. While Paul’s admonition about being unequally yoked must be applied with caution to a variety of interpersonal relationships, unquestionably it applies to our congregations. No? Try this, For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. In today’s world what we might do is describe what was taking place in this First Century "church" as an "ongoing conversation between popular culture and church." Maybe the church at Corinth was "walking the fine line between a place of worship and a community center." They weren’t "afraid to connect with their community and culture." Perhaps they felt they could "either fight popular culture or recognize it as a tool for God." Undoubtedly the, "spiritual sell is also a soft one." There wouldn’t be "crosses, no images of Jesus or any other form of religious iconography." Their praises would be simple and repetitive treating Jesus as a high-school crush: ''Jesus, you are my best friend, and you will always be. Nothing will ever change that.'' Committing their lives "to Christ would be as easy as checking a box on a communication card." The "preacher’s" messages would be light on liturgy and heavy on ''successful principles for living'' -- how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt, even how to shake a porn addiction. If living today, they just might say, ''If Oprah and Dr. Phil are doing it, why shouldn't we? ''We should be better at it because we have the power of God to offer.'' Amen? ref In a recent book titled The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith," Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, writes that ''American faith has met American culture -- and American culture has triumphed.'' "It is Christianity without the Cross." If the First Century "church" at Corinth had made such absurd statements, Paul would have thrown up his arms in total despair. If Apollos or any of the other "cultists" there had said such things, undoubtedly, Paul would have written a letter telling the Corinthians there is no Christianity without the Cross, that we are to rise above, not become identical with the world. It is unimaginable for Paul to say, "If Poseidon and Aphrodite can do it, why shouldn’t we?" Instead, he likely would have given up on his efforts to convert the pagans at Corinth and considered his mission there a failure realizing they were unequally yoked. And the inequality here is between the "bride" and the "Bridegroom."
And at midnight
there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
|
In the 2,000-year history of Christianity, evangelism has moved from a one-to-one approach to the stadium arena and now into the remnants of what we choose to call "church." After Pentecost, the spread of Christianity was more rapid and extensive than could possibly be accounted for by the small party made up of Paul, the other Apostles and the seven with the title "evangelist briefly mentioned in the Book of Acts. Jesus the Christ told us, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another and Tertullian, one of the "Church Fathers" notes, "But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. 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." If we think the eight who penned the New Testament were solely responsible for the growth of Christianity we are probably mistaken. The spread and sustenance of that infant church was the result of neighbors living and telling the Christian experience. We will probably never again approach what was the 1st Century church, not because we couldn’t but because we’ve lost the vision. We no longer live the church, we market it. In all of the history of Christian doctrine, the "church" has been recognized even by secular sources as a "Christian religious community, a body or organization of Christian believers." The Roman Catholic Church reinforces that exclusivity considering it "the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Christian place of worship" – "a divine society." There are standards of conduct as well as standards of beliefs. "Church" is inextricably linked to doctrines, creeds, tenets, persuasions, canons, confessions and such things. Church is a "holy" place; a house of worship where we are free to "talk of the deep things of God" freely and openly. The very word found in Scriptures from which we derive the word "church" means, "a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs." The Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests "intimacy implies something "intrinsic" or essential to one’s deepest nature, warmth developed through long association, personal and private, not what we ordinarily ascribe to it. While, the words "intimate" or "intimacy" are not Biblical terms; "fellowship," "communion" and "friendship are Biblical. In the Apostles Creed we affirm that, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints." We have a definition of "communion" already; to that add this, "consecrated: dedicated or set apart for religious purposes" as a definition of "holy." That’s what is understood as "church," a time and a place we set apart for an intimate sharing of one’s beliefs and faith with those of similar views. That’s our Christian heritage. Now we have invented the "non-church church" to replace that legacy. Instead of being a place of worship where Christians can fellowship, instead of it being a communion of saints holy and consecrated, the non-church church is a "mission," the center of evangelical activities. The first thing the ‘non-church church" does is survey their neighborhood to determine why people don’t go to church and then they stop doing those things. Guess what they stop doing. The hope is to make this new breed of church the primary vehicle for evangelism. The inevitable consequence is making it a lukewarm, heterogeneous mix of believers and non-believers. Not by accident, but by design. Today, the successful church is measured in numbers – bigger is better. "Explosive growth" is greatly admired and rewarded. Today’s "mega-churches" with congregations numbering in the tens of thousands and growing – always growing, almost without exception they are "seeker-churches." They not only welcome non-believers into their midst, they do everything possible to entice them there to the point of actually building the services around them so they won’t be frightened or intimidated. Now, let us look again at Paul’s caution about being yoked together with unbelievers. There is no way that a diverse group numbering in the thousands passively sitting in their theater-style seats being entertained by rehearsed slick stage performances could be called a "congregation." Instead, such gatherings are more like what the theologian Sally Morgenthaler has called ''a generation of spectators, religious onlookers.'' To combat this recognized trend, the mega-non-churches are turning to small groups to combat the "lost in a crowd" syndrome. The only difficulty is that they too are made to be mechanically evangelical. That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God,
without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye
shine as lights in the world;
Philippians 2:15 |
|
How often have we heard and used this Scripture? Just sort of rolls of the tongue now doesn’t it? But, what an excellent purpose to drive our lives, even our churches. And wherever there is an end there must be some means to get there. May we then get out of our mindlessness for a moment and inquire about the light we are supposed to shine that will glorify our Lord and our God? Suppose a church fraudulently uses donations for purposes they were not intended? Is that the kind of light Jesus is speaking about? "Well," the pastor might say, " you’ve got to look at the overall picture. Just look at the good we as a church are doing. Last month alone we baptized 477, sent our message by radio and television into tens of thousands of millions of homes all over the world. Who knows how many were and have been saved by this global ministry of ours." Isn’t that letting your light shine? A parishioner of this church approaches the pastor after one of his enthralling sermons on stewardship with a check for $250,000 which she declares as a 10% tithe on her lottery winnings. Is this an example of her letting her light shine? Jesus talks a lot about not bragging concerning what we do. In Matthew 6:1 He warns, Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them (see also Matthew 6:16 and 23:5). But where does He tell us we can’t use illegitimate means to accomplish His purposes? In the Book of John it is recorded that He said, (John 15:8) Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. But, here as well the door seems to be open for any means to be used; maybe even the most expeditious means measured by the amount of fruit borne. Well, isn’t that what so many churches are doing today? They carefully sculpt the Scriptures to tickle the imaginations of seekers with the sole intent being to ensnare them into becoming membership figures. Isn’t that why the pastor of one of Arizona’s mega churches proudly declares, "There are no crosses, no images of Jesus or any other form of religious iconography" on or in any of its buildings? Isn’t that clearly the pastor’s intent when he said, ''I'm just trying to get people in the door.'' To that end, isn’t that why this mega-church "designed its new 55,000-square-foot church to look more like an overgrown ski lodge than a place of worship." "Even the baptism pool is seductive." Fraud comes in a variety of packages. Is God glorified when fraudulent means appear to accomplish His ends? In the very next verse Jesus tells us, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. What did Jesus mean by this? Some were accusing Him of such heresy. What was the accusation? In response to a trap set for Him about which was the greatest of the Commandments, Jesus replied to the challenge saying, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Does anyone seriously think this juxtaposition is accidental or is He telling us in what ways we are to go about accomplishing "good works" that will glorify our Father? Indeed is there such a thing as good works that are brought about by evil, deceitful or dishonest means? Can they come from selfish and vain desires? Should there be any doubt, and evidently there is, this little verse just might serve to dispel the doubt, For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. In our "seeker-friendly" churches we aren’t too fond of speaking about such things as "righteousness" lest we scare the little darlings away. But is a solid Biblical principle that speaks of, "integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking, feeling, acting and in a narrower sense, justice" something to be trifled with? By the way, can anyone explain how not revealing the full Truth of the Gospel is being "seeker-friendly?" It seems this would be the vilest disservice one could do to another human being. Actually, this seems no more ethical than attempting to explain our illegitimate means with apparent worthy ends. Good luck. As Jesus says, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. My He seems to know us so well. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19 |
|
The Proper Support Of Church Edifices And Church Institutions – Part 1 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Matthew 27:51Return to the page directory It is just as important to remember Protestant Christianity’s heritage is as much Roman Catholic as it is Jewish. Stuffy as the legacy of official Church documents such as the one from which this title was taken are, it is important to understand that contained in them is a legacy Protestantism has never escaped. We cannot help but note that the Scriptures we use were compiled (canonized) by the Church. Those we call "Church Fathers" were all Roman Catholic. The Church also resurrected the priesthood, brought to a dramatic end at Christ’s crucifixion. Nor can we escape the influence on our thinking that their "church edifices" that cannot be substantiated by the very Scriptures they anthologized. It is all pervasive. Martin Luther saw himself as a great reformer of the Church. He did not intend to leave it. In so many ways the movement he started, like himself, never did leave the Church. It "left" him. On January 3, 1521 the Pope excommunicated Luther. The Church to this day remains a predominant influence in Protestantism. Maybe that’s why it’s called the Reformation. Strangely, the excesses Luther attempted to reform are the very same Protestantism now so fervently embrace, "church edifices," the clergy, sundry other "institutions" and most shamefully of all, the institution of what we must call "proper support." The Church, as it so pridefully calls itself, tries to substantiate its position on "proper support" by the argument that it is a "visible organization." If, if, we accept this premise, the second seems reasonable. If the church is, as noted a visible organization, "it must embrace a visible priesthood, worship, and temples." Please note added to the idea of a visible organization in this syllogism is the use of two more highly dubious words, "priesthood" and "temple." On the first pass, Protestants agree, whether they should or not, both in word and deed that the church is a visible organization. When asked what a "church" is, they’ll invariably refer to a building. When someone says they’re "going to church," they wind up in a building. Only when pressed into an "intellectual" discussion on the topic do they, somewhat reluctantly, confess that "church" means "a gathering," "an assembly of Christians," "a company of Christians," and even "the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth; the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven." So the first premise so carefully contrived by the Church upon which the rests stands is faulty. The distinction between people and places in this context is incredibly important. Doubtless the confusion started with the Jewish "synagogue" that, coincidentally was extra Legal – having no place in the Law or the Prophets. You see, by Law, there was only one place to worship – the Temple in Jerusalem. However, as we well know, for so much of the history of the nation of Israel, the Temple did not exist. It was last seen in AD 70. It will never be seen again because the need for it exists no longer. Why? Try Revelation 21:22 in which John is speaking of the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven. John reported, And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. Get it Church? There is no "visible organization," not if the reference is a building (or temple) now or ever again. The first leg of the argument for the "proper support" of "church edifices" is broken. Actually, it has never existed since the destruction of the First Temple built in the 10th Century by King Solomon and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Why? If you can imagine, some time, some way, between its destruction of Solomon’s Temple and the completion of the second Temple in 515 BC the Ark of the Covenant, the Stone Tablets were lost. The Holy of Holies, supposedly containing the Ark, the Seat of God, was empty. Of all things. This was the Temple of Jesus day that Herod rebuilt so magnificently and that the Romans destroyed in 70AD. Goodbye temples, goodbye church edifices. By the way, an "edifice" is a structure, building, skyscraper and even a palace. But not a congregation or a gathering of people. Luther’s 95 Theses were against "Indulgences" the Church practice of paying money to shorten a loved one’s stay in purgatory which it still defends. Of that practice he said, "It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone." To which we can only add, Amen. These "pennies" you see were used for the "proper support of church edifices and church institutions." Some things never change.
And the nations of them which are
saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring
their glory and honour into it.
Revelation 21:24 |
The Proper Support Of Church Edifices And Church Institutions – Part 2
Return to the page directory The "Church," as the Roman Catholic Church prefers to be called, is and has been a dominant influence, nearly exceeding that of Judaism, in Christianity since it declared Linus (AD 67-76) the successor to Peter as the Bishop and Vicar of Rome and started amassing its empire. Indeed the Church claims he is the Christ’s Vicar. In spite of all the excesses Church in building "edifices," "temples," all over the world and the documented excesses of the priesthood (veritable corruptibility from the top down throughout the ages) these "institutions" remain as nearly universal characteristics of Protestantism just as they do in Roman Catholicism. The only significant changes Protestant Reformation made to Christianity was to reject this Bishop, this Vicar, the Pope as the absolute, preeminent supreme infallible head of all Christianity. The justification the Church uses for properly supporting the clergy is derived from the fact that "Christ and His Apostles had a common purse." Recall Judas was the "treasurer." John 13:29 says that the reason the Disciples thought Jesus called Judas out at the Passover before His execution was because Judas "had the bag." It was Judas who objected to Mary’s wasting money on washing Jesus feet with an expensive perfume. Again he is pointed to as the one who "had the bag." Who would think that a group of men traveling about would not have resources that they would share with one another? Please take note that in both references cited concern is expressed that some of the money they had should be given to the poor as well as for "defraying of their expenses" as the Church notes. The point is made if, indeed, it had to be. For the Church, it is a symbolic victory at best in defense of self-indulging extravagance. There is no mention of where this money came from or that Jesus had fundraisers. Paul worked to supply his and his travel companions’ needs. There is no reason Scripture to suppose Jesus and His companions did not do the same? Aside from the specifically stated purpose of their shared monies being to care for the poor they encountered, the next question is what else was it used for. Upkeep of the church property wasn’t an option anymore than that of the parish house (or their private residences for that matter) because there were none. There weren’t any salary, health or life insurance expenses; no 401K retirement programs to fund or any of the expenses of maintaining a family. None of that. The one expense that is mentioned was in preparation for the feast of the Passover mentioned in John 13:29 – not when Jesus was betrayed. Jesus and His disciples weren’t on a missionary journey to far away places. They were right around home – around the Sea of Galilee. Peter, James, John and Andrew were actually fishermen from Galilee. Couldn’t they have gone fishing once in a while? True, they did go down to Jerusalem and up to Mount Hermon on occasion, but that was the extent of their travels. Both within one hundred miles or so of home. (see this reference for another excellent travelogue) There were "preaching tours" and we must keep in mind that this was all walking. The rest of the time, they were in the vicinity of home and could have (in fact, did) stay with friends and/or relatives. The median (most frequent) pastor’s take-home salary in the United States today is $79,446. "Generally, ministers won’t be taxed on qualified fringe benefits, parsonage allowance, or reimbursements." The ‘parsonage allowance’ covers literally everything from the rent/mortgage to light bulbs. Only food and clothing are not included. In contrast to average wage earner’s taxable income of $47,665.16 in 2007 and he gets to pay for the mortgage and the light bulbs. A clue to just what the "proper support" for Jesus and His disciples can be garnered from His advice to the seven He sent on their missionary journey. He told them to, take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse. "Proper support" adopted by Protestantism from the Church not withstanding, a fundamental Christian tenet has been ignored. Who is the priesthood? Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. And again, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. He meant every Christian. |
 Church or Synagogue And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:28 Return to the page directory We speak with such confidence about the church as though we knew what it was. We do the same for synagogues. Yet in 0.14 seconds "Google" came up with 210,000,000 different definitions for church. The list is endless There is a dismal variety of meanings for the word. It’s interesting that in 0.23 seconds "Google" could only find 7,080,000 definitions for synagogue. Evidently there is more agreement as to what a synagogue is than what a church is although for Christians even synagogues are something of a mystery. Synagogues haven’t been around as long or as integral a part of Judaism as most Christians think. Synagogues were what must be described as "extra-Scriptural." Nowhere in the 5 Books of the Torah, in the Books of the Prophets or in the Books of the Writings is its coming into existence called for or even discussed. During the Babylonian Exile in 586 BC, when deprived of the Temple, Jews would assemble together from time to time to read their Scriptures." These gathering places that served as substitutes for the Temple eventually became formalized into what today is know as synagogues. Although a substitute for the Temple (which is no more) the all important sacrifices cannot be made in synagogues. Prayers may be said in the synagogue and it is also a center for study. The similarities between the evolution of the synagogue into a preeminent position in Judaism and the church in Christianity are eerie. The New Advent Encyclopedia states, "In the course of time, the single word synagogue came to mean not only the meeting but the meeting-house, the teaching thereof and, in the broadest sense, the body politic of the Jews." Nearly a parallel development between church and synagogue. When we come to a discussion of "church," the building on the corner is the most popular idea about church. This comes closer to what church is in the average person’s mind and most dictionaries list this as their #1 definition. Less frequently we think of church as a "society." However, that is the more Biblically accurate description. "Society implies fellowship, company, and has always been conceived as signifying a human relation…a society is a stable union of a plurality of persons cooperating for a common purpose of benefit to all." That’s the Biblical church; a society, a fellowship cooperating toward common purposes and spiritual benefits for everyone. May we emphasize everyone? Please excuse the play on a name, but the Biblical church is a society of friends of Jesus the Christ – friends with Jesus and friends with one another. Thomas Lindsay (Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, Ch.4) describes this society by the seeming contradictory phrase a "theocratic democracy" to describe "a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King." Some Christian scholars would like to equate the Jewish synagogues with the Early Church. They go so far as to suggest that Jesus not only recognized them but sanctioned them as well. Thus they should be studied as models for the church. For example, The McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia states, "They were the scenes, too, of no small portion of his work. In them were wrought some of his mightiest works of healing (Matt 12:9; Mark 23; Luke 13:11). In them were spoken some of the most glorious of his recorded words (4:16; John 6:59); many more, beyond all reckoning, which are not recorded (Matt 4:23; 13:54; John 18:20, etc.)" However much Jesus met in them and read from the Torah and the Prophets, no where is it recorded that He endorsed either their structures or organizations as models for His "church." With or without His endorsement, the synagogue has
greatly influenced the nature of the "church" as we know it today. Somewhere
church stopped being a society of "people of
this way"
and became a "thing,"
a place for
rituals to be performed, the veneration of holy objects,
prayer, study, for reading the Scriptures and as a center for the
"social welfare" activities of the community.
Generally, a
"board of directors" composed of lay people governs both. They manage and
maintain both and oversee their activities. Usually they are responsible for
hiring a rabbi/pastor "to provide leadership, guidance and education." By
the same logic, since He went to the Temple on a number of occasions,
perhaps it should be the model for "church." Whether it is called church,
synagogue or temple, whatever it is called, there are three things we must
remembered: (1)
Jesus saith unto
him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me. (2)
And I will pray
the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide
with you for ever. (3)
when he,
the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.
This He did endorse. |
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account,
that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable
for you. Hebrews 13:17 From Scriptures, it appears evident that we are not to question our leaders at least according to the author of the Book of Hebrews in the passage quoted above. Paul seems to agree, And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed (2 Thessalonians 3:14.) He, Paul, also wrote to the saints at Corinth, That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth (1 Corinthians 16:16.) There is an especially emotional appeal for unity from him in 1 Corinthians1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. All together, the evidence is a resounding "no." This is good. Any classroom educator will tell you that a class full of questioning students is difficult to teach. Those (like the Pharisees) who think they know everything are impossible to teach. After all, who is more learned and credentialed, the teacher or the students? In His great commandment to the disciples, Christ said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19.) Jesus wasn’t saying to teach the nations anything, instead, they were to be taught to follow His precepts and His instructions. He is the most learned, the most credentialed. He is the Master Teacher about which there should be no doubt. To be called "Christian" implies we agree He is. There are times we are hazy on the fact that He is our Master Teacher today just as much as 2,000 years ago. If one must ask how that is possible, they have forgotten His words, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. That guarantee is given in John 14:16, 14:26 and in 15:26. And in John 16:7, He makes the extraordinary statement, Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Somewhere this lesson has gotten lost or muddled. To put this into the context of Jesus’ earthly ministry, He had made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He has predicted His death on the cross; washed His disciple’s feet and identified the one who would betray Him and had given His disciples the New Commandment. Clearly this phase of His ministry was ending. His disciples were greatly troubled. Peter asked, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? Thomas said to Him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Philip said, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. It is then, to comfort their concerns about being left alone without their teacher, their mentor, He promised them the Holy Ghost to teach them all things and to help them remember what He had taught them. Lest we forget, He is still our teacher. He is still our leader. There is none other. Today, the Holy Spirit is our teacher – our leader. If there is a "Vicar
of Christ," it is He, not Peter, James, John, any of the other Apostle, Paul
or Luke and certainly not the
Pope.
Any relationship between the later of these and the Apostles is specious at
best. Herein lies a conundrum, a puzzle for surely the Pope is a worldwide
leader of the Christian faith, yet the Reformation has refuted that
leadership to the point that some in the Protestant community question if
Roman Catholicism is truly Christian. How can that be? The leader of
millions of followers of the Unification Church,
Sun Myung Moon,
"a former Presbyterian Sunday school teacher claims Jesus appeared to him.
Jesus asked him to continue the work which he had begun, to complete the
task of establishing God's kingdom on earth and bringing His peace to
humankind." We know about the claims of Joseph Smith the founder of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that claims to be one of the
fastest growing Christian movement in the United States. What if Judas had
not committed suicide, would we be reading his gospel? You know full well
there are others. Surely they are not to be obeyed without question. Jesus
gave a warning about such,
Many will say
to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in
thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And His response to these "leaders" will be
depart from me,
ye that work iniquity. It is He, the Holy Spirit,
through the Word that we are convicted and through His guidance we are to
study and proclaim that Word. It is our personal responsibility to know Him
and the Word. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2 John 10
Return to the page directory |
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; return to the page directory For religions, we can answer that question quickly – any other than Christianity. More difficult is discerning "toxic" organizations, groups, sects or denominations claiming to be Christian and, in some cases, those who claim to be Christ Himself. Jesus was concerned about this. A second time He warned, For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Paul speaks of a "falling away," Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. The existence of "toxic churches" shouldn’t be surprising. They are expected as one of the signs of the end-of-times. The problem is to know them and not be deceived. Discerning toxic or lethal sects or denominations might seem easy if we think they don’t follow Biblical teachings. Yet the devil is a Biblical scholar and can quote Scriptures better than most. It isn’t the quoting, it’s the interpretation and understanding that counts. Sun Myung Moon, claims "on Easter day, 1935 (April 17), when Sun Myung Moon was just fifteen years old, Jesus Christ suddenly appeared to him," uses Scripture for the very foundation of his Unification Church (now the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.) Who would think of attributing the label of "Christian" to him or his "church?" In Christianity we have the perfect Model and Example in Jesus the Christ. It is the rejection of Him that makes other religions "toxic" – lethal in the fullest meaning of the word. It is straying away from His example that makes individuals and groups claiming to be "Christian" just as mortally fatal. The "clergy" of His day were the Pharisees whom He detested. In the 95 times they are named 95 times in the New Testament, not one of the reference is favorable. He called them everything from a generation of vipers to hypocrites and everything in between. On another occasion, He told them Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8:44.) He accused them of loving the uppermost seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets" as they paraded around in their priestly robes. In Luke 12:1 Jesus warns us to beware of their pretensions and hypocrisy. They were not to be admired or emulated. The Pharisees demanded obedience to the "traditions of the elders" that had grown up over the centuries. He said of them, but in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. He said, For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men. In so doing, ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. We will know today’s "Pharisees" by their sermons which will be the sophistry, liturgies, catechisms of men and "enticing words" thus adulterating the Word. They will be known for their hypocrisies and arrogance: (1) they give themselves the title of "father," "teacher" or "pastor" (2) they distinguish themselves with their clerical garments (3) most strikingly, these pharisaical leaders of toxic churches demand to be served rather than to serve. Menial, unglamorous duties will be shunted to underlings or given over to "volunteers." (Matthew 23:4-11) Leader’s of today’s toxic religions peddle the Word for profit (2 Corinthians 2:17). In Romans, Paul describes them as such, For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. In a toxic church, the members are kept in a virtual state of ignorance of the Word. While it is true that the Holy Spirit moves people into the True Faith and instructs them, disciples must be first be taught these fundamentals before they can recognize His presence. This necessity cannot be accomplished with a series of classes. In non-toxic churches, Spiritual growth is the centerpiece. Such a total commitment to the responsibility to disciple is ignored in toxic churches. Easily the most telling thing about toxic churches is their rejection of "sound doctrine." Paul wrote, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. Things of this world "that are pleasing and agreeable to natural men, and carnal minds" are offered as having high moral value. Jesus said, Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. And, so, it is happening. Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: Matthew 23:34Return to the page directory |
